Glibertarians.com 2019 Archive

Category: Federal Power

  • Just So You Know Where Your Money Is Going…

    As OFFICIAL COMPTROLLER for this insane asylum I’m pleased to report that we held a meeting of the Supreme Council of Masters of the Universe and decided this year to disburse our excess funds to a pair of charities that we believe you, the filthy lumpen-proletariat, will really approve of.

    Minutes ago (as of my writing this; God only knows when it will be published) we donated $500 to FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which dedicates itself to fighting off the worst excesses of the Kampus Kommunist Kids and their lackey administrators. We also donated $1,000 to the Institute for Justice, which has done so much to fight the army of radioactive bears that have overrun the western 1/3 of our once beautiful continent.

    Thank you all for continuing your generous donations, which makes all this possible.

  • Chapter 19: Working Behind the Scenes

    Executive Order 13139, which implements 10 U.S.C. § 1107, clearly states that the requirements it incorporated from the statute are for internal management only and confer no right enforceable by any party against the United States. E.O. 13139, §6(b).  Additionally, Secretary of the Navy Instruction 6230.4 of 29 April 1998, which implements the Department’s anthrax vaccination implementation program states that the anthrax vaccine is a FDA-licensed product and not an IND requiring informed consent for its administration.[1]

    “Someone from the editorial board will be down to get you and bring you up to the Boardroom in a minute,” the secretary smiled politely and then went back to answering the telephone, no longer concerned with my presence. I looked around the foyer of the Army Times Publishing Company.  It was a large, open-air affair. Just past the circular receptionist’s desk there was a staircase leading to the upper floors. Beyond that the ceiling opened up all the way to the top of the building and I could see people moving on the upper catwalks, worker-bees in the hive. Off to my left was a hallway that disappeared out of view, with an elevator at the beginning where it opened into the foyer.  To the right looked like a glass-enclosed company store with the usual assortment of sweatshirts, tee-shirts, and coffee mugs with the company logo on them. Army Times published a newspaper dedicated to each service, with the imprint Marine Corps Times, Navy Times, etc. The papers were widely read and respected in each service. I didn’t know how it had happened, but my friends had gotten us a meeting with the Editorial Board of the parent company.

    The door behind me came open and I could feel the cold December air blow in. I played with the zipper on my flight jacket, trying not to fidget. A Marine officer in uniform should not appear nervous. An older gentleman walking by with a long-sleeve tee-shirt with the company logo smiled at me.

    “How are you today, Captain?” He was looking at the leather patch with the wings on it on the front of my jacket.

    “Fine, sir. Thank you.” I flipped my fore and aft cap around in my hand and then looked at my watch. I was forty-five minutes late but the receptionist told me when I asked that the meeting had gotten a late start. I hoped my part hadn’t come up yet. I started thinking that maybe I should have brought my briefcase in with me. Right then a young black woman appeared from the stairs and looked at me for confirmation.

    “Captain Saran?” I nodded. “Come with me, please.”

    “Thank you,” I responded and followed her up the stairs. As we turned for the second flight I saw a familiar face. Colonel John Richardson, United States Air Force Reserve, was coming down the stairs in a light blue power-suit. He smiled and stuck out his hand.

    “Great to see you, Dale, traffic was terrible, huh?” We shook hands as he reached my step.

    “Meh, just sick as a dog. I would have stayed home had my boss not made me go in this morning.” I tried not to whine but I felt like crap. My wife and four girls were all sick at home with some kind of stomach virus that had everyone throwing up, including me. I had gotten back from the hospital with my wife the night before at 2:00 am and I still felt weak and achy.

    “Well, go on up,” he said. “Lou is on right now, then Russ, then you. Are you sure you’re still okay doing this? You know you don’t have to?”

    “No, JR, I’m fine. I just don’t care anymore. Lou and I talked about my status and the relevant instructions. This is a freely made decision. Sometimes a man’s gotta stand up and be counted.” Though he was quite senior to me, I had come to know and think of him by his nickname from our many e-mail chats.

    “Okay,” he nodded reassuringly. “I’ll be up in a minute.” JR turned and continued down the stairs.

    “Great,” I answered with more enthusiasm then my body had in it.

    It wasn’t bravado, nor some inflated sense of honor; I felt comfortable talking to John Richardson about such matters as personal honor and integrity. All of the members of our small band had incurred significant professional risks and opprobrium already in order to bring the flaws and illegality of the anthrax program to light. I couldn’t very well be a part of their group and not be willing to stick out my neck. They had all done a lot more.

    My guide and I reached the top of the stairs, turned left, and I could see a set of large oak wooden doors. As we got closer, I could see a little placard that read “Main Boardroom.”

    “Here you are,” the young lady said and turned away as I reached for the door. I could hear voices. I wanted to make as unobtrusive an entrance as possible so I turned the doorknob slowly and tried to slip in.

    I took in the room with a glance. There were two groups of people – ours and theirs. About seven or eight reporters and editors on the far side of a long meeting table, none of whom I knew or recognized. Everyone had a placard identifying them, but I didn’t have time to read each one. Behind “them” was a bright light with an umbrella behind it and a photographer taking pictures. On “our” side of the table there were five men, three I knew, two I guessed at their identities by our email correspondence. ‘Lou’ Michels – actually J.J. Michels, Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR, attorney-at-law, as well as partner at McGuire, Battle, and Woods, whom I had met at David Ponder’s Congressional testimony – was speaking intently.

    “Hey, Dale! Come on in,” he waved me in without breaking stride. “Hey, Lou” I replied and started to take off my coat, heading for the seat on his left, farthest from the door.  “So again,” he went on, “the informed consent issue is completely separate from the issue about whether or not the vaccine is safe and effective.” As I reached the seat beside him and slid into it, I could feel people on the other side of the table watching me. The photographer started snapping pictures of me.

    I am not impressive in uniform, but I had a few “been there” ribbons from when the squadron I was with rescued Air Force Captain Scott O’Grady from inside Bosnia-Herzegovinia in 1995. Atop the few ribbons I had was a set of gold Naval Aviator’s wings. I could tell the reporters on the other side of the table were curious about where I fit into all of this. Not wanting to appear self-conscious, I swiveled my chair to face Lou as he spoke. I could hear the shutter of the camera clicking. I could only imagine what my boss was going to think if a color photo of me showed up in the next issue of Marine Corps Times. I began to wonder if I should have agreed to do this after all. I was just snapping into my new job as a prosecutor and here I was (still) playing defense attorney – to the media, no less, against the entire U.S. military.

