American anthrax scientist, Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, has died at his own hand. According to the Washington Post, Ivins’ death comes just as a federal grand jury was about to indict the scientist for murder in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and terrorized the country.
“Prosecutors were considering whether to seek the death penalty against Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who worked at an elite U.S. Army bioweapons laboratory in Fort Detrick. Ivins died Tuesday in an apparent suicide.
Ivins died Tuesday at Frederick Memorial Hospital, according to an obituary published in the Frederick News-Post. The Los Angeles Times first reported in today’s editions that a federal grand jury in Washington had been gathering testimony about Ivins’s alleged involvement in the attacks, and that Ivins had been notified that criminal charges were looming.
Fort Detrick, located 50 miles north of Washington, has been a focus of Justice Department and FBI investigators for nearly six years, since anthrax-laced letters arrived at media organizations and Senate offices shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The anthrax mailings killed five people, including two postal workers at the Brentwood Road facility in the District, and sickened 17 others, spreading fear on Capitol Hill and across the country only weeks after hijacked jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
For the past several months, the grand jury had been hearing testimony from scientists who worked alongside Ivins at Fort Detrick, performing research on inhaled anthrax spores, according to the Times report. While the Times report said Ivins worked in the elite biodefense lab since 1990, the News-Post obituary said he had been a scientist at Fort Detrick for 36 years.
The mailings, sent to then-Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), network television offices in New York and the company that owns the National Enquirer, gripped the nation and disrupted correspondence. In addition to the two D.C. postal workers, a Florida photographer, a New York hospital worker and an elderly Connecticut woman died after being exposed to the powder. “
Trust the New York Times’ David Brooks to put a highly spun gloss on a clearly stated problem. This time the columnist weighs in on the undoing of the cohesion that once marked the major democracies:
“…Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.
This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem.
…the Doha failure comes amid a decade of globosclerosis. The world has failed to effectively end genocide in Darfur. Chinese and Russian vetoes foiled efforts to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. The world has failed to implement effective measures to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The world has failed to embrace a collective approach to global warming. Europe’s drive toward political union has stalled.
In each case, the logic is the same. Groups with a strong narrow interest are able to block larger groups with a diffuse but generalized interest. The narrow Chinese interest in Sudanese oil blocks the world’s general interest in preventing genocide. Iran’s narrow interest in nuclear weapons trumps the world’s general interest in preventing a Middle East arms race. Diplomacy goes asymmetric and the small defeat the large.
Moreover, in a multipolar world, there is no way to referee disagreements among competing factions. In a democratic nation, the majority rules and members of the minority understand that they must accede to the wishes of those who win elections.
But globally, people have no sense of shared citizenship. Everybody feels they have the right to say no, and in a multipolar world, many people have the power to do so. There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy.
And so the globosclerosis continues, and people around the world lose faith in their leaders. It’s worth remembering that George W. Bush is actually more popular than many of his peers. His approval ratings hover around 29 percent. Gordon Brown’s are about 17 percent. Japan’s Yasuo Fukuda’s are about 26 percent. Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi have ratings that are a bit higher, but still pathetically low.
This is happening because voters rightly sense that leaders lack the authority to address problems.
So, what would Mr. Brooks have us do? He endorses a League of Democracies, an idea conceived by several Democrats and embraced by John McCain. Like-minded nations unite to use their collective will to shape world events. What Brooks won’t say is that he sees his nation, the United States, as entitled to the mantle of “world leader” it formerly enjoyed.
Washington, having made a horrible mess of its experiment in unipolar world dominance, now wants to invite its old friends to sign on to something resembling one side of the old Cold War. Let bygones be bygones. Return to the default mode. Brooks hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
“There is no mechanism to wield authority. There are few shared values on which to base a mechanism. The autocrats of the world don’t even want a mechanism because they are afraid that it would be used to interfere with their autocracy.”
Brooks is inadvertently describing his own nation. America has persistently rejected multilateralism, particularly through institutions such as the UN and the International Court of Justice, and has held itself above all others, including its traditional allies.
Before there can be any genuine, effective League of Democracies, America is going to have to step down from that undeserved, unearned perch. Washington is going to have to acknowledge that the order, even among democracies, has been permanently altered – that the economy of the European Union is far greater than its own and that the role of consensus is now greater than ever. If Washington chooses to lead, it can only do that with the consent of the others and it is going to have to earn that consent. A key to that is to regain the trust of the fellow democracies it treated with such disdain for the past eight years.
