Podcast Omega: Single Payer Health Care: An Hour-long Special

The 24th and last podcast of the Broadcaster At-Large series is a special on single-payer health care featuring Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program (pnhp.org) and the Baucus 8. Although the Greater Health Insurance Industry Profits Act of 2010 has been passed, it should not be the final word in health care, so download and distribute this program widely. You will find it on the left sidebar.

I am leaving podcasting to turn my attention to writing a book and seeking better health by not being so angry at world events. (High blood pressure is one of several stress-related ailments I have).  It is very obvious after 11 years in journalism,  that I am not the opinion shaper I had hoped to become. Quite frankly, with little feedback, little other evidence of listenership and only one small donation since I began this podcast series, it is not worth the stress to continue. Bigger than me, e.g. Paul Craig Roberts, have called it quits. No sense my continuing to report to deaf ears. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting a different result. Whatever is wrong with me, insanity is NOT one of my problems.

Good luck to those who are choosing to carry on in the face of corporatism, ultra-conservative demagoguery, fear-mongering, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, militarism, etc. etc. coupled with a lack of will on the part of allegedly progressive public officials to fight  for what they truly believe in. (Yes, Kucinich, Grayson and Sanders, I mean you). The lassitude of most Americans and the often outright obstruction by the lily-livered left at a time when similar economic and political conditions have put people of other countries into the streets until the government fell, is the most disgusting and discouraging part of the struggle.

I have had enough!

Just remember, as you get tossed out of your foreclosed home, or censored and even arrested for speaking out for peace or universal  health care or anything else the elites don't want us to have,  that I was one of the ones who told you early on that 911 was an inside job. We got here from there.

The Woman Who Just Might Save the Planet and Our Pocketbooks

By Fran Korten and Elinor Ostrom, YES! Magazine
Posted on March 14, 2010, Printed on March 15, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145889/

For one thing, she is the first woman to receive the prize. Her Ph.D. is in political science, not economics (though she minored in economics, collaborates with many economists, and considers herself a political economist). But what makes this award particularly special is that her work is about cooperation, while standard economics focuses on competition.
Ostrom’s seminal book, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, was published in 1990. But her research on common property goes back to the early 1960s, when she wrote her dissertation on groundwater in California. In 1973 she and her husband, Vincent Ostrom, founded the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University. In the intervening years, the Workshop has produced hundreds of studies of the conditions in which communities self-organize to solve common problems. Ostrom currently serves as professor of political science at Indiana University and senior research director of the Workshop. 

Fran Korten, YES! Magazine’s publisher, spent 20 years with the Ford Foundation making grants to support community management of water and forests in Southeast Asia and the United States. She and Ostrom drew on one another’s work as this field of knowledge developed. Fran interviewed her friend and colleague Lin Ostrom shortly after Ostrom received the Nobel Prize.

Meria Heller on Broadcaster At-Large!

Meria Heller, author, teacher, painter, business and life consultant and host of The Meria Show, the Internet's long running podcast (10 years) is the guest for the 02-19-10 podcast. It's on the left side of this page, Give it a listen and comeback next week for part 2.

Results of Jan 30 "Water into Wine" Experiment

by Lynne McTaggart

I’ve just heard back from psychologist Dr. Gary Schwartz, director of the Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Healing, and his chief lab technician Mark Boccuzzi, both at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. They have just finished analyzing the results of our historic January 30 Water into Wine Experiment, which I want to share with you.
Like all science, even the simplest experiments take a good deal of planning and many steps to carry them out. Here’s how we did it, and here’s what happened.

Corporate Personhood Should Be Banned, Once and For All

Published on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

Outrageous SCOTUS Decision Should Reignite Most Necessary of Debates

by Ralph Nader

Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations. With this decision, corporations can now also draw on their corporate treasuries and pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.

This corporatist, anti-voter decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a Constitutional Amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is indeed time for a Constitutional amendment to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the civic and political voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow “King Corporation” and restore the sovereignty of “We the People”!
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel -  is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

MLK wasn't an athlete, but he understood importance of sports

By Dave Zirin

Print this article

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dave_zirin/01/18/mlk/index.html?section=si_latest
One thing about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: the man understood sports.