    I listened attentively, even though I had heard Lou make this argument before Congress and I had made a more detailed version of the same one to a judge on several occasions myself. Lou Michels is a seasoned attorney at a prestigious law firm and a former active duty Air Force officer. He is articulate and confident when he speaks, particularly on the legality of the anthrax vaccine. Although I was a Captain and he was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Reserves, I had come to think of Lou, and all the members of our group as a kind of Robin Hood and His Merry Men-like affair. There was JR who was the most senior of all, a full bird Colonel; Tom “Buzz” Rempfer, a Major, Air Force Academy graduate, F-16 and A-10 pilot; Russ Dingle, also a Major and A-10 pilot, and Redmond Handy, another Colonel. Despite the fact that I was by far the junior member of the group, it all felt quite easy and natural. I was conscious of my place in the hierarchy, but certainly not anything like a chain-of-command. Perhaps it was because more than a few of us were former pilots and pilots have a long history of being somewhat less conscious of rank and more conscious of ability, a byproduct of the nature of aviation.

    “It’s like Rogaine,” Lou continued on, “which has some particular relevance to my own situation,” he added parenthetically, looking upward with his eyes toward his own hairline. I noticed for the first time that he had a small patch of thinning hair on the back of his head. “It was originally licensed by the Food and Drug Administration as a blood pressure medication. Now, during some of the trials they determined that it would grow hair on a billiard ball. Notwithstanding the fact that it was already licensed, they had to go back and get a change in the license because of the change in the purpose for which it was going to be used.” He paused for that to sink in. He looked around the table at each of the editors and reporters, the shutter of the camera clicked away. “That’s the law for getting medications legally approved. It is even more imperative when it involves biologics like vaccines.”

    Lou went on for a while longer, hitting the high points of his brief and then excusing himself. I knew he had another meeting to attend at his law firm. We had talked on the phone the day before and everyone knew what their role was in this presentation.

    Russ Dingle, Major, USAFR, went next. He gave a presentation of how the vaccine was, by the definition in the FDA regulations, an “adulterated product” and thus should not be allowed to be shipped in interstate commerce. I had not heard his presentation and I had not met Russ before, except to exchange a few emails over the previous nine months. His knowledge of the company that makes the anthrax vaccine, BioPort, Inc., was unmatched. The reporters asked questions and Russ always had an answer and could cite to the document from which he got it. I was known among my colleagues for being able to pull legal case cites out of my ass on demand, but Russ made me envious.

    I had read all of the FDA inspection reports, but he obviously had access to information that I had never even guessed at. John Richardson had told me that he and Russ had been going through twenty-six boxes of information that they had gotten access to from the House Committee on Government Reform. Russ appeared to have memorized all twenty-six boxes. When he started describing how BioPort’s predecessor in interest, Michigan Biologic Products Institute had added two fermenters to its production line without FDA approval, then added two more and removed the original fermenter from the production line, I felt like my defense of David Ponder and Jason Stonewall had been inadequate.

    As I listened to Russ detail the failed inspections – the dripping paint into production vats, contaminated product lots containing other medicines like penicillin in them, and a list of other egregious quality control violations – the anger and frustration of nine months of defending David ponder and Jason Stonewall welled-up in me. Even worse, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals had denied our writ-appeal of the judge’s ruling on our motions. I had until today to submit an appeal of the NMCCA decision to the highest military appellate court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, one step below the Supreme Court of the United States. My turn was approaching, so I tried to focus and make sure I maintained the momentum in our joint presentation. I  also knew I had to control my mouth; the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Instruction that controls the conduct of Navy and Marine Corps attorneys had strict limits on what attorneys could say to the press and I still technically had pending cases on this issue.

    As a practical matter, most Judge Advocates (myself included) avoided the press completely and referred any questions to the Public Affairs Office (PAO). I was cognizant of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers that also prohibits using the press to influence the outcome of a court. I had just moved to Quantico, Virginia, and, due to my daughter’s health problems, I was now working as a prosecutor in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. I didn’t think my new boss, a long-time Colonel, would be particularly enthused to see my name popping up in the Marine Corps Times bashing the government’s anthrax program.

    An Air Force doctor, Captain John Buck in Biloxi, Mississippi, had requested me to be his Individual Military Counsel (IMC) and that request had been denied by my bosses – they had good legal reasons, but in my heart I had hoped that they would carve an exception and let me do it. It dawned on me that perhaps I had become too personally involved with the anthrax issue and that it might be affecting my judgment as a lawyer, but I had been over that ground both in my own mind and with my clients many times.

    “And that’s the vaccine that the Department of Defense is making your service members take, under threat of imprisonment,” I heard Buzz saying. He and Russ had been thrown out of their Connecticut Guard unit over the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP). Tom looked nothing like what I had imagined. He was young, lean, and a poster-boy for an Air Force pilot. I had pictured him much older from my conversations on e-mail with him.

    “And now,” he went on, “Captain Dale Saran, U.S. Marine Corps, will brief you on some of the current anthrax cases and their status. Dale,” Tom turned to me and winked.

    “Thanks, Buzz,” I answered and turned to my section in the briefing book that John Richardson and some of the others had put together the previous few days. I looked up at the reporters across from me. I tried to ignore the photographer snapping pictures. I could handle my portion of the brief any number of ways. Cool, dispassionate, the quintessential picture of a lawyer. A bit of an act for me, as I am a much more direct and blunt naturally, but I was trying to gauge my audience. What would be most convincing to a group of reporters? I could be more intense, somewhat exasperated at the situation my clients find themselves in. I decided against that – the last thing I wanted to do was come across as histrionic. I had thought a lot about this moment and had never been able to arrive at a decision. I decided to just start speaking and see where it took me.

    I cannot remember exactly what I said, but at one point I recall answering some questions about the status of our appeal.

    “This is nothing new,” I blurted out. There was silence from the other side of the table. “I invite any of you to look at the history behind the current version of Title Ten, section eleven-oh-seven.” And then I launched into my argument. I could feel myself heating-up as I recounted the use of the investigational and experimental drugs on troops prior to and during the Gulf War. I explained how the Food and Drug Administration had struck a deal with the Department of Defense to grant a waiver to allow these drugs to be used on service members without telling them what was being used on them. I recounted the withdrawal of this waiver and the reports of Gulf War Illness. I spoke forcefully, passionately, without consideration for what the ramifications might be to me. I spoke The Truth as I had come to know it in the past year defending my clients.