In other words, if Washington does want a new, meaningful and effective alliance with like-minded states, it has an awful lot of work to do to rebuild the essential foundations. If it continues to treat its political, diplomatic and international deficits as irrelevant, it will only perpetuate the disharmony that Brooks complains of.
It seems someone is trying to con us every day. Watching television, reading a magazine or even answering the phone, we’re barraged by people trying to con us with half truths, outright lies and hollow promises.
By now we ought to know better. We ought to know that the “free cruise” is just a scam, that no power exists to turn back the clock on 40-years of aging, and that the fine print is just a confession of deceit, and yet these people just don’t quit. Why? Because they know we can be hustled, we can be conned. They know we’re gullible or at least enough of us are to make the con worthwhile.
The last time Stephen Harper was honest about global warming and climate change he dismissed it as a “socialist plot.” I’m not saying he was right, I’m saying that Harpo was telling us what he actually believed. An honest mistake.
Over the past couple of years, the True North’s own Mustapha Mond has done an eardrum shattering, 180 on global warming. Now, he tells us, he “gets it.” Now he proclaims it to be the greatest threat to mankind, a real emergency. Now he’s really conning us.
The heel-dragging International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) has finally reached the point of declaring that human activity was “very likely” the main culprit behind global warming and that we’re in for centuries of higher temperatures and rising sea levels, regardless of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, we’re hooped.
A lot of people think the IPCC is radical but any fair examination of their reports over the past several years reveals the panel has consistently understated the time and severity dimensions of the threat. Time and again the latest research and observed changes have far outpaced the IPCC forecasts. That’s because the denialists have a presence among the IPCC scientists and operate as something of a sea anchor on its “consensus” reports. In other words, you can take the IPCC scenarios as “best case” predictions that have repeatedly been shown to be unduly optimistic.
But we also must understand that the understated IPCC findings are routinely compounded by the under-committed political responses they evoke. Put another way, even if the IPCC’s best case scenarios were accurate it wouldn’t matter because our politicians are treating the problem more as a hoax than a threat. Of course they can’t admit that so they openly proclaim the Great Danger and then give us nothing but vague promises they or some future government will actually do something about greenhouse gas emissions.
Enter the CCCC, Consummate Canadian Conservative Conman, Big Oil’s own Stephen Harper. His response to the IPCC report acknowledges that climate change is an “enormous” problem but then adds that it’s “fantasy” to think greenhouse-gas emissions can be cut overnight. Karl Rove could’ve written that line, maybe he did. Yes we acknowledge a base reality, then bury it under a totally irrelevant and erroneous presumption to create a diversion. “Climate change is an enormous problem” – the base reality. “It’s fantasy to think greenhouse-gas emissions can be cut overnight” – the con, the irrelevant diversion.
Memo to Steve and anyone stupid enough to listen to this jackass: NO ONE THINKS GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS CAN BE CUT OVERNIGHT!
That’s right, Steve. No one thinks greenhouse-gas emissions can be cut overnight. Even David Suzuki knows that and says that. But, then again, you know that full well, don’t you Steve? You’re just throwing up a Straw Man to distract the plebs and defuse their demands for action. You’re messing with their minds, Steve, and Big Oil couldn’t be happier or more grateful. Are you so stupid that you honestly believe anyone thinks that? You damn well know that no one thinks that but that doesn’t mean a deliberate diversion won’t let you slip away yet again.
Change the argument from “what are we going to do” to “can’t be done overnight” and you’ve substituted an irrelevant question for a meaningful enquiry. Neat trick – very Rovian, very Republican, very Cheneyist (and of course very Stalinist at heart). You can leverage relatively significant proportions of public naivety, ignorance, and those simply wanting to hear what they want to hear, and thereby undercut the demand for action or accountability.
And this little intellectual rot isn’t just confined to Harper, it’s permeated throughout his cabinet. Look at this and you’ll see what I mean:
Environment Canada came out with a climate change warning today and Harper’s Health Minister Tony Clement was prompt to stomp on it, using the “bait and switch” approach of his boss.
