Fright Night and the Polls.

Whoever decided that election day should be held in the first week of November had a very cynical sense of humor. If the prospect of change in the political realm isn't frightening enough for many people, the celebration of the darker side of life that occurs on the weekend before the polls open should help raise anxiety levels. I have always loved Halloween. The holiday is the one throwback to the wild Pagan festivals that history suggests were so much fun. From early childhood I have learned to expect the offering of either tricks or treats. There is the sense that anything is possible. The same dynamic applies to politics. Strong opinions abound, and some will find their hopes met, while others will find them thwarted.

So in the spirit of this special day, I'd like to ask the reader about what they fear most on this coming Tuesday. It should come as no surprise that voters all along the spectrum have plenty of nightmare scenarios to choose from. Obviously they range from the realistic to the perverse. For some reason this cycle has presented us with an inordinate amount of speculation regarding worst-case situations, regardless of who wins the presidency. From my biased position, I would suggest that the McCain campaign has worked harder to stoke fears on their side. Like it or not, he occupies the establishment position during this contest, and so he has been forced to paint his opposition as the manifestation of particularly scary change.

Some of the predictions emanating from the Far Right are so breathless that they seem absurd. I've seen and heard multiple accounts of how Barack Obama will change the United States into a Socialist Republic. He'll make rich people cede their wealth to welfare recipients, and no one will have any incentive to make money anymore. Among the Christian Right, a common sentiment is that the Senator from Illinois will reveal his secretly-held devotion to Islam and make Christianity illegal forever hereafter. The Christian Reformationist Dr. James Dobson (founder and leader of Focus on the Family) predicts "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" for Christians if Obama becomes president.

Interestingly, religious leaders have also been enflaming the fears of Jews who are still undecided about who to vote for. They have made repeated attempts to link Obama to supposed "associates" who have been perceived as vehemently anti-Israel. No matter how many times the candidate has reasserted his support for our Middle Eastern ally, wingnuts like "Joe the (Tax-Dodging) Plumber" continue to issue grave and unfounded warnings. Obviously such tools of the Republican Party get their marching orders from the top. John McCain's fear-based politics have been intentionally crafted to bring out the very worst paranoid delusions in his followers. I could fill up at least a hundred posts with more examples.


Even if John McCain were to mount an increasingly unlikely comeback, some of his supporters fear a widespread uprising and riots among African-Americans. On the opposite side, McCain's detractors worry that the Arizona senator might die in office, leaving the nation in the hands of his singularly unqualified running mate. Others are afraid that he will signal his approval for Israeli air attacks on Iran, which would likely lead to World War III. My own horror involves McCain prevailing and giving an acceptance speech that culminates with him tearing his own leathery face off, only to reveal that he is actually George W. Bush. Finally, the only prospect of an Obama presidency that provokes my anxiety is the small minority that may wish him harm.

Anthrax Case Closed? Nope.

So it appears (from recent media coverage) that the long-standing mystery of the anthrax letters has been solved. I actually made a post about this matter right around the five year anniversary of the attacks (December 2006). I wrote about the way those events affected me at the time, and what I saw as a distinct lack of coverage of the crimes in the US media. For awhile the FBI justified their lack of progress on the case by explaining how difficult it was to trace the source of this biological weapon. That in itself was problematic, but the failure to tie the incidents in to the "War on Terror" was interesting. I wondered then just how much they did know about who had manufactured and distributed the anthrax. There seemed to be a lot more to the story then we knew.

One reader who left a comment on my blog pointed out that federal prosecutors had initiated grand jury hearings related to the letters (as of, once again, December of 2006). That meant that the FBI did indeed have some serious suspects as of two years ago. Interestingly, Senator Chuck Grassley said back then that he was bothered by the fact that Congress had not received a briefing about the ongoing investigation in over three years. He maintained that it was the right of the legislative branch to hear whatever relevant information had turned up. So the reality was that whatever was known about this case remained buried and out-of-sight, not just for the American citizenry, but for our elected federal lawmakers as well.

Now we are told that the lead suspect in the case has killed himself. Dr. Bruce Ivins worked for the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick*, Maryland. He was employed as a microbiologist for 35 years, and had been working on an anthrax vaccine. In fact he was such a noted expert that he actually participated in helping the FBI investigate the tainted envelopes from 2001. Reportedly authorities are looking into whether Ivins initiated the crimes in order to profit from patents he developed at the laboratory. This chain of reasoning has Ivins causing a panic that results in huge profits reaped by the resultant rush to stock up on anthrax vaccine. The main flaw in this logic is that federal-funded researchers do not retain control of patents that they file for while in the employ of the government. I would assume that Ivins was well aware of the laws pertaining to his workplace.

