Pakistan's War on Afghanistan

Fraser Nelson explains the conflict in The Spectator (UK):

At a recent dinner party in the British embassy in Kabul, one of the guests referred to ‘the Afghan-Pakistan war’. The rest of the table fell silent. This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Even mentioning it in private in the Afghan capital’s green zone is enough to solicit murmurs of disapproval. Few want to accept that the war is widening; that it now involves Pakistan, a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons.

But in fact the military commanders know that they are dealing with far more than just a domestic insurgency. Weapons, men and suicide bombers are flooding in from Pakistan every day. Like it or not, war is being waged on Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Consider the evidence: British forces in Helmand have achieved striking success in repelling the Taleban, but they can never eliminate the enemy entirely because of the constant stream of new recruits flowing over the border from the Pakistani town of Quetta. To Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, head of Taskforce Helmand, it is a source of deep frustration. ‘When pushed out of Helmand, the opportunities are there for the Taleban to recruit, equip and retrain on the other side of the border,’ he told me when I visited two months ago.

In theory, the Pakistani government has signed up to the war on terror and is trying as best it can to help us. But in practice, it is playing a dangerous double game. The Pakistani government, army and intelligence services all have their own distinct reasons for keeping the Taleban in business. The Pakistan army effectively ceded Quetta to the Taleban six years ago, for example, hoping their brutal methods would deal with local Baluchistan separatists...

An Enemy of the People

Last night someone I know and I watched a 1971 production of Henrik Ibsen's drama, An Enemy of the People, now on Netflix. It was pretty good, despite being rated 2.6 stars. I'd give it 4-5 stars, myself. It seemed especially relevant today, when there seems to be a lynch mob mentality abroad in the land on all sides of the political spectrum. Ibsen's play defends an individualist--Dr. Stockman (Robert Urqhart)--who confronts a town about its poisoned spa waters. The entire town turns against him, but he stands firm. His business and family are destroyed. He is persecuted by his own brother. In the BBC version, the location has been moved to Scotland, and there are digs at the 70s-era Labour party as well as the Tories. The hero looks and acts like a member of the Social Democrats, today called Liberal Democrats--traditionally the party of Britain's Chattering Classes. Anyhow, it is an interesting adaptation, especially given the tremendous pressures for everyone to fall into party lines in America these days...

Watching the show reminded me how I had been surprised not long ago, along these lines, while teaching a class about films of the 1950s, when my students overwhelmingly declared they thought Gary Cooper was "stupid" to oppose the mob in Fred Zinneman's classic Western, High Noon. I suppose it may be a result of all the "team-building" and "critical thinking" that American youth have been exposed to, but it made me wonder: What ever happened to American individualism?

Ibsen's play shows that Norwegians faced similar problems a century ago--and Ibsen understood the Quisling mentality well before Quisling.

One other thought, I was lucky to study under producer/director George Schaefer at UCLA film school. He also produced and directed an outstanding 1978 production of An Enemy of the People, starring Steve McQueen. More about that version of the play can be found on The Stop Button.

Glenn Greenwald on the FBI's Anthrax Case

He's not very impressed by the "evidence" released today:

What happened today with this selective document release is akin to a criminal trial where only the Prosecutor is allowed to see the relevant evidence, only the Prosecutor is allowed to select which evidence is presented, and only the Prosecutor speaks. Such a distorted, one-sided process doesn't even happen at Guantanamo, which should, by itself, indicate how much skepticism is warranted here until the FBI makes the actual evidence available so that its claims can be subjected to critical scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Ft. Detrick scientists paid tribute to Bruce Ivins at a memorial service:

"I don’t understand how 250 scientists and soldiers, including the base commander and the commanding general, could be here eulogizing Bruce and the FBI seriously consider him a suspect," Paul Kemp, the suspect's lawyer, says in an e-mail following the service. "In the words of his commander, he was open, sharing, funny and scientifically brilliant."

This is beginning to remind me of the Army-McCarthy hearings. I can just imagine someone like Joseph Welch asking the FBI on national television: "Have you no decency?"

My New Facebook Friend's Book Party

I received this email from Eleanor Herman, a new Facebook Friend:

Hi Everybody!

I wanted to remind you of my DC-area book debut on Tuesday, August 26, at 6:30 pm [at the National Press Club]...

For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church has excluded women from leadership positions . . .