The Health Canada report warned Canadians of the new risks they’re already going to have to face and the need for immediate, drastic action on man-made global warming if we’re not to be confronted with far worse, likely deadly problems. Health Canada, relying on the IPCC’s latest, far understated findings, warned that we face, at a minimum, spikes in heat-related deaths, an increase in respiratory and cardiovascular problems, and the spread and emergence of diseases.
Clement, as a good drone of the boss, came out and deflected the bullet. From CBC News:
“Milder winters, heat waves and summer droughts could affect mosquito and tick populations, triggering the spread of West Nile virus and Lyme disease, the report says.
“Climate change could tip the ecological balance and trigger outbreaks of disease previously rare or unknown in Canada,” the report states.
The report also says that communities in Canada’s North are most vulnerable to climate change. Avalanches and landslides are projected to be more frequent. Northern communities will also have to contend with food shortages and less clean drinking water.
“This report makes it clear that Milder winters, heat waves and summer droughts could affect mosquito and tick populations, triggering the spread of West Nile virus and Lyme disease, the report says.
“Climate change could tip the ecological balance and trigger outbreaks of disease previously rare or unknown in Canada,” the report states.
The report also says that communities in Canada’s North are most vulnerable to climate change. Avalanches and landslides are projected to be more frequent. Northern communities will also have to contend with food shortages and less clean drinking water.
Speaking to reporters at the Conservative caucus retreat in the rural Quebec town of Levis, Health Minister Tony Clement said Canadians will “have to get used to” the gloomy scenario laid out in the report.
“This report makes it clear that if you have bad health outcomes now, you’re likely to be more impacted by extreme weather events than if you’re at the top of the health ladder,” he said.
There it was in all it’s glory. Appear to acknowledge the severe implications of the report and then tell Canadians, “they will have to get used to” it. The guy even goes on to blame the most susceptible. “This report makes it clear that if you have bad health outcomes now, you’re likely to be more impacted by extreme weather events than if you’re at the top of the health ladder,” is Greaseball Tony’s way to suggest that most of those who lose their lives are at least partially to blame for allowing themselves to become more vulnerable to these environmental predations.
It’s subtle, sort of, but it’s there for anyone who wishes to see. They’re acknowledging the problems but then, instead of honestly embracing the problems and proposing meaningful action, they veer far off track with distracting nonsense. “Fantasy” to really do anything right now about it. “Top of the Health Ladder” argument to diminish concern by holding up a certain segment of the inevitable victims as somehow responsible for their fate and thereby avoiding having to embrace the problem and advocate the appropriate emissions response.
In any real democracy, the leader’s first responsibility is to do everything necessary to safeguard his/her citizens. Failing to do everything necessary to safeguard Canadians against any avoidable consequences of climate change is a complete violation of that responsibility. Shirking that responsibility and using these sorts of diversions demonstrates that there’s nothing inadvertant about this affront. It’s entirely deliberate. It’s not just neglecting the safety and welfare of the Canadian people, it’s wilfully putting the interests of certain powerful governments and wealthy companies ahead, and in direct detriment to, the safety and welfare of the Canadian people.
Think about that. 1. Global warming presents this truly urgent, existential threat to humanity. 2. Some countries must, by example, lead and even cajole other nations to embrace action. Those countries most able to afford setting that example have to lead if the rest are to follow. There’s no other way. It’s essential that a few, advantaged countries can lead so as to establish a norm for others to achieve at subsequent intervals. Only by leading by example can the most advantaged countries wield both the carrot and the stick to get other nations to follow. 3. Without common action, individual or bloc action has no probable hope of avoiding the worst consequences.
If you can accept those three simple statements of fact, you must then judge the actions of our prime minister and his health and environmental ministers accordingly. If they’re using logic diversions as smokescreens to deflect popular demands for responsible action, measures that would, in turn, be adverse to the interests of certain governments and companies, there’s a message in that. Diversion = Deliberate. It demonstrates culpability. What of a government that culpably acts to the detriment of the safety and welfare of its people for the sole benefit of the elite, advantaged and powerful?
Government is service. We elect our governments to serve our interests, our welfare. Surely that principle defines our relationship more than any other. Surely we hand to them the power to govern us, to make even life and death decisions upon us and our families, in exchange for their implicit, but often unacknoweldged, promise to govern so as to achieve our greatest security and welfare.
Is it not virtually, if not legally, treasonous to abuse one’s powers to refuse to act on an existential threat and then distract public attention from it by misleading or confusing diversions? You decide.
The Mound of Sound 