| Friday,
August 8, 2008 Arrest of
Mexican Nationals
Jerry:
Aside from the fact that many of the Mexican nationals
arrested in the U.S. are not willing to identify themselves as such, as
another of your correspondents noted, if we actually were able to identify
them as such, and the arresting agency called the Mexican consulate to
notify them of each and every such arrest, I suspect that the Mexican
consulates would disconnect their telephones due to the volume of calls.
We spend 8 months of the year in a part of south Texas
we refer to as "Northern Occupied Mexico", and the volume of law enforcement
contacts with illegals is enormous.
Perhaps we should, though, to demonstrate to the
government of Mexico the magnitude of the problem.
Regards, Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk R
An interesting possibility
=========
Source of Ivins envelopes
As a philatelist I would dearly love to know how they know that the
envelopes Ivans used came from the National Laboratories. The envelopes
shown were the Federal Eagle Sc # U646 postal stationary identically
manufactured in the tens of millions if not more for the general public and
not a penalty or permit envelope. If I'm wrong please explain.
R Hunt
P.S. The "insert" key is one hundred times the abomination that the "caps
lock" key is. In fact I kind of like the latter.
I know nothing about the particulars of the
envelopes in question, but it does seem to me that if they are unique to
Fort Dietrich it would take an extraordinarily stupid man to use them in
an attack. Unless, of course, having obtained anthrax strains from
Dietrich, the same unsub (unidentified subject, if you don't watch the FBI
profiling show) also stole envelopes, with the intent of focusing
attention on Dietrich. That seems a bit far fetched, but less so than that
Ivins used envelopes from his own office when he could buy them in any
drug store or stationary house.
===========
Subject: Forbes article on US Energy policy.
Hi Jerry, Forbes recommends that the next president
visits Denmark before drafting the new US energy policy:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/06/denmark-
energy-electricity-biz-energy-cx_wp _0807power.html
Good talk about decentralized generation, but they do
no mention the large contribution of wind energy (20%) nor that Denmark has
quite a lot of oil, which of course helps a lot when talking about energy
independency.
On another note, about the executed US/Mexican
citizen: If the international tribunal decides that the US should stay the
execution, and if your interpretation of the US constitution is correct,
then Texas is bound to stay the execution, as the Texas legal system is
directly bound by higher courts. The Texas execution, has put the US in
direct disregard of international treaties - let's hope that there are no
consequences for US citizens detained abroad. Anyway it illustrates, why
double nationality should not be allowed. When granted US (or any other)
citizenship, you should be required to relinquish any other citizenship you
have, or if that is not allowed by the state which had granted that former
citizenship, then you should sign a declaration relinquishing any right or
protection that could come from such another citizenship, and declaring that
you no longer consider yourself a citizen of that state.
Regards
Bo Andersen
The International Law issue is not so clear.
Apparently there was no claim at the time of the trial. That's entirely
different from a blatant refusal. I am of the opinion that this could have
been handled with a great deal more finesse. I do not like even the
appearance of wanton disregard of International Law.
==========
Culture Keeps Students Out of Science
Dr. Pournelle --
I came across the article below via the National
Review Online and thought it an interesting (perhaps because I tend to
agree) diagnosis of the problem of the US not producing enough advanced
graduates in science and engineering. Since you're working on an essay on
education, I thought you might be interested.
What was so terribly wrong with the educational system
of the 1030's - 1950's ? Certainly it had it's share of problems. There were
gender and racial biases. Yet these were the problems which came from the
society and weren't native to the educational system, a system responsible
for so much technological advancement. How could we have done so much harm
while trying to do good.
Did Dante have a spot for misguided yet
well-intentioned souls? I hope you and Niven have designated something
appropriate.
Pieter
"How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science" by
Peter Wood
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=03hp5gr19z5sb0cdvhtsk5qgp3yhdttf
A couple of quotes so you can see if you want to
spend the time.
"... A century ago, Max Weber wrote of "Science as a
Vocation," and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling to
surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.
At least on the emotional level, contemporary
American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating
children as psychologically fragile beings who fail to learn - and worse,
fail to develop as "whole persons" - if not constantly praised. The
self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for
arduous intellectual ascents aren't among them. ..."