. . . now Eleanor Herman debunks the very core of the Church’s justifications

Mistress of the Vatican
The True Story of Olimpia Maidalchini: The Secret Female Pope
by Eleanor Herman

For a decade in the seventeenth century, a woman ran the Catholic Church. For almost four centuries, this astonishing story of a woman’s rise to absolute power over the Vatican has been successfully covered up - until now.

Her name was Olimpia Maidalchini, and through her brother-in-law --and reputed lover-- Pope Innocent X (reigned 1644-1655) she governed the most powerful institution on the face of the Earth. Cardinals and royalty bowed down to her as she made international policy, waged war, patronized Rome’s greatest baroque artists, and stuffed her pockets with Vatican gold.

History at its most exciting, MISTRESS OF THE VATICAN is full of eccentric characters, outrageous situations, and the magnificence and brutality of a bygone age. It brings to life shocking Church traditions – nepotism; corruption; conclaves that leaked like sieves; and servants who routinely plundered the rooms of a dying pontiff, sometimes leaving him naked and decomposing on the floor.

Eleanor Herman – the bestselling author of Sex With the Queen and Sex With Kings - is an engaging, entertaining, and authoritative writer who has hosted shows for The History Channel and National Geographic. To research MISTRESS OF THE VATICAN, she delved into Italian archives for original letters and diplomatic dispatches, discovered Olimpia’s birthplace, and visited her numerous palaces.

What she discovered was fascinating. The widowed sister-in-law of the indecisive Pope Innocent X Olimpia was presumed to be the pope’s mistress. Regardless of whether or not this was true, she certainly was mistress of the Vatican, appointing cardinals, negotiating with foreign powers, and raking in immense sums from the papal treasury. In a church that firmly excludes women from officiating as priests, and even from marrying priests, Olimpia’s story is clearly an uncomfortable one for the Vatican.

Most historical sources disliked Olimpia’s interference in Vatican affairs – she was far smarter than almost all the men in her environment, and it hurt. But some fair-minded ambassadors praised her for her intelligence, dignity, and financial acumen. The French ambassador Bali de Valençais admired Olimpia, informing Louis XIV that she was, without doubt, a “great lady.” Even Cardinal Pallavicino, who despised Olimpia, gave her grudging approval for her “intellect of great worth in economic government” and her “capacity for the highest affairs.”

Envied, admired, and despised, Olimpia was a baroque rock star, belting out her song loudly on a stage of epic exaggeration. But by the end of the seventeenth century, with new popes and new hopes, the scandal of Olimpia, which had gripped all Europe, faded and disappeared. Long forgotten now is her bittersweet tale of power, greed, and the glory of God.

About the author:

Author Eleanor Herman is related to most of the royal houses of Europe. With the blood of kings flowing in her veins, she has spent most of her free time since childhood studying their lives and traveling to their palaces. Herman graduated with a degree in Journalism from Towson State University in Baltimore in 1981. After studying languages in Europe and writing for numerous publications, she worked for German-based Monch Publishing as Associate Publisher of Nato’s Nations and Partners for Peace from 1989-2002. She has interviewed numerous foreign leaders and spoken at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. A member of the National Press Club’s Book and Author Committee, currently her full-time job is researching and writing women’s history.

Mistress of the Vatican:
The True Story of Olimpia Maidalchini: The Secret Female Pope
by Eleanor Herman
William Morrow / On Sale August 12, 2008
$25.95 / Hardcover / ISBN: 978-0-06-124555-8
Contact: Adam Rochkind / 212-207-7034 / adam.rochkind@harpercollins.com

Ali Alyami: Ban Saudi Arabia From Olympics

Ali Alyami wants the Saudi team banned from the Beijing Olympics, for violation of the Olympic spirit:

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia condemns the Saudi government's decision to deny the Saudi women the right to be full citizens at home and full members of the international community. The Saudi government is practicing an Apartheid-like system for which South Africa was barred form global events, boycotted, and declared a pariah government. The international community, especially Western democracies, should treat the Saudi government as they treated the segregationist Apartheid government in South Africa.

Paris Hilton's Answer to John McCain

Before seeing this video (ht Drudge), I had no idea Paris Hilton was such a serious person...

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Did FBI Torture Ft. Detrick Anthrax Researcher to Death?

If news accounts are true, then based on definitions found on a memorandum at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Website, I think one could reasonably conclude that allegations of FBI harrassment of Bruce Ivins and his family fit the legal definition of "torture":

Section 2340A provides that "[w]hoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life." (9) Section 2340(1) defines "torture" as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."(10)

Driving a suspect to commit suicide through the infliction of mental pain and suffering in no way promotes equal justice or rule of law.

