Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:16:38 GMT

Bruce Alberts
Modeling attacks on the food supply

PNAS
published
June 28, 2005,

10.1073/pnas.0504944102
(
Editorial
,
From the Academy
)
[Abstract]
[PDF]
  [PNAS Early Edition]

Lawrence M. Wein and Yifan Liu

Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: The case of botulinum toxin in milk

PNAS

published
June 28, 2005,

10.1073/pnas.0408526102
(
Social Sciences
)

[Abstract]

[PDF]

[Supporting Information]

 OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE
  [PNAS Early Edition]

An important paper and editorial examining the effect of a terrorist attack on our food supply. It also details ways to deal with the threat. Publishing something like this is a good thing, because ots openess allows all of us to understand the risks and take action to deal with them. Hiding publication would not remove the risk (the terrorists can already figure out what to do) and could hamper our efforts to solve the problem. Congrats to PNAS for fighting to get this published.

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:14:31 GMT

Little Miss Sunshine. To keep the baseball analogies going a bit, Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, reminds me of a centerfielder backpedaling for a ball destined to land way over his head. Or should I say “backpeddling”? Twas barely a few… [James Wolcott]

Funny.

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:43:35 GMT

Michelle Pilecki: Watch the Birdie.

May I interrupt the Rovian food fight long enough to mention a threat to America that could dwarf 9/11? Flying under the headlines, avian flu A (H5N1) has killed only 54 people so far (and an awful lot of birds) in Asia, but the World Health Organization and assorted scientists are worried that the virus could lead to a pandemic that would kill at least 500,000 in the United States, many more world-wide. “Unfortunately, the United States is woefully underprepared to respond in the event of a pandemic outbreak,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is quoted in an AP story. There is no vaccine, and U.S. hospitals would be hard-pressed to treat the estimated 2.3 million Americans who would need hospital care.

Our “normal” flu already kills some 36,000 Americans per year, but if we want to know what a pandemic is like and why we need to be prepared, Dr. Richard Feldman helpfully provides the historic view in an op-ed in the Indianapolis Star. Spanish flu in 1918 “killed nearly 700,000 Americans and nearly 40 million worldwide,” many more than died in World War I.

Because of the massive numbers of sick, hospitals were overwhelmed and there was a serious shortage of doctors and nurses to care for so many victims. With the massive numbers of dead, bodies literally piled up because of a shortage of coffins and morticians.

H5N1 won’t necessarily turn into a pandemic. So far, all cases of human H5N1 occurred in people who caught it from infected birds. The problem — the big question — is whether the virus will mutate into a form that could be transmitted between humans. An excellent story in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer discusses the evolution of the virus.

Unlike previous pandemics, where a virus underwent a major genetic overhaul all at once, [Michael] Osterholm [director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota] said the avian strain has been changing gradually since it was first identified in 1997. He believes the virus will continue to transform, increasing the likelihood it will ultimately lead to a pandemic.

“We haven’t done much to eliminate the source in Asia,” said Osterholm, a former bioterrorism special adviser to the current Bush administration. “And there is a dynamic mutation laboratory over there. I see nothing to slow down the mutations.”

Though no one has yet made the connection, perhaps the threat of a mutating (i.e. evolving) virus causing a pandemic will help stamp out the epidemic of rampant stupidity in my home state. As if it weren’t bad enough that one school board in Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County wants to teach “intelligent design” along with biology, now a legislator from Bucks County wants to inflict it on the entire commonwealth, according to The Intelligencer. “Can you tell me one thing true about evolution?” Rep. Paul Clymer is quoted. Evolution isn’t some phenomenon that happened long ago, Cly, it’s an ongoing process of nature. That’s why we need to prepare for new kinds of flu virus every year.

(Full disclosure: I serve on the board of one of the chapters of the ACLU involved in the lawsuit against the Dover School District about the teaching of “intelligent design.” I believe in not only evolutionary theory, but also gravitational theory and the Copernican theory, the controversial view that holds that the planets revolve around the sun.)

Editor’s note: The most interesting story of the week on this subject was The Washington Post’s report that the Chinese used one of the two most powerful antibiotics that might work against this virus in a wholesale dosing of their chickens, thereby helping the virus (you should pardon the expression) evolve a resistance.