He did indeed, and we deal with such in Escape
From Hell
===========
MIT "Solar Power" Breakthrough
I'm afraid that the MIT "breakthrough" is grossly
overhyped. The only thing that the MIT research has done is to find a way to
reduce the "oxygen overvoltage" at the "oxygen-producing" electrode. All
this does is increase the efficiency of electrolysis somewhat, by decreasing
the total voltage drop across the cell. And it still doesn't solve the
problem of the similar overvoltage at the "hydrogen-producing" electrode. It
does NOTHING for "storage", and NOTHING for "solar energy".
Duane
Pity. We need simple low cost storage devices.
Rooftop Solar makes a lot of sense if you can store the enerby by day.
==========
When your pedicurist is a fish,
Jerry
And now, for something completely different:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/21/america/
NA-US-Fish-Pedicures.php?WT.mc_id=glob_mrktg_
lead&WT.mc_ev=click
Let fish do your pedicure!
Ed
Maybe we aren't in a recession after all
==========
Solzhenitsyn and the Struggle for Russia's Soul,
Jerry
Here is a quick read on the seductions of Communism, Solzhenitsyn's role
in bringing it down, and why Americans didn't like him once he got over
here:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/solzhenitsyn_and_struggle_russias_soul
Salutary.
Ed
==========
More of Dr. Ivins
Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL August 5, 2008
Over the past week the media was gripped by the news
that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as
the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October
2001. ... I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.
Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens.
Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at
the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins
worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the
equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12178929357001
1775.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries>
The remainder of the column focuses on the peculiar
properties of the spores: their size, the coating, and the slight electric
charge and contrasts that with the sort of anthrax that was in use in
Spertzel, was head of the biological-weapons section
of UNSCOM from 1994-99, and a member of the Iraq Survey Group.
I can only say that I have not seen compelling
evidence. There may be some not yet presented. There are, for me, many
unanswered questions. For example: they say that Ivins borrowed
free-drying equipment for his lab, and that's how the stuff got from
liquids to powder: but the powder was very fine and dispersed very well,
and that would not happen if one merely freeze dried liquid cultures.
Making a dispersible powder is, I am told, quite difficult and
complicated, and I cannot believe that it was made in Dietrich without
anyone getting suspicious.
Again perhaps someone will convince me otherwise
but I have not seen one hint to the contrary, and that disturbs me.
============
handy tool
Jerry,
I don’t know if you have ever used the answers.com
tool One Click Answers
http://www.answers.com/main/download_answers_win.jsp
I use this a lot when I am reading through articles on
the internet and I come across a word or phrase that I do not understand.
Today I used it on your site for the words Lycurgus and Fimbulwinter. Your
erudite correspondents make this tool very useful so that when I encounter a
word I do not know all I have do is to hold down the ALT key and click on
the word and the definition pops up on the screen. This saves me from going
to another site and pasting in the unknown word.
You might find it useful.
Thanks,
Bill Billings
VP of Technology
Radiosophy LLC
===========
Rapid onset of Younger Dryas.
<http://portal.gfz-potsdam.de/portal/-
;jsessionid=925FD3D671233C333734
D082A3F26474?$part=CmsPart&$event
=display&docId=2515424&cP
=GFZ.quicksearch>
"And so it was particularly the changes in the wind
force and direction during the winter half-year, which caused the climate to
topple over into a completely different mode within one year after a short
instable phase of a few decades. "
Chris C
==========
More on Kosovo - Problems in
Paradise
Michael J. Totten published an article describing his
experiences on a recent visit to Kosovo. What he saw is astounding.
An Israeli in Kosovo
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
archives/2008/08/an-israeli-in-k.php
I posted, and gushed over, Michael Totten's report
from Kosovo.
But there are problems in paradise. Here is a
different look at the situation and Albanian "Islam". Those who are now
pretty much MINOs historically exhibit a drift back to the extremism that is
inherent in the religion. This full article (I suggest a click through) is
very important as a supplement to Michael J. Totten's astonishment during
his trip to Kosovo and environs. Read BOTH sets of remarks if you want to
understand what's going on. MINO is what they are, today.
