I used to think the recipe for creating a Christian Taliban in America was simple: just eliminate the separation of church and state in this country and wait 20 years. Within a generation, you would see extremists pop out to take out what secular elements of American culture remained through violence.
But today, I was proved wrong. Looks like the recipe is even simpler: put a black man in the White House on the heels of an administration that drove the economy into the ground, and watch that black man try to give an additional 30 million Americans access to health care. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the faces of the first legally documented Christian terror cell:
Christian militia terrorists in U.S. charged in plot against police officers
Eight of the nine suspects charged in the Hutaree case: from top left, David Brian Stone Sr.; David Brian Stone Jr.; Jacob Ward; Tina Mae Stone; and bottom row from left, Michael David Meeks; Kristopher T. Sickles; Joshua John Clough; and Thomas William Piatek.
AP Photo/U.S. Marshal’s Service
Detroit, Michigan - On Monday, nine members of a Christian terrorist militant group were arraigned and charged by a grand jury with conspiring to attack and kill police officers including those attending a funeral in an attempt to expand their war against the group’s enemy, namely the United States.
The indictment charges the people involved with conspiracy to kill police officers, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, training on the use of explosive devices, seditious conspiracy, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.
The group, Hutaree, consists of several members in several states, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. The members were planning to kill a police officer, and then when other officers attended the funeral, they planned to detonate IED devices to kill police officers in attendance of the service. FBI officials stated that the attacks were being planned by the group to occur some time in April. IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are considered weapons of mass destruction, and are frequently used by al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups.
Courtesy of CNN, here is a PDF link for the indictment. What scares me is the possibility that this may only be the first scare from the fringe. As author David Cay Johnston said to Chris Hedges recently:
"If we see the end of this country it will come from the right and our failure to provide people with the basic necessities of life," said Johnston. "Revolutions occur when young men see the present as worse than the unknown future. We are not there. But it will not take a lot to get there. The politicians running for office who are denigrating the government, who are saying there are traitors in Congress, who say we do not need the IRS, this when no government in the history of the world has existed without a tax enforcement agency, are sowing the seeds for the destruction of the country. A lot of the people on the right hate the United States of America. They would say they hate the people they are arrayed against. But the whole idea of the United States is that we criticize the government. We remake it to serve our interests. They do not want that kind of society. They reject, as Aristotle said, the idea that democracy is to rule and to be ruled in turns. They see a world where they are right and that is it. If we do not want to do it their way we should be vanquished. This is not the idea on which the United States was founded." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/08-2
What is the solution to this problem? Well, there's the immediate reactive solution that is currently underway through our Department of Justice. But the more preventative answer lies deeper. It needs to be addressed on a cultural level as well as a political level. As I said in my previous blog entry, unless we switch from an economic paradigm based on permanent growth to an economic paradigm based on sustainable living for all citizens, our society will dissolve into an ideological fracas In Jesus' Name. When that happens, we won't have democracy, we'll have theocracy. Our more specifically, rule by men pretending to divine how God would rule through their twisted interpretation of the Bible transmitted into law.
Is that the direction this country should go? We already know the answer that the Hutaree have for this question. The real question for intelligent democracy-loving Americans is: What needs to be accomplished to ensure that we don't go in this direction?
To expand on my last blog entries regarding my views on health care, I want to post a personal reply I made to someone elaborating on this issue within the context of Peak Oil:
I realize my opinion is of the extreme minority; there are very few people willing to look beyond the confines of the way civilization DOES operate to see the way civilization WILL operate if we get our collective ass in gear and start to view society in terms of what is worth saving. (Otherwise, if we don't, if society dissolves into an ideological fracas In Jesus' Name, then civilization WON'T operate.) I can't think of a single politician who operates on this level. Even Dennis Kucinich, who told me in person that he IS Peak Oil Aware, doesn't operate this way. The only way I can explain the disconnect is that politicians in this country are elected to either maintain the status quo or reform the status quo. When was the last time someone was elected to destroy the status quo? (I can't think of any in this country. You might make a case that Allende ran on a platform in Chile to destroy the status quo, but we all know how that ended.) Therein lies the disconnect that I speak of when I refer to the Infinite Growth Paradigm. A politician's primary job within the context of our current paradigm is to make the economy grow. I'm waiting for the day a politician comes out and says, "Look, if I keep bullshitting everyone, I'll bullshit this country to DEATH, so here's the truth: Because world oil production is in a state of permanent decline, our economy CAN NO LONGER GROW. PERIOD. Unless we switch from an economic paradigm based on permanent growth to an economic paradigm based on sustainable living for all citizens, our society will no longer exist in any civilized sense". Until that day, there is no solution to our problems. And if that day comes, there still won't be a solution to our problems, but we might be able to honestly confront the options that we have to save what is most important. What do I consider most important? Sounds corny, but this is the first thing that comes to mind: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Without your health, your life is threatened, and it's pretty damned hard to enjoy your liberty and pursue happiness. Once you take politics, ideology, and especially money out of the equation, that might simplify that all citizens have that unalienable right fulfilled.