    I took a breath and looked around. Tom Rempfer and my cohorts were looking at me, waiting for more. I gathered myself, the calm after the storm.

    “That is exactly why this statute was passed, to prevent these types of things from happening again, to prevent another Gulf War-type Illness.” There were some questions. I answered and eventually Tom or someone else picked up a thread and my turn was done. I had so much more I wanted to say. I wanted them to know The Truth, The Whole Truth, as I had come to know it down to the marrow in my bones.

    I looked at my watch. Shit! I thought. I still had to get to CAAF in downtown D.C. and turn in Petty Officer Ponder’s writ-appeal of the NMCCA decision rejecting our request for extraordinary relief. I had to go.

    I listened for a while and slipped out at an appropriate time, saying my goodbyes by touching each man’s shoulder briefly as I passed on the way out. I was proud to have been invited to be a part of their panel.

    Outside the snow was beginning to fall more heavily. I started our family minivan and quickly got into the flow of traffic inbound on I-395 for the District. I had a writ-appeal to finish typing on my laptop and I didn’t have much time to get it into the Court.  With the NMCCA decision, the stay on our court-martial had been lifted. Although David Ponder had come home to Mississippi and his wife and son, Jason Stonewall and Vitolino Arroyo were still in Okinawa, six months after their unit had left and returned to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and all three were facing the brig unless I got a higher court to listen to me and overturn the lower appellate court. I looked at my watch again.  Suddenly that stay – and the nail in Kolomjec’s door on Okinawa – seemed a very hollow victory.

    [1] Ponder v. Stone, 56 M.J. 613 (NMCCA, 2000)

  • On the Composition of the US Military and Being a World Power

    In the comments on Pie’s article about the Internet (Thursday, 5 Dec Noon Post), I saw some comments in a subthread about the size and composition of the military that sparked some thoughts I decided to share because I find it a fascinating discussion topic for libertarians. I hope it hasn’t already been covered before, but even if it does, I hope I can offer something new on the subject for the Glibertariat.

    I first must ‘confess’ that I subscribe to agreeing (generally) with George Nash’s configuration of where libertarians fall in the political taxonomy in his seminal work “The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945.” First published in 1976 as a graduate thesis, it’s been reprinted and I’ve read a more recent, updated edition. Some of you may disagree and that’s fair enough, but in any serious consideration of the size and scope of the military, undergirding has to be some coherent theory of valid political action of the government in the area of foreign affairs, trade, and immigration, all of which impact what specie of military you think is valid to have. As a concrete example, do you think the US military should protect US commercial shipping the world over? The Founding Fathers themselves certainly did, and since I consider myself a ‘constitutional libertarian,’ I note that even President ‘Mr. Yeoman Farmer’ Jefferson was willing to “send in the Marines!” to “the Shores of Tripoli” to stop the Barbary pirates from playing around with US shipping. It was an issue that Jefferson explicitly ran on against John Adams – the payment of US tribute of to the “petty tyrant of Algiers.” This dated to the Founding of the republic, by the way, and so it can’t be claimed this didn’t inform the creation of the Constitution itself. From the wiki:

    The United States had signed treaties with all of the Barbary states after its independence was recognized between 1786-1794 to pay tribute in exchange for leaving American merchantmen alone, and by 1797, the United States had paid out $1.25 million or a fifth of the government’s annual budget then in tribute.[12] These demands for tribute had imposed a heavy financial drain and by 1799 the U.S. was in arrears of $140,000 to Algiers and some $150,000 to Tripoli.[13] Many Americans resented these payments, arguing that the money would be better spent on a navy that would protect American ships from the attacks of the Barbary pirates, and in the 1800 Presidential Election, Thomas Jefferson won against incumbent second President John Adams, in part by noting that the United States was “subjected to the spoliations of foreign cruisers” and was humiliated by paying “an enormous tribute to the petty tyrant of Algiers”.[14]

    Washington himself as the very first President asked Congress in 1794 – at the urging of the people – to appropriate money for a Navy to deal with the problem as the US tried to grow its economy by participating in international commerce.

    Which brings us back again to a serious question about the size and scope of the military and what capabilities should the US military have. Should the US have some capability to do Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEOs, in military acronymese) from places like US Embassies around the globe? If so, what does that imply about the capability required to operate in the environments where embassies are found: from mountains, to jungles, to deserts, to large cities, to coastlines, in all weather conditions, in extremis, day or night? What about places from which one must be able to launch those operations if you don’t have bases around the world? Should this capability be expanded enough to cover the ability to pull out a large US expat population living abroad in a country that suddenly turns shitty in a short time? Or is your foreign policy one that includes the ability to tell the American people: “Meh. Tough shit. Shouldn’t live in those kinds of places.” Or does your foreign policy include only an economic response to such provocations? How about if someone shoots down/blows up a US commercial passenger jet in foreign airspace, for example, like the one over Locherbie, Scotland. As an interesting footnote, a high school classmate and friend of mine, Rob “Shaggy” Schlageter (with a pair of burgundy corduroys and green shirt, he would was a dead ringer for Sccoby’s partner!) was killed aboard that plane.

    Which brings us to a much more interesting question, I think, about the size and scope of the US military and its capability. Most of us have grown up for most, if not all, of our lives with the US as an (or THE) unquestioned military superpower. It isn’t just the nukes, either. We can put a missile in your bedroom window or men with guns over your bed while you sleep anywhere in the world on relatively short notice. It is a truly awesome capability and I give you my solemn vow it is true as someone who has seen and been a part of what we can do at the very, very pointy tip of that spear. But it has always been an article of faith for me that the most powerful military in the world should be commanded, led by, and serve the most moral/ethical people. And I can’t envision any sane theory of morals or ethics in which it is any other way. That is to say, I would like to hear Sam Harris, or Zombie Hitchens, or any moral relativist defend the notion that it makes no difference whether the US had the stronger military or Imperial Japan did. Or Nazi Germany. Now if this all seems a bit farfetched or Ivory Tower, let me offer up the thought experiment that really has formed the basis for this entire piece:

    Close your eyes and try imagine that the United States is NOT the world’s pre-eminent military. Imagine instead that Jane’s and all of the other publications that track such things consider the U.S. to be the 6th strongest/most capable military in the world. Once you have really got that in your head, the first thing that pops into my mind is ‘who are numbers 1 through 5?’ And if you can’t imagine five countries above you that make your blood run cold, I hope you will take my word and know it comes from a place of love when I say that you haven’t traveled enough to have an informed opinion on the debate about the size and scope of the U.S. military. Because I can sure imagine 5 countries I wouldn’t want to see above us on that list; and I can also imagine what it might mean if the list ever looked like that in some dystopian future, and what that would mean for human suffering the world over, much less right in our own backyards.