[The Huffington Post | Blog Picks Feed]

Evolution in action, no matter what those fundamentalists think. [A small clarification. An antibiotic will not work against influenza, which is a virus not a bacterium. They used an antiviral. But the effect on the virus was the same - making it resistant to the antiviral and hampering efforts to defeat the virus.]

The reason that the avian flu is so scary is that we can not easily make a vaccine against it using current methods of production. Flu vaccine is now made using millions of fertilized chicken eggs that are infected with a flu virus. Normally, a flu virus passes from birds to pigs to humans, so there is not a form that can infect both humans and birds. But the avain flu passes directly from birds to humans, infecting both. So, infecting chicken eggs with avain flu kills them, allowing little vaccine to be produced. There are more modern methods being examined, using cell culture to produce the vaccine but they are srtill some years away.

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:36:33 GMT

Harry Shearer: Rummy Spins Russ.

Sunday morning, Donald Rumsfeld made the rounds of the TV yakfests, talking up the war. One of the questions he was predictably asked about was the story in the Times of London, which, despite its Murdochian pedigree, has been raising plenty of Iraq dust lately. This story gave new details to the two-week-old report that the US has been talking with representatives of the insurgency.

One of Rumsfeld’s stops was on Meet the Press where, just before going on the air, the old master administered a bit of crucial spin to the host and moderator (and NBC Washington bureau chief). It appeared to work: during the broadcast, Russert let the “no blood on their hands” remark go unchallenged.

Apparently unspun was Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday, who, despite his history as one of the war’s godfathers, noticed and commented upon this crucial paragraph in the Times story:

On the rebel side were representatives of insurgent groups including Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings and killed 22 people in the dining hall of an American base at Mosul last Christmas.

Don’t tell Tim Russert, but we’re talking to the terrorists. Unless blood doesn’t stay on your hands at Christmastime.

[The Huffington Post | Blog Picks Feed]

These guys never fail to amaze me.

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:22:22 GMT

House “Peer Review” Kills Two NIH Grants. Representative says he is correcting skewed funding priorities [ScienceNOW]

Another horrible sign of just how anti-science Republicans are. The idea of independent peer review is something for them to politiize. Even more outrageous is this from another Texas Representative. Simply because the data published does not generate the results he wanted, he wants to use the power of Congress to harass the scientists. The science in their papers has beeen validated and replicated. The science in their critic’s papers cherry picked data and have been shown to be statistically incorrect by independent reviewers. Yet, scientists now have to comply with these ridiculous efforts by a Republican to find something that they can use to obfuscate the matter of global warming. Just like the cigarette manufacturers did for years. Instead of working on research or teaching students, these sceintists now have to provide a lot of really unnecessary paperwork for someone who has political motivations. What is it about Texas Congressmen and their fear of science? And I say that as someone who grew up in Texas.

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:18:45 GMT

Whistleblowers Describe Halliburton’s “Free Fraud Zone”.

“I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career.”

– Bunnatine Greenhouse, top Army Corps of Engineers contract oversight official, turned whistleblower

Today’s Democratic Policy Committee Hearing was another jawdropper.

The witnesses included:

1) Greenhouse — the highest ranking civilian at the Army Corps of Engineers whose job it is to ensure openness and honesty in contracting. Greenhouse said that “essentially every aspect of the RIO contract remained under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.” In other words, Rumsfeld should be held responsible for giving his old pal Dick Cheney’s firm Halliburton the no-bid contract before the war, under its global logistics contract, a violation of competitive contracting requirements (as Greenhouse testified and 60 Minutes reported, other contractors were itching to bid on the work but were never given a chance).

2) Rory Mayberry, a former manager of Halliburton’s mess halls in Iraq, who testified that KBR fed U.S. troops expired food on a daily basis, and fed Turkish and Filipino workers “leftover food in boxes and garbage bags after the troops ate,” while using beef, chicken, salads and sodas intended for the troops to cater parties and barbeques for KBR management and employees. He also said he was informed that “if we talked, we would be rotated out to other camps that were under fire.”

3) Alan Waller and Gary Butters — two top executives from Lloyd-Owen International, a transportation contractor who testified that one of their convoys was ambushed 2 kilometers from a U.S. base while bringing materials under a Halliburton contract. Not only were they not told by KBR that other contractors had been hit recently in the same area (they lost 3 individuals in the ambush), but upon arriving at the base were denied help by KBR (later learning from emails they obtained that KBR management had instructed its on site staff to offer no assistance).