Robert points out rather definitively the problems in
the Kosovo paradise. This is also very much a pair of follow the links
articles.
"We are Muslims, but not really" "http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022114.php"
Jihad in Kosovo: a Response to Critics "http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022115.php"
{^_^}
=============
This was inevitable when
Americans allowed the critical book publishing industry to be taken over
by foreigners without our Constitutional protections or traditions.
-- Neil
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001-0EwB0S1pAsX9kfu5Sl
-SbmkqtHnQdjq4CAlbymh_nJzMZSY
gSFHqLzpyTjACpM6Os7Qt9hzRvgMB6F
w8EXWp3gmqdyzqCNsYMgwan6q3UBOJbQCkm8dvA==>
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3716/3/0/%2a
/f%3B205377135%3B0-0%3B1%3B17070298%3B31-
1/1%3B25997165/26015019/2%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%
3Bseg1%3D10018%3Btype%3Dsponsor%3Bsz%3D1x1%3B
articleID%3DUSN0736008820080807%3Btaga%3Daaaaaaaa
a%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/bd/1%3B%7Esscs%3D%
3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/SFI/go/mltxxeps005
0000064sfi/direct/01/1977506>
Random House pulls novel on Islam, fears violence
Thu Aug 7, 2008 6:39pm EDT
By Edith Honan
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Publisher Random House has
pulled a novel about the Prophet Mohammed's child bride, fearing it could
"incite acts of violence."
"The Jewel of Medina," a debut novel by journalist
Sherry Jones, 46, was due to be published on August 12 by Random House, a
unit of Bertelsmann AG, and an eight-city publicity tour had been
scheduled, Jones told Reuters on Thursday.
The novel traces the life of A'isha from her
engagement to Mohammed, when she was six, until the prophet's death. Jones
said that she was shocked to learn in May, that publication would be
postponed indefinitely.
"I have deliberately and consciously written
respectfully about Islam and Mohammed ... I envisioned that my book would
be a bridge-builder," said Jones.
Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a
statement the company received "cautionary advice not only that the
publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim
community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small,
radical segment."
"In this instance we decided, after much
deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author,
employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be
involved in distribution and sale of the novel," Perry said.
Jones, who has just completed a sequel to the novel
examining her heroine's later life, is free to sell her book to other
publishers, Perry said.
The decision has sparked controversy on Internet
blogs and in academic circles. Some compared the controversy to previous
cases where portrayals of Islam were met with violence.
Protests and riots erupted in many Muslim countries
in 2006 when cartoons, one showing the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban
resembling a bomb, appeared in a Danish newspaper. At least 50 people were
killed and Danish embassies attacked.
British author Salman Rushdie's 1988 book "The
Satanic Verses" was met with riots across the Muslim world. Rushdie was
forced into hiding for several years after Iran's then supreme religious
leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, proclaimed a death edict, or fatwa,
against him.
Jones, who has never visited the Middle East, spent
several years studying Arab history and said the novel was a synthesis of
all she had learned.
"They did have a great love story," Jones said of
Mohammed and A'isha, who is often referred to as Mohammed's favorite wife.
"He died with his head on her breast."
(Editing by Alan Elsner)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users
may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own
personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of
Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters.
Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of
the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an
Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of
relevant interests.
I don't think this is a First Amendment case. I
agree it is serious, but I don't know what to do about it.
Niven and I had some material in Escape From Hell
that was quite good and belonged there but our editors pointed out that
this was dangerous to both publishers and book sellers; and they didn't
want to be responsible for people being harmed. In the Salmon Rushdie days
the publishers were in a real dilemma, with letter bombs being sent to
their mail rooms.
It is a matter of great concern, but I am not at
all sure what to do about it. Short of ethnic cleansing bu profiling in
the United States, I know of no effective remedies.
Suggestions would be welcome; but to tell
publishers that they have an obligation to publish materials that are
nearly guaranteed to cause riots, bombing of consulates, letter bombs to
publishers, and bombings in book stores is beyond the power of the
government. Some publishers choose to do so.