    I am staunchly against military adventurism the world over because it costs lives and for over two decades a good chunk of those were my friends. Or at least it sure does seem like it because I have and know of a fair number of dead guys and gals, including some by their own hand. I have also seen the horrors of what people are capable of doing to each other the world over and I know that the US military acts as some kind of brake on those horrors, even if it’s just in an ancillary way by protecting sea lanes of commerce, for example. Piracy still claims a measurable chunk of the world’s commerce every year. I believe I’ve read that rust destroys 10% of the world’s (steel) infrastructure every year in a book called, boringly, “Rust.” It’s the bane of any salt-water Navy. For perspective, in the mid-1980’s Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy James Webb – yes, later Senator Webb (D. Va) and Dem. Presidential-candidate – quit in protest over the refusal of Congress to fund a 600-ship Navy. We are currently at 430 ships.

    I want to add one final coda to this piece and that is to state that even in the principle of self-defense you can’t escape the costs necessary to engage in it. Thus, I believe any discussion about the Nation’s military should also include a discussion of how much GDP (as a percentage) one is willing to spend on it. The budget need not be anywhere near as complicated as it is if we simply allocated as a percentage of prior year’s GDP. It’s how NATO allocates its member funding requirements. Trump has made the point recently that we spend “4.2% GDP in real numbers” for our military. Google claims it is 3.145%. Whatever the number is, we could likely agree that some % is sufficient for our needs, set it there as a matter of statute or even Amendment,  and allow for additional spending only in the event of a Congressional Declaration of War or contingency for 60 days or less (tie the Amendment to the War Powers Act for all I care). I will also set aside for the moment the notion that these kinds of discussions

    The point is that if there is a justification for having a military then we, as a Nation, should have a conception of what that is in both a philosophical and a practical sense, which informs its missions and capabilities, as well as its costs. Clausewitz said famously: “We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. War is the continuation of politics by other means.” While one can argue about definitions enough to perhaps find some kinds of violence between people that doesn’t quite fit the definitions, for my purposes and those of this article it suffices to describe the relationship between a military and the political institutions of a modern nation-state. The Founding Fathers found out quite early on that the world would not simply let us ply our trade and mind our own isolationist business. The realities of modern shipping and aviation, along with the number of Americans living abroad, suggest that we must have some kind of military with some kind and level of capability, which implies training, equipment, etc. (It also implies a certain level of economy to produce material in peacetime sufficient to support those military capabilities, a place for them to be stationed, places to train, etc.)

    Could it and should it cost less? Absolutely. I could tell stories to make you blush from my friends at the Pentagon in procurement. My own experiences in the military validate the notion of September splurging in order to maintain at least last year’s funding, as just one example. But I think sweeping statements about wiping out entire branches of the military need to be considered in light of both the needs and the capabilities of a military and what that really means. In my opinion, too many libertarians (at least that I’ve seen) simply wave this all away or argue for absolutes with nary a word turned toward what I see as essential considerations that any serious person would at least mention in broad discussion of these subjects.

    Wanting to end the military adventurism abroad is a laudable goal, towards which we should all be working, but we undermine its cause with simplistic screeds. The people who wrote the Constitution were rightfully leery about standing armies, having just expelled one. They also conceived of – and led – a nation of independent-minded citizens who could and would defend themselves by force of arms on their own account and believed, as a people of commerce, that they would rather pay for a military than pay tributes to warlords attacking and kidnapping US citizens abroad.

    I’ll let the Glibertariat hash out the details and point out the flaws in my thinking in the comments.

    Ozy

  • Chapter 17: Science Intervenes and Project Badger Surfaces

    A study was conducted on 8,195 British Gulf War-era veterans. The British, serving alongside American forces, gave their servicemen untested vaccines as well.  There were two important findings from the study:

    • The Gulf War cohort reported symptoms and disorders significantly more frequently than those in the Bosnia Era cohorts, which were similar . . . Gulf War veterans were more likely than the Bosnia cohort to have substantial fatigue, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, and psychological distress, and were twice as likely to reach the CDC case definition [of Gulf War Illness]. …Vaccination against biological warfare and multiple routine vaccinations were associated with all outcomes.[i]
    • Service in the Gulf War was associated with various health problems over and above those associated with deployment to an unfamiliar hostile environment. Since associations of ill health with adverse events and exposures were found in all cohorts, however, they may not be unique and causally implicated in the Gulf War-related illness. A specific mechanism may link vaccination against biological warfare agents and later ill health, but the risks of illness must be considered against the protection of servicemen.[ii]

    The state of Kansas Commission of Veterans Affairs funded a study of 2,030 Kansas Gulf War era veterans. Despite over $150 million spent on Gulf War Illness research, DoD has never conducted a comparable study on US service members. The Kansas study concluded:

    Gulf War Illness . . . occurred in 34% of Persian Gulf War (PGW) veterans, 12% of non-PGW veterans who reported receiving vaccines during the war, and 4% of non-PGW veterans who did not receive vaccines . . . Among PGW veterans who served away from battlefield areas, Gulf War illness was least prevalent among those who departed the region prior to the war (9%) and most prevalent among those who departed in June or July of 1991 (41%). Observed patterns suggest that excess morbidity among Gulf War veterans is associated with characteristics of their wartime service, and that vaccines used during the war may be a contributing factor.[iii]

    Britain and Canada also conducted studies and found a possible link to vaccines given to their veterans. One of the most interesting studies is one by France that found no Gulf War Illness at all among its veterans. In September 2000, France’s Defense Minister Alain Richard created an independent commission to look into the health of the French military servicemembers who participated in the Gulf War.[iv] Interestingly, a French medical corps spokesman, said that