That's not my final word on the subject, but hopefully it will be the last for a while. Next week I hope to blog about the recent vacation I took with my wife, which was quite an experience. It's nice to get back to reality, but at the same time, I understand the temptation to escape it!
It's the topic that's been dominating the evening news for years: How do we fix our health care system? The responses to this question have run an emotional gamut similar to the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross stages of grief. The first stage is denial. We've seen that in truckloads from certain protesters inside and outside of Town Hall meetings last year, wailing desperately to preserve a status quo which in their skewed view of reality means keeping the government out of Medicare. The most popular stage all across the ideological spectrum seems to be the second stage: anger. Anger at President Obama for trying to institute socialist health care. Anger at President Obama for not trying to institute single payer universal health care. Anger at insurance companies for their usurous rates and pre-existing condition exclusions. Anger at the government for inaction, proposed action, imaginary action, ad nauseum. There's been a lot of bargaining, the third stage, as the compromise between the House and Senate approaches its conclusion on the bill for proposed health care reform. These responses have ranged from, "Well, if they can just squeeze the public option in, then I'll support it" to, "If they pass this socialist bill, then I'll get my health care in Costa Rica". (Real smart, Rush, Costa Rica has universal health care!) Then there are many in the fourth stage, depression, who don't believe anything will change, or that any good will come from this current effort at reform. I believe that the fifth stage, acceptance, is that whatever form the bill ends up in, this is the way the system changes within the context of our current paradigm. Slowly, incrementally, shaky enough to rock the boat for some, but never radical enough to flip it upside down. Every change, big or small, must fit into the Infinite Growth Paradigm.
But what happens when the paradigm collapses? This is the proverbial elephant in the living room where real health care reform is concerned. When our economic infrastructure predicated on infinite growth collides with the physical limitations of our planet, that infrastructure is toast. How will that collapse affect our health care system? That is the subject of a wonderful article written by Daniel Bednarz published in the July/August 2007 issue of Orion magazine. Just the first two paragraphs spell out the connection between Peak Oil and pharmaceuticals and how dependent our health care system is on oil and natural gas:
The scale and subtlety of our country’s dependency on oil and natural gas cannot be overstated. Nowhere is this truer than in our medical system.
Petrochemicals are used to manufacture analgesics, antihistamines, antibiotics, antibacterials, rectal suppositories, cough syrups, lubricants, creams, ointments, salves, and many gels. Processed plastics made with oil are used in heart valves and other esoteric medical equipment. Petrochemicals are used in radiological dyes and films, intravenous tubing, syringes, and oxygen masks. In all but rare instances, fossil fuels heat and cool buildings and supply electricity. Ambulances and helicopter “life flights” depend on petroleum, as do personnel who travel to and from medical workplaces in motor vehicles. Supplies and equipment are shipped—often from overseas—in petroleum-powered carriers. In addition there are the subtle consequences of fossil fuel reliance. A recently retired doctor informs me, “In orthopedics we used to set fractures mostly by feel and knowing the mechanics of how the fractures were created. I doubt that many of the present orthopedists could do a good job if you took away their [energy-powered] fluoroscope or X-ray.”
