Noted Here and There ...

by Cliopatria

Congratulations to Robert E. Kohler at the University of Pennsylvania who has won the Sarton Medal from the History of Science Society. The medal is named for George Sarton, the founder of Isis. Thanks to Alex Pang at Relevant History for the tip.

Nathanael Robinson of Rhine River has been tinkering with the idea of a blog or a group blog which links to known posts about history and historical practice. Here's his trial run at it: the Dictionary of Received Ideas. If you are interested in participating in the project, contact him.

My young friend, Andrew Ackerman, is now working for David Corn at The Nation. Recently, Andrew noticed that, while American troops have been engaged at Fallujah, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been on a goodwill tour of Latin America. Take it away, Andrew ...

Whether he intends to be or not, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is doing the work of the Lord. Slowly, systematically, he is calling out each of the Republican members of the House of Representatives: Did you or did you not support the change of rules which would allow Tom DeLay to continue as House Majority Leader even if he is indicted in Texas? (Just keep scrolling down) They can run; they will try to hide; they can be led around by the power and authority of an indicted man, but Marshall is shining a spotlight on the whole sleazy business.

Thanks to HNN, we know now that Niall Ferguson has acquired the Great House of Sker in Wales, which dates back to the 12th century. I started to say something terribly snarky about that, but there just isn't snark enough to do it justice. Maybe the Cliopatriarch of Wales should run around to Sker for a nice photo op with Niall at his new digs.

In"Six Degrees of Condescension" and"Damage Survey" at Easily Distracted, Tim Burke continues his post-election discussion with his critics, including Clayton Cramer and, more seriously, Radley Balko.

Finally, Adam Kotsko remembers"Reading Moments."

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Bridget D. Collins - 11/21/2004

Excellent! My historiography class will be pleased to find out what is going on, given that several of us had the same experience.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/21/2004

Ms. Collins, I've written to the director of the HSS program at Penn to inquire about the status of the program. If I get some clarification about the matter, I will report it at Cliopatria.

Bridget D. Collins - 11/21/2004

If the program is in trouble they need to be honest with their graduate students. I and several other students in Wisconsin's History of Science department applied there and were led on in different ways that the program was fine, only to be told later that the program is going to fold.

I'm sure the professors will be fine, absorbed into various other departments, but the students are much more vulnerable.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2004

That's interesting. The Penn site shows an announcement of a tenure track opening in their program. I wonder where the pressure on the program is from, as there seems to be an expansion of "Science Studies" programs in the US, many influenced by the strong programme approach of the Edinburgh program. Maybe Penn is too rigorous for the people the other programs tend to attract.

Bridget D. Collins - 11/20/2004

Totally off topic, but everytime I see the UPenn HSS program in the news I get my panties in a bunch - Someone needs to investigate this program, they continue to take applications and then tell the applicants that the program is being dissolved - for several years now.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2004

As opposed to you recycling your master's voice?

Andrew Ackerman - 11/20/2004

Better than sticking to recycled talking points.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2004

Isn't it a little late in the day to not sound hypocritical?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/20/2004

Just a reminder, Richard. I _am_ a Republican, but proudly a supporter of Shay's Handful.

Andrew Ackerman - 11/20/2004

Pelosi's said the Dems are going to propose a rule of their own that prohibits leaders who're indicted, so as not so sound hypocritical. Anyway, has anyone seen better analysis of what this means for DeLay than from David Brooks in today's Times?

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2004

I think your partisan slip is showing: the Republicans don't have a rule pertaining to "indicted felons" (just as I'm positive the Democrats don't have any rule pertaining even to those indicted, plain and simple). But I am disappointed in the fact that the Republicans are very nearly as ethically challenged on this score as the Democrats.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/20/2004

Richard, It's good to see that you have all the RNC talking points by rote on this. You fail to mention that the district attorney in question has even-handedly prosecuted Democratic and Republican politicians in Texas. You also fail to mention that the rule the Republicans has just amended to allow indicted felons to serve as their leader in the H of R was adopted in the Newt "We Are Holier Than Thou" Gingrich era. Nice to see them backing off the self-righteousness, at least.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2004

PS

The 30 day question is referred not to the House Caucus, but to the House Steering Committee. Earle's case against Hutchinson was not dismissed, but withdrawn on the eve of trial, when Earle couldn't get a pre-trial admission of certain documents he considered evidence. Joshua Marshall, the DNC's favorite spinmeister, obviously nowhere mentions that the Dems have no House rule whatsoever concerning indictments.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/20/2004

Indeed the rules were changed -- the rules barring a Congressman under indictment from serving in a leadership position in the House. What might go un-noticed in the less than detailed reporting by Main Stream Media (MSM) is that the rules were House GOP Caucus rules -- adopted by the GOP to apply to themselves only. The GOP House Caucus then substituted a 30 day rule -- the Caucus has 30 days from indictment to decide whether to strip the House member of a leadership position. Also not remarked upon by MSM (or at least not often) is the fact that the House Democrat Caucus has no rule whatsoever -- no rule for automatic stripping, and no 30 day rule.

What prompted the change? The answer is Democrat Austin DA Ronnie Earle, who earlier in his tenure went after Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, spending a year smearing her, only to have his case summarily dismissed when he failed to present evidence. Earle has now indicted three DeLay fundraisers. The House GOP Caucus understandably doesn't want Ronnie Earle to, in essence, choose the GOP House leadership.

Which is not to suggest that DeLay is a saint. He was admonished earlier this year, when the House Ethics Committee voted not to initiate a formal investigation. Admonishment is reserved for actions which are either not sufficiently serious, or which lack sufficient evidence for a formal investigation. Interestingly, the guy who filed the complaints against DeLay, Chris Bell, was gerrymandered out of his House seat by DeLay, and is returning to private law practice. And just as interestingly, and nearly as ignored by the MSM, is the fact that the House Ethics Committee chairman and ranking member, on Thursday, rebuked Chris Bell for violating House ethics rules by making careless charges and including hearsay in his complaint.