    “France’s belief that allied troops were victims of their own protective measures were based on a long series of meetings with U.S. medical experts . . .  ‘About 100,000 of the 600,000 Americans who served in the Gulf complain of ailments that have tentatively been lumped under the Gulf War syndrome heading. No one has yet come to definitive conclusions but we note that of 25,000 Frenchmen who served in the Gulf, only 180 have ailments whose origin could be in question. The only really major difference between the two groups is vaccinations,’ he said.” [v]

    These studies received little to no attention in the U.S., and in some cases, were immediately disclaimed by the DoD. There was also a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence regarding adverse reactions to the anthrax vaccine. Perhaps the DoD was right in one respect, the advent of email allows large numbers of people to communicate around the world quickly. It is an ideal tool for servicemembers, who are deployed the world over, to communicate with friends quickly regardless of time zones or presence at the receiving end. I personally received dozens of emails from different people detailing adverse health effects from the anthrax vaccine. One email contained a list of at least a hundred names with phone numbers and/or addresses, as well as the particular adverse effect.

    Finally, the most compelling study conducted on Gulf War Illness, and perhaps revealing the worst about the DoD, is a study conducted at Tulane University and the controversy it started. Originally, a 1999 Vanity Fair article stated that DoD had used an experimental anthrax vaccine on troops going to the Gulf War. This article explained that the vaccine was experimental because it contained a substance known as squalene.  Squalene is an experimental adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance added to a vaccine in order to increase the body’s immune response to the vaccine itself. Squalene is produced naturally by the body in very minute quantities but it is not licensed by the FDA for injection into human beings. Squalene not only boosts the immune system’s response, it also decreases the time necessary for the body to develop immunity to the vaccine. The Vanity Fair article posited that there was squalene in the anthrax vaccine given to service members during the Gulf War.

    Questions about vaccine adjuvant formulations were raised to DOD in June 1994. At that time, an immunologist from the private sector notified the Defense Science Board that some symptoms being reported by Gulf War-era veterans were very similar to those of her patients with autoimmune diseases. These patients had a range of symptoms affecting more than one of the body systems and the immunologist believed they were associated with exposure to vaccine adjuvant formulations. In October 1995, DOD, before a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Gulf War illnesses, dismissed this hypothesis on the grounds that it had administered only vaccines with aluminum salts as adjuvants. In November 1996 and again in 1997, the immunologist notified DOD, based on independent research, that she had found antibodies to squalene in the blood of a few sick veterans who had served in the military during the Gulf War. However, DOD has not responded to these findings. According to the researcher, she continues to be willing to discuss the research with DOD.[vi]

    The Tulane scientists had developed a test, called an assay, for detecting the presence of squalene antibodies in the bloodstream. Some Gulf war veterans who were found to have squalene antibodies in their blood early on approached Congressman Jack Metcalf (R-WA). In 1997, Representative Metcalf asked the GAO to conduct an inquiry into the possibility that squalene was in vaccines given to service members. This study by the GAO took three years to complete and the timing of its release in March 1999 could not have been worse for the DoD. The report found a “pattern of deception” by the DoD with regards to the use of squalene adjuvants.[vii]

    At an initial meeting with DoD officials, GAO notes show that the DoD claimed that they “had not performed or sponsored any research on synthetic or natural squalene or squalene until after the Gulf War.”[viii] The GAO investigators, however, found articles and databases that indicated there had been squalene studies before the Gulf War. The investigators confronted DoD officials with some of these public records and some of the DoD officials began to admit that they had conducted five human trials involving squalene and that a sixth was planned. Furthermore, the GAO investigators found that the DoD “had conducted numerous animal studies, particularly to develop a modern vaccine for anthrax. In fact, in most cases they only admitted to conducting research after we had discovered it in public records. On three occasions, people attending a meeting did not report their own research on squalene adjuvants.”[ix]

    The GAO investigators also met with various officials, including the DoD’s Director of AIDS research during the Gulf War, members of the FDA, who all pointed to Colonel (Dr.) Carl Alving as the person who “was most interested in developing own adjuvants at WRAIR [Walter Reed Army Institute of Research].”[x] During meetings with DoD officials, Dr. Iving was never present nor mentioned, despite NIH and FDA officials calling him the top DoD researcher on vaccine issues. When finally interviewed by GAO investigators, Dr. Alving initially denied any participation in vaccine adjuvants. When pressed, he recalled that he had been called by someone at USAMRIID “who asked if he could develop a new, more potent anthrax vaccine on a crash basis to use in Operation Desert Shield. He worked on it and thought he could do it, but no one ever called him back. He wouldn’t say who called . . . or why he just didn’t return the call.”[xi]

    Interviews with Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar revealed a Tri-Service Task Force operation called Project Badger. Winegar mentioned that Dr. Alving was the DoD’s in-house adjuvant expert. She also mentioned that “[s]ome in the group were willing to jump out and use everything. (She refused to say who.)”[xii]

    The GAO then interviewed General Blanck, Army Surgeon General, who disclosed that the DoD had very little botulism toxoid vaccine and so “we contracted with Porton to make them.” Porton refers to Porton Down, a British vaccine manufacturer.  According to General Blanck, “we got it, but didn’t use it.”[xiii] General Blanck also pointed the GAO investigators to a Peter Collis, who headed oversight for Project Badger and vaccine efforts. Peter Collis refused to talk to the GAO. First, he cited the classified nature of the research, which was a non-issue for the GAO. He then said he couldn’t look at some matters as a civilian without a clearance (GAO offered to get him a temporary clearance). Mr. Collis then called to say he didn’t know much, even though notes from Badger showed him at the center of all Badger discussions and running the briefings.”[xiv]

    By September of 1998, the GAO investigators were discussing the Tulane study’s assay for determining the presence of squalene antibodies. DoD officials acknowledged that they could develop their own assay inexpensively and test Gulf War veterans, which would either refute or corroborate the Tulane results. They refused to do so, even after urging by the GAO. The DoD, in an effort to try to put the issue to rest, contracted to have lots of the anthrax vaccine tested by Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International. The tests did not find any squalene in the AVA. This gave the DoD what appeared to be unimpeachable proof that no squalene laced vaccine was given to Gulf War Veterans. The Tulane study was still very compelling, however, because of the extremely high percentage of Gulf War veterans with GWS who had squalene antibodies in their system, including those who didn’t deploy to the Gulf but received vaccines. These persons all suffered some form of autoimmune disorder. This is also in keeping with laboratory studies on animals given squalene formulations. These animals had an increased incidence of autoimmune disorders.