Instead of arranging a photo-op with anthrax victims' families (actually families of innocent bystanders, since the intended victims were people like Tom Brokaw, Senator Daschle, and Senator Leahy), perhaps Attorney General Mukasey might begin a torture investigation of the FBI agents involved in this fiasco...and if there is evidence of torture, prosecute the FBI agents involved to the full extent of the law.

IMHO, the death of Bruce Ivins--guilty or not--before he had a chance to face his accusers in a courtroom, makes a mockery of American claims to fight human rights abuses around the world--and of Mukasey's oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (BTW, where is the Human Rights Watch press release on this case?)

More updates from Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, at Meryl Nass's blog and Larisa Alexandrovna's blog..

WSJ: Bruce Ivins Not Anthrax Killer

Richard Spertzel explains his skepticism over recent FBI reports in today's Wall Street Journal:

In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.

The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.

Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.

The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on Ivins, and whether he was about to be charged or arrested. And when the FBI does release this information, we should all remember that the case needs to be firmly based on solid information that would conclusively prove that a lone scientist could make such a sophisticated product.

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

The FBI spent between 12 and 18 months trying "to reverse engineer" (make a replica of) the anthrax in the letters sent to Messrs. Daschle and Leahy without success, according to FBI news releases. So why should federal investigators or the news media or the American public believe that a lone scientist would be able to do so?

Wolf Blitzer Questions America's Top Propagandist

From a transcript of Sunday's CNN Late Edition interview of Jim Glassman (author of Dow 36,000) with Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: There is little doubt right now that the image of the United States has taken a serious hit around the world in recent years. But are there inroads in the effort to try to win the hearts and minds of people around the world, especially in the Middle East?

BLITZER: Let's discuss with the man in charge of this mission, Jim Glassman is the U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Ambassador, thanks very much for coming in.

GLASSMAN: Great to be here.

BLITZER: You've got a tough assignment, as we know. Karen Hughes used to do what you're doing. She had a tough assignment. The Pew Research Center poll that came out earlier in the year said that the favorable opinion in the United States in friendly countries in the Muslim world like Pakistan, only 19 percent. Jordan, only 19 percent. Egypt, only 22 percent. Not very high given U.S. support for those countries over the years.

GLASSMAN: It's true. But things are looking up.

BLITZER: What do you base that on?

GLASSMAN: Well, I base it on the latest Pew Research Poll in June where they looked at 21 countries in '07 and '08 and our ratings increased in 16 of them. But also, this is a very complicated issue. And to reduce it down to a few numbers, I don't think really does anybody --

BLITZER: All right, so let's talk about some of the problems that have impacted negatively on the U.S. image, especially, in the Muslim and Arab world. Senator McCain said this on June 20th and I'll get your reaction, because he's very worried about this. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: It happens that I also regard the prison at Guantanamo as a liability in the cause against violent radical extremism. And as president of the United States, I would close it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: How much does an issue like that, the prison at Guantanamo Bay affect the negative U.S. image in the Muslim world?

GLASSMAN: There's no doubt that Guantanamo has hurt our image. The president, though, two years ago said he would close Guantanamo. Of the 750 people that have gone through Guantanamo, 500 of them have been released. The big problem right now, we care about what happens to the 260 or so people who are there now who we would like to release. The question is, what will happen when they get back to their home countries? Will they be properly treated there? So we're working on this question. There's no doubt that that's important. But I think when we talk about the popularity of the United States, let's put it in the right perspective. Our objective in foreign policy is to reduce the threat to the United States and the promote freedom. It is not to win some kind of "American Idol" contest.

BLITZER: Because you've written extensively about the so-called war of ideas that is unfolding right now in this battle, if you will, for the hearts and minds of these young, largely men in the Muslim and Arab world, who potentially represent a significant threat. Is that what you're talking about?

GLASSMAN: Exactly, Wolf. And no matter what people feel about particular policies that the United States has, what we found is that in the Middle East, and in Europe, we've had tremendous cooperation from governments and from individuals in doing in the war of ideas. Really, there are two things we're doing. One is pushing back against the ideology of the terrorists and the second is diverting young people from taking a path that leads to violence extremism.

BLITZER: Because if they're unemployed, they have nothing to do, a lot of idle time. That sort of creates an opening. But let me read to you what Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist wrote on this issue back on June 11th. "It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats' nomination of Barack Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America's image abroad, an image dented by the Iraq war, President Bush's invocation of a post-9/11 'crusade,' Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the xenophobic opposition to Dubai Ports World managing U.S. harbors -- than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years."