What I love about this article is that the author doesn't give into despair and say, "We're doomed!" There will be options. Here are some:
At present we have a tiered health-care system. At the top is a Ferrari model of care that reflects our affluence, fascination with technology, and extravagance. Ferrari care has made possible the treatment of rare life-threatening diseases and expensive procedures like organ transplants, but it has also been used for esoteric and often redundant testing and vanity procedures such as botox injections. At the bottom is a jalopy model serving over 50 million un- and underinsured Americans who very often receive no treatment, defer treatment until their condition cannot be ignored, or face economic ruin when they seek adequate care. If the two tiers persist after peak oil, they will eventually be preserved by force—armed guards at gated medical facilities—for the few able to pay, while the rest of Americans are relegated to the jalopy and faced with overt rationing, triage, and curtailment of medical care. Such an outcome would be an overt contravention of democratic values—most Americans tell pollsters they believe that health care is a human right, not a privilege awarded those with higher income.
What then should we do? The best democratic option is to replace both the Ferrari and the jalopy with a Honda. The post-peak Honda health-care model will of necessity operate with fewer overall resources and less energy than today’s health-care system, and at lower cost. But it need not result in poorer quality of care. Although the United States spends more on health than any other nation—per capita health-care costs in this country are three times those in Great Britain and more than twice those in Canada—we do not have the best health outcomes. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2006, for example, reported that “white, middle-aged Americans—even those who are rich—are far less healthy than their peers in England.”
The commonsensical Honda model will emphasize public health—the prevention of disease and the promotion of health within the population as a whole—over treatment medicine, which focuses on restoring health to chronically or acutely ill individuals. Typically accomplished through the diffusion of information, low-cost therapies, and the promotion of healthful nutrition and lifestyle, preventive medicine allows people to avoid or postpone disease, and to stay clear of the costliest and most energy-intensive sectors of the medical system—doctors’ offices, pharmacies, and the hospital. In the Honda model, treatment medicine would continue, but its role would be brought into better balance with the vastly more cost-effective and energy-efficient mode of preventive health care.
The public health system arose in the early decades of the last century as a response to fears of infectious diseases in our country’s crowded cities. Its outlook is inherently egalitarian—if the entire community is not protected, then no one’s health is assured. Public health is no longer the force it was when it sent “ladies in white uniforms” into communities to preach the Gospel of Germs, explaining the relationship between hygiene and disease prevention. Today, public health is overburdened and underfunded, receiving about 5 percent of health-care dollars, with the balance going to treatment medicine and to biomedical research.
This is what I consider a great example of optimistic practicality. If only we could come to a consensus within our country now that this should be our moral outlook within our health care system: "if the entire community is not protected, then no one’s health is assured."
Please read the entire article at the link in the prior blog entry today.
I've written about this subject before and when I linked to an article last year in my blog entry Anthrax spores don't match dead researcher's samples, I referred to the FBI's implication that Bruce Ivins was the lone nut behind the anthrax mailings in the wake of 9/11 as a "Rush to Judgment", a comparative reference to Mark Lane's book about the sloppiness of the Warren Report in 1964 pinning the same "lone nut" label on Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Well, as it turns out, the official FBI investigation was more of a going-through-the-motions slog to judgment. They concluded their investigation, surprise-surprise, with the judgment that Ivins and Ivins alone was responsible in the anthrax case:
F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Case
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 19, 2010
WASHINGTON — More than eight years after anthrax-laced letters killed five people and terrorized the country, the F.B.I. on Friday closed its investigation, adding eerie new details to its case that the 2001 attacks were carried out by Bruce E. Ivins, an Army biodefense expert who killed himself in 2008.
A 92-page report, which concludes what by many measures is the largest investigation in F.B.I. history, laid out the evidence against Dr. Ivins, including his equivocal answers when asked by a friend in a recorded conversation about whether he was the anthrax mailer.
“If I found out I was involved in some way...” Dr. Ivins said, not finishing the sentence. “I do not have any recollection of ever doing anything like that,” he said, adding, “I can tell you, I am not a killer at heart.” But in a 2008 e-mail message to a former colleague, one of many that reflected distress, Dr. Ivins wrote, “I can hurt, kill, and terrorize.” He added: “Go down low, low, low as you can go, then dig forever, and you’ll find me, my psyche.”
The report disclosed for the first time the F.B.I.’s theory that Dr. Ivins embedded in the notes mailed with the anthrax a complex coded message, based on DNA biochemistry, alluding to two female former colleagues with whom he was obsessed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/us/20anthrax.html
So there you have it: FBI closes case with their judgment - Lone Nut Did It.