Could this have anything to do with the fact that the company has a fuel supply contract with the Iraqi government that KBR would have had, if it hadn’t been caught defrauding U.S. taxpayers for fuel shipments?

KBR still controls the military checkpoint along the Kuwait/Iraq border, where Lloyd-Owen has to bring over 100 fuel tankers across on a daily basis. They testified that KBR has hampered the company’s ability to cross the border, using the fact that Lloyd-Owen does not have a U.S. Military contract as a technicality.

Meanwhile, they testified that Halliburton’s incompetence in restoring fuel pumping and refinery equipment has also slowed fuel deliveries down, leading to the kind of festering resentments that are certain to fuel the resistance.

A joint report was also released at the hearing by Senator Dorgan and Rep. Henry Waxman, which estimates that Halliburton’s questioned and unsupported costs in Iraq now exceed $1.4 billion, more than three times the previous estimate.

[The Huffington Post | Raw Feed]

Just something to think about when war profiteers comes up in casual conversation.

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:11:37 GMT

“Depressing article on how much hassle it was for the makers of Mad Hot Ballroom to clear all copyrighted music in the film” [Daypop Top 40]

A nice example of the good and the bad of copyright. Fear is more important than rights, something we seem to see more and more this days.

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:00:38 GMT

The Next Iconic Web Animation [BOPnews]

Have to see how this develops.

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:39:29 GMT

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. “There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.” [Quotes of the Day]

Scott Adams. “You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.” [Quotes of the Day]

John Gunther. “Count Hermann Keyserling once said truly that the greatest American superstition was belief in facts.” [Quotes of the Day]

Stan Dunn. “And that’s the world in a nutshell, an appropriate receptacle.” [Quotes of the Day]

Kurt Herbert Alder. “Tradition is what you resort to when you don’t have the time or the money to do it right.” [Quotes of the Day]

These seem to go together somehow.

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:52:11 GMT

TSA confiscates folding car key, calling it a “switchbalde”. Mark Frauenfelder:

Dan says: “The Transportation Security Administration confiscated this man’s folding Audi car key ($300 replacement cost) at Dallas/Ft. Worth. They claimed it was a ’switchblade.’ If he hadn’t had a spare key, he would have been stuck upon arriving with no car keys.” (I have the same type of key for my car, and have brought it on planes dozens of times with no problem. — Mark)
Link [Boing Boing]

I wonder why this has not happened before? I mean, couldn’t someone use this ’switchblade’ key to take over a plane? At least I know I won’t be buying an Audi anytime soon. I would not want to get on a terrorist watch list because of my car key.

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:44:59 GMT

Civil liberties *were* a great heritage for Americans.

Is the Sixth Amendment relevant today? You bet it is, especially given the Pentagon‰s use of military tribunals in another country, Cuba, for people accused of terrorism. Ever since their arrest, people accused of terrorism at Guantanamo Bay have been indefinitely detained and denied the right to counsel, due process of law, habeas corpus, trial by jury, and even the right to know exactly what they are being charged with. Most of the proceedings are as secret as they were in the Star Chamber and in Hitler‰s People‰s Court. Moreover, the federal government is doing everything it can to deny accused terrorist Zacharias Moussaoui the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses and to summon favorable witnesses in his behalf in his federal court prosecution. [Jacob G. Hornberger]

A brief tour through the U.S. sixth amendment, where it comes from, and why.

[Curiouser and curiouser!]

Some detail about the abridement of the Sixth Amendment by this Administration.

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:37:05 GMT

Chicago PD Slaps Pics Of Prostitute Solicitors On Its Website ….

The Chicago Police Department began posting on its Web site on Tuesday photographs, names and partial addresses of people who were arrested on charges of soliciting prostitutes in a move intended to embarrass offenders and deter people from committing such crimes.

“If we can do anything to get a john to think twice about coming into Chicago communities to solicit a prostitute, we think we’re addressing the problem,” said Dave Bayless, a Police Department spokesman.

[The Huffington Post | Raw Feed]

Guilty until proven innocent. Why even give them a trial? Simply publicize their names and ruin their reputation. The courts are supposed to determine if a crime has been committed, not the arresting officer or the police department.