=============
National Security Space Office
Interim Report on Space Based Solar Power
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
I've come across a report that might interest your
readership. I doubt anything in it will surprise you. A quick search of your
website indicates that you have not published anything on the topic. Seems
that the National Security Space Office has been studying Space Based Solar
Power. Key findings from their Interim Assessment Report reproduced below:
The study attempted to answer the following question:
"Can the United States and partners enable the
development and deployment of a space‐based solar power system within the
first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed could provide
affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, and expandable energy for
its consumers?"
It identifies the following overarching themes
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that space‐based
solar power does present a strategic opportunity that could significantly
advance US and partner security, capability, and freedom of action and
merits significant further attention on the part of both the US Government
and the private sector.
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that while
significant technical challenges remain, Space‐Based Solar Power is more
technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors
promise to further improve its viability. A government‐led proof‐of‐concept
demonstration could serve to catalyze commercial sector development.
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a
coordinated national program with high‐level leadership and resourcing
commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of fusion energy
research or International Space Station construction and operations.
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that should the U.S.
begin a coordinated national program to develop SBSP, it should expect to
find that broad interest in SBSP exists outside of the US Government,
ranging from aerospace and energy industries; to foreign governments such as
Japan, the EU, Canada, India, China, Russia, and others; to many individual
citizens who are increasingly concerned about the preservation of energy
security and environmental quality While the best chances for development
are likely to occur with US Government support, it is entirely possible that
SBSP development may be independently pursued elsewhere without U.S.
leadership.
• Certain key questions about Space‐Based Solar Power
were not answerable with adequate precision within the time and resource
limitations of this interim study, and form the agenda for future action (a
complete description of these questions can be found in Appendix A – Space
Based Solar Power Design Considerations and Tradeoffs). The fundamental
tasks/questions are:
o Identification of clear targets for economic
viability in markets of interest o Identification of technical development
goals and a roadmap for retiring risk o Selection of the best design trades
o Full design and deployment of a meaningful demonstrator
It makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation #1: The study group recommends that the
U.S. Government should organize effectively to allow for the development of
SBSP and conclude analyses to resolve remaining unknows
Recommendation #2: The study group recommends that the
U.S. Government should retire a major portion of the technical risk for
business development
Recommendation #3: The study group recommends that the
U.S. Government should create a facilitating policy, regulatory, and legal
environment for the development of SBSP
Recommendation #4: The study group recommends that the
U.S. Government should become an early demonstrator/adopter/customer of SBSP
and incentivize its development
The entire Interim Assessment Report is available
here:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm <http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm>
V/R Andy Presby
We had this in mail a month or so ago, but it's
well worth returning to. SSTO is a very practical sustainable energy
source. We can afford it; and we have the technology. It needs
development, but there are no scientific breakthroughs needed.
The first step would be SSX. The next would be a
good TSTO X project.
===========
And Greg Cochran has a different view on Ivins:
letters from Florida
We have no reason to believe that any letters
containing anthrax were mailed from Florida. As far as we can tell, all were
mailed from the same place in New Jersey. Of course a couple of letters were
not preserved and we know of them only by their effects. The first letters
were postmarked on Sept 18th, the second set on October 9. There were little
physical defects in the letters that limited them to a few possible post
offices in Maryland and Virginia, including one right next to Fort Detrick.
The second set of anthrax letters contained purer
anthrax, but it looks as if they were not weaponized in any special way, no
special coating or anything. A lot of outside people talked about that and
eventually many people had the impression that it was known to be true: it
looks as if that's all wrong. Some people were real students of this case
had this clear in their minds a long time ago. In fact, if it didn't come
from some foreign military program, and if it didn't come straight from an
illegal US military program, it was certain _not_ to be highly weaponized.
The FBI understood that a foreign provenance (from
some state with sophisticated military anthrax) was very unlikely, because
infuriating the United States is suicidal, a lot like shooting Superman's
dog. The Administration appears not to understand that suicidal attacks from
small states are not in the cards.