GLASSMAN: Well, there's no doubt that there's a lot of excitement in the world about the election that's coming up, and it's not just Barack Obama. And that's very important to people. You know, first African-American. Also, we almost had a woman nominated. We've got John McCain, who is a true war hero, spent five and a half years in a prison in Vietnam.

So the world is very excited about the American election. We're doing a lot, actually, to bring people to the United States to have them observe this election. But it's a lot more than that. It is the success that we've had in Al Anbar. It is the fact that al Qaeda has shown itself to be a bunch of wanton, violent extremists. The world is turning against al Qaeda and that kind of extremism. You talk about polls about the United States.

What's important to us, in fact, is the fact that support for suicide bombing, for example, in Jordan, in Morocco, throughout the Middle East that be dropping. Support for Osama bin Laden has been dropping. Support for al Qaeda has been dropping. Now, we're not out of the woods. Terrorism is a serious, serious problem, was we've done a lot of things in public diplomacy that has ameliorated the situation.

BLITZER: Here's what Robert Gates, the defense secretary said on July 15th. "The solution is not to be found in some slick PR campaign or by trying to out-propagandize al Qaeda, but through the steady accumulation of actions and results that built trust and credibility over a time."

GLASSMAN: He is absolutely right and I think the American people should understand that, for example, this year, we are bringing 50,000 exchange people to the United States. Students, experts in many --

BLITZER: Who pays for that?

GLASSMAN: The American taxpayers pay for it and it's a terrific investment. For example, in Iran, we are now -- we've brought 200 people on exchanges to the United States --

BLITZER: Iranians?

GLASSMAN: Iranians, from Iran. We just had the Iranian basketball team here playing in Utah. And it was a fantastic thing. The Iranian basketball team are throwing roses --

BLITZER: So do you think this is going to lead to an improvement in U.S./Iranian relationship?

GLASSMAN: U.S./Iranian relations, as far as individuals, as far as Iranians and Americans are quite good and we would like to improve them. The problem we have is with the regime.

BLITZER: Let me ask you to explain something that you wrote on July 15th. And because it sort of raises some questions in my mind. "Whether Osama bin Laden himself is killed or captured, I think is not of great consequence. It would have some importance in the war of ideas, but I think if he were killed or if his number two Ayman al- Zawahiri were killed, the ideology would certainly continue to survive."

Because most Americans, they say, it's very important to catch these two guys, to bring them to justice, or to kill them.

GLASSMAN: I think it is important to bring them to justice or to kill them. What I'm saying is that this is a powerful ideology. We're coming up on the 10th anniversary of the bombings by al Qaeda at our embassies in of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Al Qaeda is killing Muslims. Al Qaeda has longevity, they have perseverance, they're tough, their ideology is the base of what they're doing. And we need to fight back against that ideology, and that's what we're trying to do right now in the war of ideas.

BLITZER: Good luck. Jim Glassman, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Thanks for coming in.

GLASSMAN: Thank you, Wolf.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 89

The Moscow Times has published a very interesting obituary of the great Russian novelist by Alexander Osipovich:

After the 2000 election of President Vladimir Putin - a former KGB agent - the two men had a three-hour meeting at Solzhenitsyn's residence. The writer praised Putin afterward. Solzhenitsyn generally supported Putin's efforts to strengthen the Russian state, although he broke with him on several issues. For instance, he fiercely criticized the revival of the old Soviet anthem in late 2000.

In early 2006, Rossia television aired a 10-part miniseries based on "The First Circle." Despite his previous disparaging of television, Solzhenitsyn helped write the script and even narrated parts of the voice-over. The miniseries starred the popular young actor Yevgeny Mironov and earned respectable ratings.

Solzhenitsyn was lauded at the highest levels of the state in his final years. Putin quoted him in his 2006 state-of-the-nation address, and on June 12, 2007, the president visited his home to give him Russia's highest award, the State Prize.

The old enemy of the state had come full circle.

I hope that we might see that Russian television adaptation of The First Circle on Masterpiece Theatre someday soon...