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:31:04 GMT

China ‘is more popular’ than US. A survey of 17,000 people in 16 countries finds that Communist-ruled China is more popular than the US. [BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition]

But then bullies are never popular. And no country, including the US, had a majority of people who believed that the world was safer withour Saddam. 1700 American lives, maybe 10,000 wounded and perhaps 100,000 Iraqis killed and the majority feels that it was not worth is. Hard to see how this can end well.

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:27:35 GMT

Dick Cheney Is French

Hesiod does an admirable jo…. Dick Cheney Is French

Hesiod does an admirable job of addressing the shame, impotence and anger many of us feel every time one of these faux outrage fests on the right result in a Democrat giving a teary eyed apology for something he didn’t actually do. This has become a political form of ritual humiliation and it is one of the main reasons why we are having so much trouble politically in this macho era.
. …[Hullabaloo]

Read the whole thing. Sounds like Algiers all over again. I wonder if watching the movie helped at all?

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:20:48 GMT

Burning non-flags

The thing is, some people are smart, and some are dumb. Some use their smarts to take advantage of dumb people, and some use them to make fun of the ones taking advantage of the dumb.






I guess what I’m trying to say is that this isn’t an American flag:
















Neither are any of the other burnable designs that John posted in his experiments with
Cracking the Flag-Burning Amendment
.






Like all sensible people, I think flag burning is petty and childish, and I think John’s final point is exactly right, I’ll give him the last word.

“Protecting” the flag with a Constitutional Amendment won’t solve the not-at-
all
pressing problem of people burning flags for political protest. They’ll still do it. They’ll simply do it in ways that will now additionally mock the stupidity of those who love the symbol of American freedoms more than they love
actual
American freedoms. And no matter how expansively Congress defines “the American Flag” there will always be something that is not the flag, but is close enough in its shape and structure to feel just
like
the flag. And there will be the people who will use that not-quite-flag-like object to protest.

– Josh Rosenau [Thoughts from Kansas]

The official defintion of the Flag describes 50 white stars on a blue field and 13 alternating red and white stripes. So, if you burn something that someone only THINKS is a real flag, will you be in trouble? How dissimilar must it be? If the flag is destroyed, what evidence exists that a flag was actually burned? Eye witnesses can easily be tricked. So will it only apply if people THINK it was a real flag? Since the proper way to destroy a ripped flag is to burn it, how will anyone know if it was a good flag that was burned or a dirty one? How do you tell intent, if the flag burner wishes to obfuscate it? What about buring a flag on the steps of the Congress but faithfully reciting the Pledge of Allegience over it? What really is desecration? I expect the lawyers will be all over this. How aboyt flag bumper stickers? Underwear? How about bikinis that are just red, white and blue, suggestive of a flag but not a real flag? How about someone who does not bring a flag in from the rain? Will people be arrested for improper care of a flag?

Who cares as long as we abridge political speech embodied in the First Amendment? Then they can go after civil rights by removing them from gays (Is that the Fifth Amendment?) Then remove separation of Church and State? Then how about making it against the law to say anything bad about the President? Let’s bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I was just looking over the Bill of Rights. Almost every one is or has been under attack. Check this out:

Article [I.] (Being abridged by the Flag Amendment as well as theocratic approaches of legirlators)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.](What a surprise. Not under assault)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.] (I’m sure they will get to this one in time}

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV.] (PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to get around needing warrants to enter someone’s house. No one is secure.)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]9Does not say citizens. Says accused. Even after being told by the Supreme Court that Gitmo violates this, they have not really done anything. And the Supreme Court today said that governments can take private property for PRIVATE uses. This amendment is eviserated.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI.](Unless the accused resides on Gitmo, or any of the other shadow prisons or is said to be a terrorist.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VII.](INteresting how so many of the amendments have to do with getting a fair trial. Fair trials are the last things they want. Trial by jury does not exist for a whole range of people the Executive branch has made the unilateral decision to imprison.)

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.](I guess you can infict cruel and unusual punishments as long as they are unindicted prisoners on Gitmo. Again, the Consitution does not say these rigths only apply to native born citizens. If the majority really gets to determine who gets these rights or not, then we really are no longer a free country, unless you are part of the majority.)

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.](Unless those rights deal with privacy.)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.](Unless a futile attempt to keep alive a woman in a persistant vegatative state can get more power for the Feds. Then simply ignore state rights when it is convenient. Talk about moral relativism.)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, almost every part of the Bill of Rights is under attack. If these attacks succeed, I guess the terrorists will really have won. Marching backwards seems to be the theme of this Administration.