I don't mean that King was any kind of a star athlete. The only sport that the young, roundish "Mike" King was known to excel at was pocket billiards, which isn't exactly a sport (the golden rule: anything that you can gain weight or smoke cigarettes while doing is not a sport). But Dr. King understood with remarkable acuity the political and symbolic power of sports. He understood that the athletic field -- and athletes -- could be a powerful megaphone for civil rights and racial justice. 

Martin Luther King: We Are Not Interested in Being Integrated into This Value Structure

By Raj on 01/18/2010 in Uncategorized, featured

 

It’s Martin Luther King Day here in the US. We celebrate it by giving banks a holiday, and letting working people get overtime. The Martin Luther King who’ll be on our screens is a memory filtered of its radical light. Particularly in his later life, King had a sharp diagnosis about how the evils of militarism, racism and poverty had a root cause. That cause? Capitalism. Will we hear about that on CNN, from the President, on the news? Not likely.

IMF to Haiti: Freeze Public Wages

posted by Richard Kim on 01/15/2010 @ 5:47pm

Since a devastating earthquake rocked Haiti on Tuesday--killing tens of thousands of people--there's been a lot of well-intentioned chatter and twitter about how to help Haiti. Folks have been donating millions of dollars to Wyclef Jean's Yele Haiti (by texting "YELE" to 501501) or to the Red Cross (by texting "HAITI" to 90999) or to Paul Farmer's extraordinary Partners in Health, among other organizations. I hope these donations continue to pour in, along with more money, food, water, medicine, equipment and doctors and nurses from nations around the world. The Obama administration has pledged at least $100 million in aid and has already sent thousands of soldiers and relief workers. That's a decent start.

But it's also time to stop having a conversation about charity and start having a conversation about justice--about recovery, responsibility and fairness. What the world should be pondering instead is: What is Haiti owed?

Haiti's vulnerability to natural disasters, its food shortages, poverty, deforestation and lack of infrastructure, are not accidental. To say that it is the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere is to miss the point; Haiti was made poor--by France, the United States, Great Britain, other Western powers and by the IMF and the World Bank.

Now, in its attempts to help Haiti, the IMF is pursuing the same kinds of policies that made Haiti a geography of precariousness even before the quake. To great fanfare, the IMF announced a new $100 million loan to Haiti on Thursday. In one crucial way, the loan is a good thing; Haiti is in dire straits and needs a massive cash infusion. But the new loan was made through the IMF's extended credit facility, to which Haiti already has $165 million in debt. Debt relief activists tell me that these loans came with conditions, including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage and keeping inflation low. They say that the new loans would impose these same conditions. In other words, in the face of this latest tragedy, the IMF is still using crisis and debt as leverage to compel neoliberal reforms.

For Haiti, this is history repeated. As historians have documented, the impoverishment of Haiti began in the earliest decades of its independence, when Haiti's slaves and free gens de couleur rallied to liberate the country from the French in 1804. But by 1825, Haiti was living under a new kind of bondage--external debt. In order to keep the French and other Western powers from enforcing an embargo, it agreed to pay 150 million francs in reparations to French slave owners (yes, that's right, freed slaves were forced to compensate their former masters for their liberty). In order to do that, they borrowed millions from French banks and then from the US and Germany. As Alex von Tunzelmann pointed out, "by 1900, it [Haiti] was spending 80 percent of its national budget on repayments."

It took Haiti 122 years, but in 1947 the nation paid off about 60 percent, or 90 million francs, of this debt (it was able to negotiate a reduction in 1838). In 2003, then-President Aristide called on France to pay restitution for this sum--valued in 2003 dollars at over $21 billion. A few months later, he was ousted in a coup d'etat; he claims he left the country under armed pressure from the US.

Then of course there are the structural adjustment policies imposed by the IMF and World Bank in the 1990s. In 1995, for example, the IMF forced Haiti to cut its rice tariff from 35 percent to 3 percent, leading to a massive increase in rice-dumping, the vast majority of which came from the United States. As a 2008 Jubilee USA report notes, although the country had once been a net exporter of rice, "by 2005, three out of every four plates of rice eaten in Haiti came from the US." During this period, USAID invested heavily in Haiti, but this "charity" came not in the form of grants to develop Haiti's agricultural infrastructure, but in direct food aid, furthering Haiti's dependence on foreign assistance while also funneling money back to US agribusiness.