Glenn Greenwald on the Latest Anthrax Death

Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald is tracking the strange death of Ft. Detrick anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins while under survelliance by the FBI on his blog. It makes for interesting reading:

It's perfectly possible that Bruce Ivins really is the anthrax attacker -- that he perpetrated the attacks and did so alone. Perhaps the FBI is in possession of mountains of conclusive evidence that, once revealed, will leave no doubt that Ivins is the guilty party. But no rational person could possibly assume that to be the case given the paltry amount of facts -- many of which contradict one another -- that are now known....

...So much of the public reporting about Ivins has been devoted to depicting him as a highly unstable psychotic who had been issuing extremely violent threats and who had a violent past. But that depiction has been based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated claims of Jean Carol Duley, a social worker (not a psychiatrist or psychologist) who, as recently as last year, was apparently still in college at Hood's College in Frederick, Maryland. Duley's scrawled handwritten complaint against Ivins, seeking a Protective Order, has served as the basis for much of the reporting regarding Ivins' mental state, yet it is hardly the model of a competent or authoritative professional. Quite the opposite.

Duley herself has a history that, at the very least, raises questions about her credibility. She has a rather lengthy involvement with the courts in Frederick, including two very recent convictions for driving under the influence -- one from 2007 and one from 2006 -- as well as a complaint filed against her for battery by her ex-husband. Here is Duley's record from the Maryland Judicial data base...Just three months ago, Duley pled guilty and was sentenced to probation (and fined $1,000), as a result of having been stopped in December, while driving at 1:35 a.m., and charged with driving under the influence...

On April 21, 2006, Duley was also charged with "driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol," driving "while impaired by drugs or alcohol," and reckless driving, and on October 13, 2006, she pled guilty to the charge of reckless driving and was fined $580. Back in 1992, Duley was criminally charged with battery against what appeared to be her now-ex-husband (and she filed a complaint against him as well). Later that same year, she was criminally charged with possession of drug paraphenalia with intent to use, charges which appear to have been ultimately dismissed.

Prior to the restraining order against Ivins which Duley obtained two weeks ago, Ivins had no criminal record at all, at least not in Frederick. A story in today's Frederick News-Post quotes Duley's fiancee as claiming: "She had to quit her job and is now unable to work, and we have spent our savings on attorneys." But she doesn't appear to have used an attorney for her complaint against Ivins. If anything, her savings were likely depleted from attorneys' fees, court costs, and fines and probation for her various criminal proceedings (Larisa Alexandrovna has more details on Duley).

None of this is to defend Ivins, nor is to suggest that this constitutes evidence that Duley is lying or is otherwise inaccurate in her claims. As I said, it's perfectly possible that Ivins is guilty of being the anthrax attacker. I have no opinion on whether he is. The point is that nobody should have any opinion on that question -- one way or the other -- until they see the FBI's evidence.

What is certain is that Jean Carol Duley is hardly some upstanding, authoritative source on Bruce Ivins' psychological state or his guilt, nor is she some accomplished and highly credible psychological professional, notwithstanding the fact that most media depictions of Ivins are based on uncritical recitations of her accusations. The fact that her depiction contradicts not only the claims of virtually everyone else who knew Ivins but also numerous facts about how Ivins was treated even by the FBI (see below), suggests that a large amount of skepticism is warranted...

Someone I know pointed out that in Duley's handwritten complaint, she spelled the word therapist as "T-H-E-R-I-P-I-S-T." No qualified therapist would make such a spelling mistake.

Further, it is incumbent upon a professional therapist to protect a patient first--before themselves. If Duley truly believed that Ivins were a danger to himself or others, she had an obligation to seek his involuntary commitment to a psychiatric institution. Especially since he had recently been released from Sheppard Pratt psychiatric hospital (established by Quakers for the humane treatment of the mentally ill, and once home to Zelda Fitzgerald.) And, if her citation of Dr. David Irwin's alleged diagnosis were true, there may be grounds for a medical malpractice lawwsuit on behalf of surviving family members against both Dr. Irwin and Ms. Duley--for failing to seek involuntary commitment when they believed Irwin posed a real danger to both himself and the community.

The Frederick News-Post has found at least one authority on medical ethics who believes that something appears seriously wrong with Duley's behavior towards her patient, Dr Arthur O. Anderson:

As a health care professional and bioethicist -- he heads USAMRIID's Office of Human Use and Ethics -- Anderson said he takes issue with what he views as Duley's professional betrayal of Ivins.

"I can tell you very clearly that the minute a conflict of interest occurs in the caregiver-client relationship É she has to withdraw as the caregiver," he said. "She can't ethically continue to gather information or share information -- betray that trust -- without disclosing to her client that she is sharing what he believes is confidential, privileged information."