    After the GAO report’s release in March 1999, the DoD began a concerted effort to discredit both the report and the Tulane research. The GAO encouraged the DoD to participate in the Tulane study by testing Gulf War veterans in its own studies using the Tulane assay or developing its own to validate the Tulane assay. The DoD’s response was that even though “they [DoD] could develop an assay . . . for detecting antibodies to squalene . . . [and] it would not be expensive to develop [and] . . . test it on a sample of Gulf War-era veterans that are sick” they refused to do so.[xv] The DoD medical people recited a litany of reasons why they would not and should not participate in such research.

    They [DoD scientists] believed that since DOD did not use adjuvants with squalene, DOD does not need to develop such an assay or to screen the veterans for the antibodies. Second, squalene is a substance that occurs naturally in the human body, and they doubted that an assay could be developed to differentiate antibodies to natural and manufactured squalene. Third, they noted that squalene is also found in numerous topical creams that some soldiers could have used. Finally, DOD officials do not believe that funding squalene antibodies in veterans would prove that the antibodies caused Gulf War illnesses.[xvi]

    Here is promising scientific research that shows a strong link between GWS and a potential cause, yet rather than at least encourage or aid the research, which one would think DoD would do if it were truly concerned about finding a cause and perhaps treatment for GW veterans’ illnesses, DoD responded by circling the wagons and denying that such a link could exist. And then offered that “topical creams” used by soldiers could be the source of the squalene. The DoD responded to the report by asking that it be definitively entitled “GULF WAR ILLNESSES: Gulf War Veterans Did Not Receive Vaccine Adjuvant Formulations Containing Squalene”.[xvii] Additionally, the DoD asserted that “in view of the GAO’s conclusion that Gulf War era Veterans did not receive vaccine adjuvant formulations containing squalene, the GAO proposal to test Gulf War veterans for the presence of squalene antibodies seems scientifically and fiscally irresponsible.”[xviii] The GAO responded in its report:

    DOD misstated our finding on whether Gulf War-era veterans may have received vaccine adjuvant formulations containing squalene. We did not conclude that Gulf War era veterans were not given adjuvant formulations containing squalene. Rather, we cannot say definitively whether or not Gulf War-era veterans were given these formulations. We have modified the report text to make this point clear.[xix]

    Now the DoD was caught “misstating” the GAO’s conclusions and asking the GAO to change the title of its report on the squalene issue.

    At the same time, the DoD began an attack on the Tulane research. On May 24, 1999, Dr. Carl Alving called Dr. Robert Garry, a respected scientist who was working o the Tulane study. Dr. Alving expressed a “purely scientific” interest in Dr. Garry’s research and asked for a copy of the in-progress work. Dr. Garry agreed to fax a copy, asking Dr. Alving not to circulate it as it was preliminary only. The final report differed significantly from the in-progress work. Dr. Alving not only circulated it, but subjected it to a scathing review and placed that review on the DoD’s website prior to the paper’s final publication. The review included an accusation that the Tulane researchers had an “anti-military agenda,” though there was little evidence to support this. In fact, the DoD claimed on its website that the Tulane “conclusions derived from the test have no scientific basis.”[xx] Dr. Garry later stated that this preemptive strike by the DoD might well hinder the chances for the research getting published in a peer reviewed journal. At the same time, the DoD repeatedly denounced the Tulane results by claiming that the paper had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Notwithstanding these attempts to prevent the paper’s publication, the Tulane study was published in February 2000 in a peer-reviewed journal. Despite the DoD’s refusals, Congress finally required the DoD to participate in a squalene study as part of the Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. The DoD claimed that “the FDA verified that none of the vaccines used during the Gulf War contained squalene as an adjuvant.” The FDA was queried by Representative Metcalf and responded in a much more qualified manner, stating that “neither the licensed vaccines known to be used in the Gulf War, nor the one investigational product known to have been used, contained squalene as an adjuvant in the formulations on file with FDA.”

    On October 3, 2000, while I sat coolly with David Ponder and his wife Jenn in the Rayburn Building waiting for his chance to testify before Congress, Representative Jack Metcalf read from a report his staff had prepared, including the shocker (or perhaps not) that retesting of the lots revealed trace amounts of squalene in the AVA. The original tests had been sensitive to detecting squalene in parts per million. The supplemental testing detected squalene in parts per billion, 1000 times more sensitive. An independent vaccinologist from Baylor University, however, offered that even in those amounts the presence of the adjuvant could boost immune response.

    The DoD then took a new position. At this point, the DoD claimed that “amounts were so minute as to be insignificant.” Additionally, the FDA came in to disclaim what its own scientists had found. What is interesting about the DoD position is that it still doesn’t explain the presence of squalene in the vaccine. It is one thing to point out that the body produces squalene naturally and that the amounts are small. The DoD, and the manufacturer, have still not come forward to state that squalene is naturally produced in the vaccine by either the bacillus anthracis or some other aspect of the manufacturing process. Until that explanation happened, and it didn’t, in addition to all of the other failed inspections and contaminated lots, the anthrax vaccine should have been considered adulterated, containing an experimental adjuvant. More startling is that on the same day that David Ponder testified before Congress, a press conference was held where DoD spokesman Ken Bacon answered questions about squalene in the anthrax vaccine.

    QUESTION: And just to be clear, and I know that this has come up many times before over the years, but squalene also is not present in vaccines used during the Gulf War, before the Gulf War, after the Gulf War and to this day; is that correct?

    BACON: I have been told – I’m not an expert on vaccines and certainly not on squalene, but I’ve been told that squalene has not been in vaccines for – or certainly in the anthrax vaccine for a considerable period of time.

    According to this statement by DoD’s own spokesman, the Anthrax Vaccine did have squalene in it at some point, but not “for a considerable period of time.”