A 2008 report from the Center for International Policy points out that in 2003, Haiti spent $57.4 million to service its debt, while total foreign assistance for education, health care and other services was a mere $39.21 million. In other words, under a system of putative benevolence, Haiti paid back more than it received. As Paul Farmer noted in our pages after hurricanes whipped the country in 2008, Haiti is "a veritable graveyard of development projects."
So what can activists do in addition to donating to a charity? One long-term objective is to get the IMF to forgive all $265 million of Haiti's debt (that's the $165 million outstanding, plus the $100 million issued this week). In the short term, Haiti's IMF loans could be restructured to come from the IMF's rapid credit facility, which doesn't impose conditions like keeping wages and inflation down.

Indeed, debt relief is essential to Haiti's future. It recently had about $1.2 billion in debt canceled, but it still owes about $891 million, all of which was lent to the country from 2004 onward. $429 million of that debt is held by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), to whom Haiti is scheduled to make $10 million in payments next year. Obviously, that's money better spent on saving Haitian lives and rebuilding the country in the months ahead; the cancellation of the entire sum would free up precious capital. The US controls about 30 percent of the bank's shares; Latin American and Caribbean countries hold just over 50 percent. Notably, the IDB's loans come from its fund for special operations (i.e. the IDB's donor nations and funds from loans that have been paid back), not from IDB's bonds. Hence, the total amount could be forgiven without impacting the IDB's triple-A credit rating.

Finally, although the Obama administration temporarily halted deportations to Haiti, it hasn't granted Haitians temporary protected status (TPS), which would save them from being deported back to the scene of a disaster for as long as 18 months, allow them to work in the US and, crucially, send money back to relatives in Haiti. In the past, TPS has been given to countries like Honduras and Nicaragua in 1998 after Hurrican Mitch, but it has never been extended to Haitians, even after the 2008 storms, presumably because immigrations officials fear a mass exodus from Haiti.

But decency, as well as fairness, should trump those fears now. As Sunita Patel, an attorney with CCR, told me, "We have granted TPS to El Salavador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia and Sudan following natural disasters. To apply different rules here would fly in the face of the administration's efforts to build good will abroad."

(UPDATE: It has just been announced that the Obama administration has granted Temporary Protected Status to Haiti. This is a great relief to Haitians in the US and a victory for those who pressured the administration to do so.)

No Shock Doctine for Haiti (Facebook)

No Shock Doctrine for Haiti (Twitter)

Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack"

By Sheila Casey / Rock Creek Free Press

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.

The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.

Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.

Big Brother: Obama Calls for the Integration of State and Federal Military Forces Executive Order Seeks to "Synchronize and Integrate"

by Tom Burghardt
Global Research, January 17, 2010
Antifascist Calling... - 2010-01-16
In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11. Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency." According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards." "When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities." Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

Glenn Greenwald

January 16, 2010 (updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV) Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."  In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Blackwater before Drinking Water -- Greg Palast on Haiti

- Greg Palast - http://www.gregpalast.com -

The Right Testicle of Hell:
History of a Haitian Holocaust

Posted By Greg Palast On January 17, 2010 @ 12:17 am In Articles | No Comments

Blackwater before drinking water
by Greg Palast for The Huffington Post

Just in!
Our plea to send medicine to a friend's father in Haiti was answered by Democracy Now! producer Sharif Abdel-Kouddous who will make the delivery in Port-au-Prince. Apparently DN, unlike the US government, doesn't require armed "Security" to save lives.

[1] Click on image to enlarge

1.
Bless the President for having rescue teams in the air almost immediately. That was President Olafur Grimsson of Iceland. On Wednesday, the AP reported that the President of the United States promised, "The initial contingent of 2,000 Marines could be deployed to the quake-ravaged country within the next few days." "In a few days," Mr. Obama?

Millions Against Mandates

As of this writing, the "Greater Profits for the Health Insurance Industry Act" has not yet passed. But already people are organizing against the mandate to buy private health insurance contained in  both the Senate and House versions of the act. My radio news story on one such movement, Millions Against Mandates, can be found on the left sidebar.

Squeaky Clean and... More Likely to Get Breast Cancer?

Are you using personal-care and household products that are linked to breast cancer? While cancer experts estimate that 5% to 10% of breast cancers are hereditary (associated with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes), the majority of women who get breast cancer have no family history and no known risk factors for the disease. In an effort to explain the breast cancer epidemic, health experts are looking for clues in the environment... and in the bathrooms, kitchens and pantries of our own homes.