Not so fast, say others not convinced by the FBI's conclusion. Thanks to EFerrari at Democratic Underground for bringing this article, written by another member of Democratic Underground, Michael Collins, to my attention:
Shortly after September 11, 2001, mailings containing the lethal toxin anthrax were sent to members of Congress, including then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, the National Enquirer, and others. The first suspect, Steven Hatfill, was pilloried in the press as the prime FBI suspect. He was subsequently cleared and awarded a multi million dollar settlement by the government for harassment in late June 2008. The mystery remained. Bruce Edwards Ivins, PhD, a leading bioweapons scientist, was the backup suspect. He worked at Fort Detrick, better known as the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). He had been under heavy surveillance by the FBI for over a year prior to his death. Associated Press reported claims that he'd been "stalked" by FBI agents. There were other stories about his counseling for substance abuse problems and alleged erratic personality. These breaches of Ivin's confidentiality were followed by a less than flattering profile of his counselor, Jean Duley of Frederick, Maryland
Ivins was found dead in his home on July 27, 2008. The death was ruled a suicide. There was no autopsy. Shortly after Ivins' death, the FBI leaked that Ivins was the only suspect in the anthrax mailings case. Scientists at Fort Detrick objected to the bureau's tactics and conclusions. The FBI turned over it's scientific evidence to the National Academy of Sciences for a full review.
The FBI closed the case on February 19 naming Ivins as the lone perpetrator. The announcement came prior to the completion of a National Academy of Science report evaluating the FBI's scientific forensics in the case. Also, yet to be answered are the arguments by Edward Jay Epstein that the presence of silicon in the anthrax mailings virtually ruled out Ivins or Fort Detrick scientists since they lacked the ability to create that combination.
Collins later reprints a 16 point critique of the FBI's investigation and conclusions from Dr. Meryl Nass, MD, an expert on anthrax and anthrax vaccines and someone who met with Bruce Ivins regarding research she was doing on Bioport's anthrax vaccine:
snip
Actually, the 96 page FBI report is predicated on the assumption that the anthrax letters attack was carried out by a "lone nut." The FBI report fails to entertain the possibility that the letters attack could have involved more than one actor. The FBI admits that about 400 people may have had access to Ivins' RMR-1029 anthrax preparation, but asserts all were "ruled out" as lone perpetrators. FBI never tried to rule any out as part of a conspiracy, however.
That is only the first of many holes in FBI's case. Here is a sampling of some more.
The report assumes Ivins manufactured, purified and dried the spore prep in the anthrax hot room at US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). His colleagues say the equipment available was insufficient to do so on the scale required.
But even more important, the letter spores contained a Bacillus subtilis contaminant, and silicon to enhance dispersal. FBI has never found the Bacillus subtilis strain at USAMRIID, and it has never acknowledged finding silicon there, either. If the letters anthrax was made at USAMRIID, at least small amounts of both would be there.
Drs. Perry Mikesell, Ayaad Assaad and Stephen Hatfill were 3 earlier suspects. All had circumstantial evidence linking them to the case. In Hatfill's case, especially, are hints he could have been "set up." Greendale, the return address on the letters, was a suburb of Harare, Zimbabwe where Hatfill attended medical school. Hatfill wrote an unpublished book about a biowarfare attack that bears some resemblance to the anthrax case. So the fact that abundant circumstantial evidence links Ivins to the case might be a reflection that he too was "set up" as a potential suspect, before the letters were sent.
FBI fails to provide any discussion of why no autopsy was performed, nor why, with Ivins under 24/7 surveillance from the house next door, with even his garbage being combed through, the FBI failed to notice that he overdosed and went into a coma. Nor is there any discussion of why the FBI didn't immediately identify tylenol as the overdose substance, and notify the hospital, so that a well-known antidote for tylenol toxicity could be given (N-acetyl cysteine, or alternatively glutathione). These omissions support the suggestion that Ivins' suicide was a convenience for the FBI. It enabled them to conclude the anthrax case, in the absence of evidence that would satisfy the courts.