    The history of this DoD research seems incredibly coincidental. Between 1988 and 1998, DOD sponsored 101 clinical trials on vaccines under IND protocols; this means test involving human subjects. None of these human studies involved an anthrax vaccine, although 5 studies involved squalene and two occurred before the Gulf War.  More questionable were several experiments on animals, using vaccines with adjuvant formulations containing squalene, for a wide range of diseases, including anthrax, toxic shock, and malaria. The anthrax vaccine experiments with adjuvant formulations containing squalene began in 1987, and some of the results were presented at conferences and published in several medical journals. The GAO noted that

    DOD’s animal studies are of interest for two reasons. First, because tests on animals are generally performed before human trials, they represent the first step of vaccine research and provide a more complete picture about the state of research on adjuvant formulations with squalene before the Gulf War. Second, since vaccines against biological warfare cannot be tested for efficacy in humans, animal research is considered essential by researchers.[xxi]

    In light of all of this compelling research and evidence, the question becomes why? Why would the DoD not want to find out the cause of Gulf War Illness? Even if it were the anthrax vaccine, wouldn’t the health of veterans be more important than one vaccine? The answer to that question involves a mix of politics, personal agendas, and, of course, money. Unfortunately, it also reveals something about the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces.

     

    ENDNOTES

    [i] Catherine Unwin, et.al., “Health of UK servicemen who served in Persian Gulf War”, The Lancet, 16 Jan 1999, page 169.

    [ii] Unwin, page 169.

    [iii] Lea Steele, “Prevalence and Patterns of Gulf War Illness in Kansas Veterans: Association of Symptoms with Characteristics of Person, Place, and Time of Military Service”, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 152, No. 10 : 992-1002, page 1 of 14 (online).

    See: http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/152/10/992

    [iv] “France Investigates Gulf War Syndrome”, The Lancet, 18 Nov 2000, page 1747.

    [v] “French to Check Liaison Officers for Gulf Syndrome”, Reuters, 14 Sep 2000.

    [vi] GAO Report 99-5, March 1999 p. 2.

    [vii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [viii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-2

    [ix] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [x] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-20, F-5

    [xi] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [xii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-9

    [xiii] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-8

    [xiv] Background working documents, GAO Report 99-5, DI-23

    [xv] GAO Report 99-5, p. 8.

    [xvi] Id.

    [xvii] 99-5, p.22.

    [xviii] Id.

    [xix] Id.

    [xx] Letter from Rep. Jack Metcalf to Secretary of Defense William Cohen dtd February 25, 2000, quoting from the DoD’s anthrax website in February 2000.

    [xxi] GAO Report, 99-5, p. 5.

  • Chapter 16: Guard Pilots Quit

    While many factors can influence an individual’s decision to leave the military, surveyed Guard and Reserve pilots and aircrew members cited the anthrax immunization as a key reason for leaving or otherwise changing their military status. Since September 1998, an estimated 25 percent of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and Reserve in this population transferred to another unit (primarily in a non-flying position), left the military, or moved to inactive status. While several reasons influenced their decision, when asked to rank the one most important factor, the anthrax immunization was the highest, followed by other employment opportunities, and family reasons. Further, about one in five (18 percent) left before qualifying for military retirement benefits. Additionally, 18 percent of those still participating in or assigned to a unit reported their intentions to leave within the next 6 months. These individuals also ranked the anthrax immunization as the most important factor for their decision to leave, followed by unit workload and family reasons. Each of these groups—those who have left and those who plan to do so–had accumulated an average of more than 3,000 flight hours, which symbolizes a seasoned and experienced workforce.[i]

    The impact of the anthrax program on the Armed Services was substantial. DoD representatives continued to assert that the impact was negligible and that the refusals and courts-martial were only a misinformed minority. This is because the Armed Forces have to answer to Congress for recruiting goals and retention and how money is being spent. Even if the DoD doesn’t have to answer to servicemembers, it does have to answer to Congress for end-strength and staffing. If the anthrax vaccine program was a significant cause of members leaving the service, Congress could quash the program on those grounds alone. Thus, when asking the DoD about the AVIP’s effect on retention and recruiting, the answer was always “minimal”.[ii]

    Both anecdotal and empirical evidence, however, show exactly the opposite.

    Servicemembers left both active duty and reserve forces because of the anthrax vaccine program. Those who had no other alternative were refusing the vaccine outright and suffering the consequences. Unfortunately, the DoD did not want to know how bad the statistics were and as of October 2000, they still were not tracking refusal numbers or reasons people left the service. When the GAO recommended that exit surveys include a question about whether or not the anthrax vaccine was a factor in their decision to leave, the DoD objected to the question as being “leading” and that it would result in survey bias.[iii] In the study conducted on National Guard and Reserve aircrew, the GAO found significant numbers of people who cited the anthrax vaccine as the number one reason for either transferring to a new unit or for leaving the Guard or Reserve.[iv] As the GAO noted, “[t]hese components [Reserve and Guard forces] provide essential support to critical defense operations on a worldwide basis. They provide strategic and tactical airlift, aerial refueling, aeromedical evacuation, and augment DOD’s overall fighter force.”[v] Not noted in these reports, but important to understand, is that most Reserve and Guard aircrew are made up of former active duty servicemembers. While it is not definitive, neither is it a stretch to opine that the views of this particular segment of Guard and Reserve society is closely reflective of the views of their brethren on active duty. The numbers reveal two disturbing trends.

    First, pilots and aircrew left or transferred in significant numbers because of the anthrax vaccine: to the tune of one out of every four (1/4). Of the remaining members, another 18% (about one out of five) indicated that they were leaving within the next 6 months (the survey was conducted from May to September 2000) and they listed the anthrax vaccine as the number one reason. This means that if a unit started with some baseline number of aircrew, it initially lost 25% citing the AVIP as the number one reason. Therefore, the unit is (setting aside new acquisitions for the moment) at 75% of its prior strength. At the same time, one fifth of the remainder will leave within six months. That cuts the unit down to 65% of original strength. The most disturbing aspect of this trend is that new acquisitions will not return the unit to its former functioning as the members leaving had an average experience level of 3000 flight hours, a fairly significant experience level.[1]

    Second, adverse reactions were being massively underreported. The GAO survey of 1253 Guard and Reserve aircrew found that of the forty-two (42) percent who had received one or more shots

    86 percent reported experiencing side effects or adverse reactions. About 60 percent indicated that they had not discussed any side effect to the anthrax vaccine with military health care personnel or their supervisors—some (49 percent) citing as their reasons fear of losing their flight status, adverse effects on their military or civilian careers, and ridicule. Seventy-one percent reported that they were unaware of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Slightly less than 6 percent of those who had a reaction reported to this system.[vi]

    Here is proof that the VAERS system, upon which the DoD bases its .007 percent adverse reaction rate, is only being reported by 6% of those having adverse reactions. Perhaps it would be better to say that adverse reaction reports are being underreported by a factor of just under 20 (approximately 17). These numbers, as well as the anecdotal evidence, seem to correspond more closely to the AVA package insert’s serious adverse reaction rate of .2 percent.