According to medical sociologist Sabrina McCormick, PhD, American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow in the National Center for Environmental Assessment at the Environmental Protection Agency and author of No Family History: The Environmental Links to Breast Cancer, dangerous chemicals found in many of the everyday products we use -- cosmetics, lotions, shampoos, household cleaning products and food packaging -- may be associated with as many as 90% of breast cancer cases.

Scientific Evidence

Dr. McCormick’s theory is based on the association between two parallel trends in the same time frame -- the rise of breast cancer over the past 60 years (from a lifetime risk of one in 22 women in 1940 to one in eight women in 2008) and the mass production and widespread usage of toxic chemicals that occurred during that period. "As more people have been exposed to carcinogenic chemicals, and as they accumulate in their bodies over time, studies show that several different kinds of cancers have emerged -- in particular breast cancer," she said. Throughout her book, Dr. McCormick cites studies that support the link between toxic chemicals and breast cancer -- for example, there is evidence of increased breast cancer risk in the vicinity of polluting facilities. In fact, regional breast cancer rates are highest in the Northeast, which also has the longest history of industrial development and toxic exposure.


Is Estrogen the Culprit?

How do exposures to toxic chemicals raise one’s risk for breast cancer? Estrogen seems to be the common denominator, according to Dr. McCormick, who explained that the more estrogen a woman is exposed to over her lifetime, the higher her risk for breast cancer and other reproductive cancers (such as ovarian and uterine cancer). The "estrogen disruptor hypothesis," which purports that xenoestrogens, chemicals that mimic or disrupt estrogen (found in an abundance of modern-day products), can cause breast cancer is widely accepted in the scientific community. The fact that several of the known risk factors for breast cancer (early onset of menstruation, late menopause, and excess weight) are themselves related to estrogen lends credence to the hypothesis. A number of animal studies provide further support by demonstrating that xenoestrogens cause mammary tissues to grow and also can disrupt sexual and neurological development. In addition to xenoestrogens, other chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens are found in a variety of everyday products and also could raise one’s risk for breast cancer and other cancers.

What Not To Use... 

A wide range of personal-care products, household-cleaning products and food packaging contain chemicals that may cause breast cancer or cancer in general. These have been classified by the Breast Cancer Fund, an environmental health advocacy group, as Animal Mammary Gland Carcinogen (AMGC), Human Carcinogenic Risk Classification (HCRC), known Endocrine Disruptor (ED) and other categories described below. To access the Breast Cancer Fund charts by category, go to http://www.breastcancerfund.org. Following is a list of some of the more worrisome substances ...
Cosmetics and Personal-Care Products

• Parabens, which are chemical preservatives used in cosmetics, deodorants, lotions, ointments and shampoos, are known endocrine disruptors, said Dr. McCormick. While the European Union regulates the use of many parabens in their products, the US does not. (ED)

• Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), which among other purposes is used to make plastics softer, is an ingredient in children’s teething toys, nail polish, perfumes, moisturizers and cleaning solvents. (ED)

• Ethelyne Oxide, a compound that adds fragrance to shampoos. (AMGC, HCRC)

• Dioxane, a compound found in shampoos, body washes and sudsing products. (AMGC, HCRC)

• Petrolatum (PAH), which is what petroleum jelly is made of... also used in lipsticks, lotions and oils. (AMGC, HCRC, ED)

• Formaldehyde, benzene and toluene, all found in nail polish and nail polish removers.
  

• Urethane, found in hair-care products, such as mousses, gels and sprays, and in sunscreens, mascara and foundation. (AMGC, HCRC)

Making matters worse, notes Dr. McCormick, many cosmetics also contain ingredients that act as skin penetrators, which makes it even more likely that these dangerous substances will be absorbed into the skin. Also, beware of products marketed as "youth enhancers" that contain estradiol, estrone or estriol... all forms of estrogen that can be absorbed into the skin that should be used only with medical oversight.

For an up-to-date listing of dangerous cosmetics and personal-care products, visit the Environmental Working Group’s online cosmetic safety database (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com).
Household Products

• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a plastic that leaches phthalates, found in cling wraps, plastic bottles, detergents, window cleaner bottles and vinyl shower curtains. Many houses also contain pipes made of PVC, which is a Carcinogen By-product of Manufacturing (CBM) and Hormone Disruptor (HD).

• Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether, found in floor finish, tile and grout cleaner, and microwave oven cleaners. This substance affects the central nervous system and is a reproductive toxin.

• Nonylphenol Ethoxylate, found in cleaners, degreasers, foaming cleaners, air fresheners, spot and stain treatments and metal polish. (ED)

• Nitrilotriacetic Acid, found in carpet-care products, is classified as a Reasonably Anticipated Carcinogen (RAC).

• Tetrachloroethylene, found in spray polish and laundry spot removers.

Food Packaging

Many food packages and containers are made with compounds that have been linked to breast cancer, most especially when the package is heated...

• Bisphenol A, used in the linings of cans and water bottles. (ED)

• Polystyrene, found in Styrofoam food containers, disposable containers, egg cartons and plastic cutlery. (CBM)

• Polycarbonate, found in plastic water bottles and metal food can liners. (ED)

Consumer Tips

While it may be impossible to avoid all of the products that contain known or suspected breast carcinogens, Dr. McCormick suggests that whenever possible we should use simple, natural personal-care products and buy organic food products to minimize exposure to pesticides and chemicals. She advises using nontoxic cleaning and household products whenever possible, and notes that any household cleaners should be used only in well-ventilated areas. Other precautions include installing a water filter to rid water of contaminants...  and avoiding packaging that uses plastics and plastic derivatives.
Source(s):

Sabrina McCormick, PhD, author of No Family History: The Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (Rowman & Littlefield) is a Fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in the National Center for Environmental Assessment at the Environmental Protection Agency and is an assistant research faculty at the School of Public Health, George Washington University. She was previously a Robert Wood Johnson Health & Society Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania.

US Attacks in Pakistan Killed 700 Civilians in 2009

By The Peninsula.

January 03, 2010 "The Peninsula" -- PESHAWAR: Of the 44 Predator strikes carried out by the American drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan in 12 months of 2009, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of around 700 innocent civilian lives.

According to the figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the Pakistani tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009. For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by the American drones, 140 civilian Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 percent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were innocent civilians.

5 Myths about Keeping America Safe from Terrorism

By Stephen Flynn

January 3, 2010 "Washington Post" -- With President Obama declaring a "systemic failure" of our security system in the wake of the attempted Christmas bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner, familiar arguments about what can and should be done to reduce America's vulnerabilities are again filling the airwaves, editorial pages and blogosphere. Several of these arguments are based on assumptions that guided the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and unfortunately, they are as unfounded now as they were then. The biggest whopper of all? The paternalistic assertion that the government can keep us all safe without our help.
 
1. Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people.
 
Americans are at far greater risk of being killed in accidents or by viruses than by acts of terrorism. In 2008, more than 37,300 Americans perished on the nation's highways, according to government data. Even before H1N1, a similar number of people died each year from the seasonal flu. Terrorism is a real and potentially consequential danger. But the greatest threat isn't posed by the direct harm terrorists could inflict; it comes from what we do to ourselves when we are spooked. It is how we react -- or more precisely, how we overreact -- to the threat of terrorism that makes it an appealing tool for our adversaries. By grounding commercial aviation and effectively closing our borders after the 2001 attacks, Washington accomplished something no foreign state could have hoped to achieve: a blockade on the economy of the world's sole superpower. While we cannot expect to be completely successful at intercepting terrorist attacks, we must get a better handle on how we respond when they happen. 

2. When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a good offense.
 The cornerstone of the Bush administration's approach to dealing with the terrorist threat was to take the battle to the enemy. But offense has its limits. We still aren't generating sufficiently accurate and timely tactical intelligence to adequately support U.S. counterterrorism efforts overseas. And going after terrorists abroad hardly means they won't manage to strike us at home. Just days before the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the United States collaborated with the Yemeni government on raids against al-Qaeda militants there. The group known as al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula is now claiming responsibility for having equipped and trained Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who allegedly tried to blow up the flight. The group is also leveraging the raids to recruit militants and mount protests against Yemen's already fragile central government. 