The case evolved over time . In early days, the FBI
came to the conclusions that it was probably someone connected to anthrax
research, probably someone who didn't really intend to kill anyone. That was
logical and now looks to be correct - but the pool of potential perps was
moderately large. It looks as if the FBI stumbled onto a false positive,
Hatfill, and fixated on him, as people will. He wasn't a perfect match,
being a virologist rather than an anthrax guy. The FBI investigation may
have been complicated by Ivin's role as a scientific adviser/helper: he
lied. For example when they asked for a sample of his main anthrax culture,
he gave them something else, as later determined. Anyhow, in principle even
cultures that been separated for fairly small times should evolve small
genetic differences. In 2002 you couldn't easily scan those differences: but
our gene-sequencing tech was improving very rapidly. After two or three
years, were were able to sequence the anthrax (a number of samples and
potential matches) in sufficient detail to determine that a single substrain
was responsible, the substrain in Ivin's lab. Others had access, but the FBI
(it says) has eliminated them as suspects. For example people in distant
places wouldn't have had those particular letters available. Or maybe you
could show that they had an alibi for Sept 17th, etc.
It looks to me as if this significantly shrank the
suspect pool. For example, they found that Hatfill had quit the lab before
that particular culture was created, clearing him. I've seen some people out
on the Internet saying that those advances in sequencing speed (by orders of
magnitude) only made things easier and faster. Well, they don't understand:
that quantitative speedup made a qualitative change in what could be done.
At this point it looks as they ruled out Hatfill
scientifically by early 2005 but didn't stop harassing him until late 2006,
when the head of the FBI replaced the leaders of the investigation and told
the new boys to re-examine the case. Naturally, in a better world than our,
the FBI should have dropped Hatfield as a suspect the _second_ that the
scientific evidence ruled him out, but you know how most people cling to
their pet theories even when _every_ piece of scientific evidence is against
them. And they hate admitting that they're wrong. The FBI started looking at
people connected to this particular anthrax culture, and of course it's in
Ivins lab.
Nobody at Fort Detrick seems to have known that Ivins
was deeply crazy (for example, he was talking to his shrink about poisoning
some soccer player if she lost the game back in 2000 - enough to get the
shrink to call in the cops). The FBI, pointed in a new direction, did all
the FBI things and found that Ivins had been lying to them, gradually found
that he was crazy as a bedbug. They found that he put in a bunch of
unexplained and atypical late hours in the labs the weekend before the first
batch of mailings, they found that he took Sept 17th off (which easily
allows for a drive to Jersey and back): they found a similar clump of late
hours before the second set of mailings. They could not prove that he'd been
to New Jersey on the 17th, but as long as he didn't use a credit card for
gas or get pulled over, there's no way that they could have. I've seen
people wondering how he could manage to get anthrax in a spillproof
container and then get it in sealed envelopes, but that's silly - the guy
worked with anthrax every day. He knew how to handle it. And driving to New
Jersey (about 200 miles each way) hardly requires a second conspirator,
particularly since Ivins took almost all of Sept 17th off. He had the
Columbus Day weekend for the later letters.
It seems that although crazy people are not supposed
to work on super-dangerous military stuff, the system expected them to
either be obviously crazy or self-identify and ask for help. I can believe
it - I certainly ran into a couple of mentally ill people in defense work. I
believe that things are tighter in some other slots - for example, friends
tell me that the Feds work really hard at having sane captains of missile
submarines.
Out on the net, I've seen people saying that the case
would have had trouble in court. For example, they say that the microbial
forensics part is new and would have been effectively criticized by a
defense attorney. Likely, since no lawyer, judge, or juror would understand
any of it. Of course that's a lawyer argument - has nothing to do with facts
or truth. We have colleagues saying that Ivins hadn't seemed like a crazed
murderer to them. Well, I doubt if anyone on the suspect list _did_ seem a
like a crazed murderer to their colleagues if they had, they'd have been
fired and/or locked in the booby hatch a long time ago. But it had to be
someone on the list, someone with access to this particular culture. Anyhow
we know of plenty of examples of psychopaths who managed to hide it. Along
the same lines, I've seen people ask how someone could be crazy enough to do
this and sane enough to do it fairly carefully. I think they should ask the
Unabomber: plenty smart ( math Ph.D. from Berkeley), very careful in his
bomb-making, but quite crazy.