Bruce Ivins turned up dead on July 29th after presumably overdosing on pain-killers. It is said that he was clinically depressed, and that his condition was exacerbated by the knowledge that the federal government intended to indict him and seek the death penalty for his supposed crimes**. Of course his passing allows the FBI to declare the case closed without having to go to trial with their evidence. It's a done deal, right? They caught the guy, threatened him, and he subsequently offed himself. Dead men tell no tales, and so the trail will remain forever cold. But what are the chances that there were others involved, or that Bruce Ivins was framed? A short internet search exposes plenty of outstanding questions.

This opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Spertzel is an interesting read. If you are wondering about Spertzel's qualifications for casting doubt on the FBI, it should be noted that he served as the head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, and was a member of the Iraq Survey Group. This dude is no garden variety journalist. And he's claiming that Bruce Ivins would have been incapable of developing the strain of anthrax used in the 2001 letters. In fact he points out that the disciplines and technologies required were beyond the capability of the Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He even points out that the FBI tried to "reverse engineer" the anthrax sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy... but they failed in 12-18 months worth of attempts. That makes their suspicions of Ivins rather suspect, no?


* What is it with Fort Detrick and the apparent suicides of civilian scientists doing clandestine research?? Have you heard of the strange story of Frank Olson?


**An odd bit of trivia in this case is that Ivins maintained his security clearance until July 1oth of this year. If it's true that he'd been considered as a suspect since 2002 (as the FBI claims), then why was he able to retain his privileges in a laboratory containing biological specimens that could devastate the American public in the wake of 9-11? Very curious indeed.

Addendum: (added 8/6) Apparently Bruce Ivins was a registered Democrat since 1982, which makes the "official version" of the anthrax attacks even stranger. Why would someone with such political affiliations target only politicians and media outlets with a "perceived liberal bias" ?

The JFK Assasination... Again?

When I was a kid I never was much of a reader. Of course I picked up and digested comic books quite often. I also remember enjoying a pulpy series of novels about Vietnam called the Chopper series. My literary life was indeed severely limited by my own choice. Instead I was physically active- pretty much the opposite of the way I am now. But I do remember being so captivated by a certain subject in ninth grade that I actually spent time in my high school library of my own volition. It was then that I discovered the Kennedy assassination conspiracy.

It should have been predictable that I was drawn to such macabre material. Even then I was enthralled with subjects of mystery. There were some surefire ways of getting my attention- all you had to do was bring up the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts or alien abductions. All these. of course, were phenomena that were outside the purview of the natural sciences. As I've mentioned before, I was not the kind of kid that was drawn to the conventional authority opinion about life. The stranger the better- I wanted to make up my own mind about things.

So I have a vivid memory of poring over trade paperbacks, examining photos of head wounds, eyewitness testimony, and diagrams reconstructing Dealey Plaza and the Book Depository. I was obsessed with enigmatic terms associated with the case- the Grassy Knoll and the Zapruder Film. I read all I could find about the "lone gunman", and delved into the mystery of the "multiple Oswalds". I was fascinated by Jack Ruby, who forever sealed the secret that Lee Harvey Oswald harbored. Somehow I though that if I could just read emough about it, I could find the missing piece, and forever end the rampant confusion as to the true nature of what happened in Dallas. I would identify the escaped killers- whether it be the CIA, the Mafia, the Russians, or Cuban exiles.

As time went on, I eventually got caught up in other things. But every once in awhile I would return to the JFK enigma. In 1991, when I was in college, speculation exploded through pop culture, as controversial director Oliver Stone released his movie JFK. The country once again became divided over the true import of the tragedy. Many were comfortable with the establishment version of the Warren Commission. Meanwhile many viewers were convinced that there must be something else to discover about the events. Others (like me) experienced a reawakening of interest in the whole story. For many who weren't even alive in 1963, it was an exciting time. Stone rallied the voices of an increasing number who wanted more answers. But the media and the government branded the director a delusional loony-toon, and excoriated him on national television. Somehow the term "conspiracy" started sounding like something only a paranoid schizophrenic would believe in. In fact it is still used in politics to silence dissenters, no matter the issue.

But listening to Fresh Air on NPR today, I got the impression that we may be revisiting the JFK assassination yet again. The guest was Salon.com founder David Talbot. He is releasing a book called Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, and it is likely to cause more discomfort to the establishment. Apparently he has found ample evidence that Robert Kennedy himself never believed in the "Lone Nut" theory, even though he publicly supported the findings of the Warren Commission. Talbot says that the younger Kennedy actually began his own campaign of investigation to find the truth. The plan was to run for the presidency and put the full weight of the executive department behind exposing the plot. Evidently RFK believed that the federal government was divided during the administration of his sibling, and that a conspiracy was hatched that included the Mafia and highly-placed CIA operatives who were mortified by JFK's "abandonment" of Cuba.

There will be many who discount the new revelations with the admonition that dredging up the controversy once again will have a negative effect on the nation and its government. While this is potentially true, I think it's imperative to seek out the authentic history of these formative events. The subsequent direction and development of the country may be better understood through a clean lens. The only reason to bury new information is to hide from our reality. Obviously the final chapter of JFK's killing has not yet been written.