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.