Next: people on the net don't like this explanation.
Some want it to have been Iraq: but we know that's wrong, since they for
sure didn't have that substrain of anthrax. And it never made any sense:
they're not suicidal. Some want it to involve more than one person, but
there's nothing in the case that requites more than one person, unless you
think the skillsets of (A. knowing a lot about anthrax) and (B. being able
to drive a car) are disjoint. It's worth remembering that mailing anthrax to
people is crazy: craziness is rare, and it's easier to find one crazy person
than two or more. Occam's razor says no.
And some want to blame the Administration: they must
have cooked this up to jinn up support for the Iraq war. Well, it _did_
increase support for the invasion of Iraq, and for crap like Homeland
Security. But that doesn't mean that the Administration did it, any more
than they caused 9-11. It's my judgment that it would have very hard to do
such a thing without someone leaking, and that the vast majority of people
in the Administration would hate to do it: for one thing, it's a death
penalty offense. Now I know that they're not above lying and forgery (some
of them), and that they have next to no sense, support aggressive war, some
are traitors, and that many high-ranking individuals, including the
President, are for all practical purposes as dumb as a box of rocks, but I
don't think the Administration-conspiracy angle makes any sense or has any
likelihood.
I could listen to someone arguing that the FBI just
randomly picked another guy to persecute after their Hatfill mistake, or
maybe even made a more-defensible mistake of some kind, but I doubt it. I
suspect that they were more careful after Hatfill, which can't have done the
key investigator's careers any good, and I think they had much better
evidence and, as it turns out, a much better suspect.
I think that 9-11 actually played a key causal role in
this: I think it sent Ivins over the edge. Admittedly he was a lot closer to
the edge than most of us, likely hanging on by his fingertips. I'll bet that
he cooked the whole thing up between 9-11 and 9-17: he was the sort of guy
who could do that. I don't think he intended to kill anyone, just to stoke
anthrax research. 9-11 drove him crazy: but then it drove most of the
country crazy. A good fraction of the country is _still_ crazy,
unfortunately.
Gregory Cochran
My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I
thought the Florida letter was mailed in Florida. I am willing to be
convinced otherwise.
I am also willing to be convinced that it was
Ivins all the time and all the way, but that still leaves a number of
important questions, including that a homicidal maniac was a key player in
our top secret labs; and that the FBI can't tell the difference between
Hatfill, who tends to emphasize his importance, and Ivins, who if this is
true was pretty well nuts to begin with and went even further over the
edge over 9/11.
And I do not believe that simply freeze drying
anthrax cultures will result in a powder that disperses easily. I admit I
am way out of my depth here, but making powders disperse has always been
-- I am told -- a rather difficult thing to do, and something I don't see
anyone doing in a national lab without someone noticing.
You are likely to know more about this than I do.
I had to administer a couple of Cold War contracts in CBR but I tooled up
for the job and have forgotten about all I knew.
As to a good part of the country still mad as
hatters I can't disagree; but I take that as a given in a Republic.
==
New Details Show Anthrax Suspect Away On Key Day,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703443.html
I wrote a note to a New York Times reporter asking
about the Florida angle of this story only to be ignored.
Sue
In his defense, by necessity I have to "ignore" a
good half of my actual mail (as opposed to Spam)
=========
Speaking for freedom
"Just as I can't buy sudafed without hassles. Minor
inconvenience to the drug makers. Make all of us pay. Is there anyone left
to speak for freedom?"
The short answer is 'yes', lots of people SPEAK for
freedom. No one more than the politicians hell bent on wiping out the last
visages of freedom. The problem arises if someone loses it and begins to
behave as if they actually HAD freedom (defined loosely as the prevailing
conditions when I was a kid). Those people will be warned (maybe) once. If
they persist, they will be killed. The average, ordinary people who speak
for freedom, even if only quietly, to their most trusted friends, are aware
of this fact and behave accordingly.
Bob Ludwick
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