The FBI's alleged motive is bogus. In 2001, Bioport's anthrax vaccine could not be (legally) relicensed due to potency failures, and its impending demise provided room for Ivins' newer anthrax vaccines to fill the gap. Ivins had nothing to do with developing Bioport's vaccine, although in addition to his duties working on newer vaccines, he was charged with assisting Bioport to get through licensure.
FBI's report claims, "Those who worked for him knew that Nass was one of those topics to avoid discussing around Dr. Ivins" (page 41). The truth is we had friendly meetings at the Annapolis, Maryland international anthrax conference in June 2001, and several phone conversations after that. Bruce occasionally assisted me in my study of the safety and efficacy of Bioport's licensed anthrax vaccine, giving me advice and papers he and others had written. I wonder if I was mentioned negatively to discourage Ivins' other friends and associates from communicating with me, since they have been prohibited from speaking freely? Clever.
The FBI's Summary states that "only a limited number of individuals ever had access to this specific spore preparation" and that the flask was under Ivins' sole and exclusive control. Yet the body of the report acknowledges hundreds of people who had access to the spores, and questions remain about the location of the spore prep during the period in question. FBI wordsmiths around this, claiming that no one at USAMRIID "legitimately" used spores from RMR1029 without the "authorization and knowledge" of Bruce Ivins. Of course, stealing spores to terrorize and kill is not a legitimate activity.
FBI says that only a small number of labs had Ames anthrax, including only 3 foreign labs. Yet a quick Pub Med search of papers published between 1999 and 2004 revealed Ames anthrax was studied in at least Italy, France, the UK, Israel and South Korea as well as the US. By failing to identify all labs with access to Ames, the FBI managed to exclude potential domestic and foreign perpetrators.
FBI claims that "drying anthrax is expressly forbidden by various treaties," therefore it would have to be performed clandestinely. Actually, the US government sponsored several programs that dried anthrax spores. Drying spores is not explicitly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention, though many would like it to be.
The FBI report claims the anthrax letters envelopes were sold in Frederick, Md. Later it admits that millions of indistinguishable envelopes were made, with sales in Maryland and Virginia.
FBI emphasizes Ivins' access to a photocopy machine, but fails to mention it was not the machine from which the notes that accompanied the spores were printed.
FBI claims Ivins was able to make a spore prep of equivalent purity as the letter spores. However, Ivins had clumping in his spores, while the spores in the Daschle/Leahy letters had no clumps. Whether Ivins could make a pure dried prep is unknown, but there is no evidence he had ever done so.
FBI asserts that Bioport and USAMRIID were nearly out of anthrax vaccine, to the point researchers might not have enough to vaccinate themselves. FBI further asserts this would end all anthrax research, derailing Ivins' career. In fact, USAMRIID has developed many dozens of vaccines (including those for anthrax) that were never licensed, but have been used by researchers to vaccinate themselves. There would be no vaccine shortage for researchers.
Ivins certainly had mental problems. But that does not explain why the FBI accompanied Ivins' therapist, Ms. Duley (herself under charges for multiple DUIs) and assisted her to apply for a peace order against him. Nor does it explain why Duley then went into hiding, never to be heard from again.
FBI obtained a voluntary collection of anthrax samples. Is that the way to conduct a multiple murder investigation: ask the scientists to supply you with the evidence to convict them? There is no report that spores were seized from anyone but Ivins, about 6 years after the attacks. This is a huge hole in the FBI's "scientific" methodology.
FBI claims it investigated Bioport and others who had a financial motive for the letters attack, and ruled them out. However, FBI provides not a shred of evidence from such an investigation.
Nass is not the only voice of dissent. Just last week, two congressmen, one Democrat and one Republican, weighed in with their doubts:
US House seeks further review of anthrax attacks
February 25, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House of Representatives is seeking further review of the 2001 anthrax mailings that killed five people.
House members approved an amendment to an intelligence authorization bill Thursday that would require the government to look for credible evidence of foreign involvement in the attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others.
The action comes six days after the FBI closed its investigation by concluding Army scientist Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the attacks.
The amendment was offered by New Jersey Democrat Rush Holt, from whose state the letters were mailed, and Maryland Republican Roscoe Bartlett. Maryland is home to Fort Detrick, the Army installation where Ivins worked before he killed himself in 2008.
Both congressmen have expressed doubts about the FBI's conclusions.