Anderson said that if he was to betray a patient's trust in such a manner, he would be subject to medical disciplinary procedures.

In commenting about remarks made by Duley when she applied to the District Court of Maryland for a Peace Order, Anderson said he was amazed that a judge would allow hearsay to be entered on the record.

Duley referred to comments allegedly made by Ivins' psychiatrist about Ivins' homicidal and sociopathic tendencies, without confirmation to the court that the doctor actually made the comments.

"The remaining allegations about murderous ideas and plans sound so foreign to me that in the absence of contemporaneously documented evidence I would have to consider them items of Ms. Duley's vivid imagination or information fed to her by the people she communicated with outside the therapeutic environment," Anderson wrote in an e-mail to the News-Post. "It is not at all surprising to me that a patient whose therapist is serving as a double agent 'therapist' and 'accuser' would become very angry with the therapist and might make some rather dramatic expressions of that anger."

The doctor and scientist paused briefly after being asked if he believes Ivins committed suicide.

"Oh, yeah," he said. "I think all of the circumstances put him in a place where he felt he had no place to go."

Anderson said he became aware in June that the FBI had taken items out of Ivins' lab.

"The FBI took all of the stored things in his lab freezer," Anderson said. "They basically destroyed his life's work. I think that's what upset him the most."

Anderson said it is "highly incomprehensible" to him that Ivins would be regarded as the perpetrator in this case simply because he had access to anthrax.

He said he last saw Ivins around July 6. Ivins told him the FBI was stalking him, following him everywhere, Anderson said.

"He was animated and appropriately concerned, but certainly not out of control."

Anderson does not believe Ivins is responsible for the 2001 anthrax deaths.

"Now that he can't defend himself against the allegations, this will play out the way it will play out," he said.

But he firmly believes it wasn't guilt that killed his colleague and friend.

"I think it was the sense of betrayal and complete abandonment by those around him," Anderson said. "He cared so much and had so much pride in the work he did -- I don't think he could handle that sense of abandonment."

Curiously, The Wall Street Journal has published the only halfway decent editorial on this case that I can find today:

The FBI has invested its credibility in proving its mad scientist theory of the case, only to be wrong about Mr. Hatfill. Perhaps the sudden turn toward Ivins has solved it, but FBI Director Robert Mueller needs to reassure Americans that his agents didn't target another innocent man because he fit their psychological profile. Justice should make its evidence about Ivins public for anthrax experts and the media to inspect. Congress should also hold hearings that explore how the FBI pursued the case from the beginning and why it went awry. The FBI cannot be allowed to close the case and declare victory.

More at Meryl Nass's blog and Larisa Alexandrovna's blog.

J. Murdoch Ritchie, 83

Benbo Ritchie was a psychopharmacologist and friend of my father at Albert Einstein Medical College, so I was interested to see his obituary in the New York Times so shortly after my father's death:

In 1975, while a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was reviewing the C.I.A.’s “operational use” of poisons, Dr. Ritchie asked for access to the agency’s store of saxitoxin, a rare and highly effective neurotoxin made by clams.

The request raised eyebrows in Congress because the substance, which kills by causing respiratory failure, was not even supposed to exist; President Richard M. Nixon had ordered the government to destroy all of its bacteriological weapons in 1969. To the committee’s dismay, the C.I.A. did not turn over its saxitoxin supply, which the agency said was used to prepare suicide pills for spies in case of capture.

In the early 1970s, Dr. Ritchie, who was known as Murdoch, used saxitoxin for a nonlethal purpose, in studies of electrical conduction within nerve cells. It was already known that the nervous system used shifts in levels of sodium and potassium to transfer electrical signals and that saxitoxin could be employed to block the movement of sodium.

Dr. Ritchie, Richard D. Keynes, Gary R. Strichartz and others labeled molecules of the toxin with radioactive tags and introduced them into the living tissue of rabbits, fish and lobsters. They then read the radioactive markers to count the number of sodium entry sites, called channels.

This work, which helped explain fundamental questions about the nervous system, was based on earlier observations made by Dr. Ritchie and Paul Greengard, who studied the action and effects of lidocaine, dibucaine and other local anesthetics on the nerve cells. Like saxitoxin, dibucaine and lidocaine act by blocking the flow of sodium, dulling the sensation of pain.