At the same time, an emphasis on offense has often come at the expense of investing in effective defensive measures, such as maintaining quality watch lists, sharing information about threats, safeguarding such critical assets as the nation's food and energy supplies, and preparing for large-scale emergencies. After authorities said Abdulmutallab had hidden explosives in his underwear, airline screeners held up flights to do stepped-up passenger pat-downs at boarding gates -- pat-downs that inevitably avoided passengers' crotches and buttocks. This kind of quick fix only tends to fuel public cynicism about security efforts. But if we can implement smart security measures ahead of time (such as requiring refineries next to densely populated areas to use safer chemicals when they manufacture high-octane gas), we won't be incapacitated when terrorists strike. Strengthening our national ability to withstand and rapidly recover from terrorism will make the United States a less appealing target. In combating terrorism, as in sports, success requires both a capable offense and a strong defense. 

3. Getting better control over America's borders is essential to making us safer.
 Our borders will never serve as a meaningful line of defense against terrorism. The inspectors at our ports, border crossings and airports have important roles when it comes to managing immigration and the flow of commerce, but they play only a bit part in stopping would-be attackers. This is because terrorist threats do not originate at our land borders with Mexico and Canada, nor along our 12,000 miles of coastline. They originate at home as well as abroad, and they exploit global networks such as the transportation system that moved 500 million cargo containers through the world's ports in 2008. Moreover, terrorists' travel documents are often in perfect order. This was the case with Abdulmutallab, as well as with shoe-bomber Richard Reid in 2001. Complaints about porous borders may play well politically, but they distract us from the more challenging task of forging international cooperation to strengthen safeguards for our global transportation, travel and financial systems. They also sidestep the disturbing fact that the number of terrorism-related cases involving U.S. residents reached a new high in 2009. 

4. Investing in new technology is key to better security.
 Not necessarily. Technology can be helpful, but too often it ends up being part of the problem. Placing too much reliance on sophisticated tools such as X-ray machines often leaves the people staffing our front lines consumed with monitoring and troubleshooting these systems. Consequently, they become more caught up in process than outcomes. And as soon procedures become routine, a determined bad guy can game them. We would do well to heed two lessons the U.S. military has learned from combating insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan: First, don't do things in rote and predictable ways, and second, don't alienate the people you are trying to protect. Too much of what is promoted as homeland security disregards these lessons. It is true that technology such as full-body imaging machines, which have received so much attention in the past week, are far more effective than metal detectors at screening airline passengers. But new technologies are also expensive, and they are no substitute for well-trained professionals who are empowered and rewarded for exercising good judgment. 

5. Average citizens aren't an effective bulwark against terrorist attacks.
 Elite pundits and policymakers routinely dismiss the ability of ordinary people to respond effectively when they are in harm's way. It's ironic that this misconception has animated much of the government's approach to homeland security since Sept. 11, 2001, given that the only successful counterterrorist action that day came from the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93. These passengers didn't have the help of federal air marshals. The Defense Department's North American Aerospace Defense Command didn't intercept the plane -- it didn't even know the airliner had been hijacked. But by charging the cockpit over rural Pennsylvania, these private citizens prevented al-Qaeda terrorists from reaching their likely target of the U.S. Capitol or the White House. The government leaders whose constitutional duty is "to provide for the common defense" were defended by one thing alone -- an alert and heroic citizenry. 

This misconception is particularly reckless because it ends up sidelining the greatest asset we have for managing the terrorism threat: the average people who are best positioned to detect and respond to terrorist activities. We have only to look to the attempted Christmas Day attack to validate this truth. Once again it was the government that fell short, not ordinary people. A concerned Nigerian father, not the CIA or the National Security Agency, came forward with crucial information. And the courageous actions of the Dutch film director Jasper Schuringa and other passengers and crew members aboard Flight 253 thwarted the attack. 

Stephen Flynn is the president of the Center for National Policy and author of "The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation."

Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting

By Jane Merrick

Sunday, 3 January 2010

The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.


The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.

The claims triggered concern that the Prime Minister is over-playing the benefits of such scanners to give the impression he is taking tough action on terrorism.

And experts in the US said airport "pat-downs" – a method used in hundreds of airports worldwide – were ineffective and would not have stopped the suspect boarding the plane.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, allegedly concealed in his underpants a package containing nearly 3oz of the chemical powder PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate). He also carried a syringe containing a liquid accelerant to detonate the explosive.

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.


But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.