In a development that surprised Dr. Ritchie, the government decided not to incinerate the saxitoxin and actually offered it to him. But he soon realized how much responsibility for safeguarding it would be involved, and he recommended that the remaining store be donated to the National Institutes of Health instead. Although Dr. Ritchie was not successful in finding an antidote to saxitoxin, which was his original goal, his research shed light on how nerve cells can lose their protective sheaths of myelin, ultimately interrupting the nervous system’s signals and leading to multiple sclerosis.

Working with Robert Byck, a colleague at Yale, [NOTE: Also a friend of my father's] Dr. Ritchie investigated the physiological effects of smoking marijuana. In tests on nerve fibers, they found that the drug’s active component, THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, had a more pronounced influence than previously thought.

Treasures of the Nukus Museum Now Online

(Sergei Luppov, Woman in Black) Thought I'd share this email with readers:

WEBSITE- Savitsky Collection, Nukus Museum, Nukus, UzbekistanPosted by: Dion Richard

The Friends of the Nukus Museum Foundation is pleased to announce the
launch of the museum's updated website (www.savitskycollection.org),
which provides an overview of its history, extensive details of
several dozen artists as well as details on seeing the collection.

Opened in 1966, the Nukus Museum (the Savitsky Collection) houses a
collection of over 82,000 items, ranging from antiquities from Khorezm
to Karakalpak folk art, Uzbek fine art and the second largest
collection of Russian avant-garde art in the world. It represents the
life's work of Igor Savitsky, whose legacy, which includes thousands
of artistic and cultural treasures on permanent exhibition, make it
one of the most interesting repositories of ancient and modern art.

I saw an exhibition of art from the Savitsky Collection when I lived in Tashkent as a Fublright Scholar in 2002-2003, and really enjoyed it. Now the online exhibition gives everyone a chance to view an outstanding collection of modern art.

Barack Obama's 21st Century "Era of Good Feelings"

That what I think the Democratic Presidential candidate has to offer, in contrast to Bush (a reminder of the Adams dynasty) and McCain's 21st Century "Alien and Sedition Acts". The 9/11 and Pentagon attacks in 2001 parallel the burning of the White House by the British during the War of 1812. In this case, the collapse of the Republican party mirrors the dissolved Federalists. Some background from Wikipedia:

Overt political bitterness declined because the Federalists had largely dissolved and were no longer attacking the president, then causing an era of good feeling because there was only one political party. The nation was politically united behind the Democratic-Republican Party. The Era of Good Feelings started after the War of 1812. The Hartford Convention of 1814-15 underscored the disloyalty of the Federalists during the war. Nationalism surged even though there were no redress of pre-war grievances at the Treaty of Ghent, but America had survived the onslaught of a mighty military power, Britain. Americans had even scored a few land and sea victories. The battles of the Thames, Lake Champlain and Baltimore were all American victories, victories attained against the world's largest and most prestigious navy. The USS Constitution was able to defeat HMS Guerriere, USS United States defeated HMS Macedonia, the USS Enterprise defeated the HMS Boxer, American vessels defeated British in the Battle of Lake Erie, and finally America was even able to extend its navy across the Atlantic where the USS President defeated 3 frigates off the coast of Ireland. These victories instilled pride in the new nation. President Monroe paid little attention to party in dispensing patronage. In the election of 1820, Monroe was re-elected with all but one electoral vote. A myth has arisen that one elector deliberately voted against him so that George Washington would remain the only unanimously elected president. Factually, the elector disliked Monroe's policies; at the time he cast his vote, he could not have known that his would be the only one to prevent a unanimous election.

If Obama wins, that means Democrats in the White House for at least two terms...

Joe Postell on the Dimness of Jim Glassman

From the Heritage Foundation blog, The Foundry, an analysis of the media strategy proposed by America's Top Propagandist (and author of Dow 36,000):

But there does seem to be some confusion about how to defend our principles in the face of violent extremism. Glassman argues that “the aim of the war of ideas is not to persuade foreign populations to adopt more favorable views of America and its policies…America’s image is not at the center of the war of ideas. Our priority is not to promote our brand but to help destroy theirs.” In other words, our public diplomacy must intellectually critique violent extremism, but cannot defend our own way of life or our principles.

If our public diplomacy were to move in this direction, it would be a positive but insufficient development. There are, quite simply, two objectives to public diplomacy: to defend through rational argument the moral legitimacy of our principles, and to undermine the principles of our opponents. One cannot be achieved without the other.

Along the same lines, Kim Andrew Elliott quotes Jeffrey Asjes pointing out Glassman's intellectual incoherence:

Even James "War of Ideas" Glassman does not like the term "war of ideas." "On Friday at the New America Foundation, the Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, James Glassman, spoke about America’s strategy in the so called ‘war of ideas’. ... Glassman’s speech took on an amused tone when he mentioned that he himself disliked the name ‘war of ideas’, despite his unofficial title as its ‘commander in chief’. He insisted that the name has connotations that imply a simple, two sided ‘us vs. them’ struggle. Instead, Glassman was adamant that the objective is not to get anyone to accept our own ideologies, but rather simply to have them reject ideologies that promote unprovoked violence." Jeffrey Asjes, Partnership for a Secure America, 27 July 2008.

Robert Gates on US Defense Strategy

This document lays out how the US military sees the world. ..at least until January 20, 2009:

"Iraq and Afghanistan remain the central fronts in the struggle, but we cannot lose sight of the implications of fighting a long-term, episodic, multi-front, and multi-dimensional conflict more complex and diverse than the Cold War confrontation with communism..."

Is Obama the Democratic Reagan?

Chuck Raasch seems to think so, and wonders if Obama should run on the same question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" IMHO, Make that eight years...in today's USA Today column:

WASHINGTON — There are obvious differences between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, but Obama faces the same fundamental question Reagan did in 1980: Amidst a sour economy, energy woes, an unpopular president and a crisis in the Middle East, is the new guy up for the job?

Reagan didn't answer the question until late in '80, when in two debates he stood at least equal in many Americans' minds to the unpopular Jimmy Carter. Democrats had ridiculed Reagan as an actor who had crazy economic theories and would be an unsteady finger on the nuclear button. This very week in 1980, the then-Moonbeam Gov. Jerry Brown of California said Reagan offered nothing more than "hokum and snake oil." The New York Times magazine said of Reagan: "Not only does he often oversimplify the issues, he actually seems to believe his oversimplifications."

But Reagan's "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" became the defining question of 1980, and he beat Carter in a landslide.

Poem of the Day

While in college, someone I know and I saw this poem by Philip Larkin posted on the refrigerator at the then-home of novelist Diane Johnson. I was shocked, believing that Larkin had gotten it wrong...

This be the verse

They fuck you up, your mom and dad
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-stylen hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself.

Now, several decades later, I see that Diane Johnson and Philip Larkin had it right.

Adam Garfinkle on the Dimness of Jim Glassman

Secretary of State Colin Powell's former speechwriter takes on the author of Dow 36,000 and America's new Top Propagandist to task on Harvard's MESHNet:

But his speech itself was hardly a model of effective public diplomacy, exhibiting not just one, but five cardinal sins of how not to make a serious policy speech.

First, it’s narcissistic: Glassman begins by talking not about ideas or missions or his office or the policy of the President, but about himself. This is a turn-off. Second, the speech breaks frame by calling attention to the fact that it’s a speech, not a from-the-heart statement of purpose. There’s a huge difference between saying, “I’m here today to tell you that X…” and “X…” It’s like the difference between a genuine ritual and a mere ceremony. Third, Glassman buries his lead: He doesn’t say anything interesting until he’s nearly half finished, spending too much precious fresh-attention time on kitchen-sink stuff and too little time later on explaining what’s significant about his new approach. Fourth, Glassman botches the tone: You don’t emphasize three times how serious a task public diplomacy is and then use silly Coke/Pepsi metaphors to illustrate it—metaphors that also happen to hark back to Charlotte Beers’ unapt commercial approach to the subject. There are better ways to describe a useful shift from caring about our own popularity to focusing on the U.S. role in quietly and carefully trying to influence intra-Muslim dynamics.

And fifth, Glassman makes some incautious statements. He says, for example, “Here is our desired end state: a world in which the use of violence to achieve political, religious, or social objectives is no longer considered acceptable.” You don’t need much imagination to see what Al Qaeda, Inc. can do with that one, as in (supply your own accent): “You Americans lecture Muslims about the use of violence, but you are the ones trying to jam your godless democracy, that denies the law of God himself, down the throats of Iraqis and Afghans on the points of bayonets! If you are so much against violence, then why are American tanks and bombs every day murdering Muslim women and children?” and so on and so forth. Again, there are better ways to make the point Glassman wants to make. Doing it the wrong way is known technically in the speechwriting trade as “stepping in it.”

Bubbl.us

In a course I taught for a day, one of the better students told me about this cool site for online brainstorming sessions...