    One related outcome of the study points to the most serious flaw and consequence of the AVIP: the loss of trust in low-level military leadership. There is perhaps nothing more tenuous, and yet necessary and essential, to a military organization than the trust that flows from those being led to their leaders. Unfortunately, in an effort to quash dissent, senior military leaders adopted a leadership style that was characteristic of the Soviet bloc armed forces we stood against for some fifty years – leadership by fear and threat of punishment. In the long run it did not work for those countries and our country is even more ill-suited for that style because of the free-flow of information within the United States. Quite simply, whenever a senior officer makes some factual assertion or claim about the AVA, or the anthrax program, or the manufacturer, or the threat of anthrax, it is a short trip to the library, internet, or other source of information for a soldier to check the veracity of that statement.

    The results of the GAO survey showed that while “[m]ost Guard and Reserve pilots and aircrew members support immunization programs in general . . . relatively few appear to support the anthrax program or future immunization programs for other biological warfare agents.”[vii] If the correlation between Reservists and active duty members is valid, servicemembers appeared to recognize what the DoD was not willing to discuss publicly; using vaccines against diseases like the public at large is entirely acceptable, but using vaccines as pretreatments for chemical-biological warfare is a different matter entirely and people are understandably hesitant to allow their bodies to become the future battleground, particularly with the DoD calling the shots. The hard data validates this conclusion.

    Almost three out of four (74 percent) of the pilots and aircrew members of the Guard and Reserve believe that immunizations in general are moderately to very effective, and 60 percent believe that immunizations are moderately to very safe. On the other hand, 65 percent, or two out of three servicemembers, reported little or no support for the anthrax immunization.[viii]

    This statistic is interesting also because it shows that the DoD’s extensive education campaign was entirely ineffective. The reason for this is, unfortunately, because as more facts were uncovered, it became increasingly clear that the program evolved from telling less than the whole truth, to spin, to (in many cases) outright fabrication. There is nothing more damaging to the trust from subordinates to seniors than for subordinates to believe that their senior leaders have lied and are continuing to lie to them. In fact, several Reserve officers filed a complaint against two senior military officers involved in the anthrax program from the very beginning.

    One of the charges in the IG complaint alleges that Colonel Arthur Friedlander, an Army doctor, lied under oath at a Canadian court-martial. A Canadian soldier was being court-martialed for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine, the same one produced by Bioport. The prosecution in that case called Dr. Friedlander as one of its witnesses. On cross-examination, Dr. Friedlander was questioned regarding his knowledge of the 1996 Investigational New Drug license amendment submitted by MDPH, along with the Department of Defense.

    Attorney: If I’m going to suggest to you, sir, that the drug was licenced for cutaneous anthrax only and that there has been a subsequent amendment for coverage for inhalation anthrax, would you agree with me or disagree with me?

    Col Friedlander:  I’m not aware of that . . .

    [Later]

    Attorney: In particular, the fifth paragraph, it says that the office, and this is referring to the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense, quote: “‘managed and funded efforts leading to the submission of a Biologic Licensure Application amendment to the FDA,’ including data to support its proposal ‘to license the vaccine to provide protection against aerosol exposure to anthrax.’” Is that something you’re familiar with, sir, or would you disagree with that statement?

    Col Friedlander: I’m not sure the details of this. I do know that there were questions that were raised, since there are no direct studies in humans with this vaccine, and that a statement was made by the FDA that the use of the vaccine in the Gulf War against the threat of aerosol use of spores was not inconsistent with the product licence. . . .

    Attorney: If I was to suggest to you, sir, that we’ve heard evidence that the vaccine was licenced for cutaneous anthrax and that there was an application placing the drug into IND status with the FDA for three reasons: one, is to change for inhalational anthrax; two, was to change the route of administration; and, three, to change the scheduling of the drugs, would you agree with that or do you know?

    Col Friedlander: I know that there have been studies dealing with trying to reduce the number of doses and to look at the route of administration.

    Atty: So are you saying, sir, that you’re not familiar with what I’ve said, or you disagree with it?

    Friedlander: No, no. I don’t know that ­­ I’d have to look back at the documents that you’re referring to.

    Atty: Okay. So you’re not saying the drug is not in an IND status for those three variations?

    Friedlander: You know, I’m not clear what you’re saying in terms of ­­ I mean, I’m not quite clear what that means, in other words. There are studies that have been done, that I’m involved with, looking at reducing the number of doses and changing the route of administration.[ix]

    Here, Colonel Friedlander repeatedly denies having knowledge about the license amendment for the anthrax vaccine or the vaccine’s investigational status. This is impossible because Colonel Friedlander was personally involved on three occasions in DoD meetings, during which he specifically briefed the three reasons for the IND application, including an FDA license amendment to add an indication for inhalation anthrax. For example, at the October 20, 1995, meeting of the Joint Program Office for Biological Defense (JPOBD) Colonel Friedlander presented a briefing “covering three topics: (1) evidence for a reduction in the number of doses of anthrax vaccine, (2) evidence for vaccine efficacy against an aerosol challenge, and (3) progress towards an in vitro correlate of immunity.” [x] At this same meeting, Dr. Friedlander acknowledged that “there was insufficient data to demonstrate protection against inhalation disease.”[xi]

    At another meeting on Feb 9, 1996, which was a follow up to the October meeting, Colonel Friedlander presented another briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”.[xii] The meeting minutes show that Friedlander discussed the need for the study to show a correlation between animal and human immune response to the vaccine – a recognition that the anthrax vaccine had never demonstrated efficacy for inhalation anthrax in humans.[xiii] This shows an intimate knowledge on Colonel Friedlander’s part about the FDA’s requirements for human studies to prove efficacy of the vaccine.

    Finally, on November 10, 1997, Colonel Friedlander presented another briefing to DoD and contractor representatives entitled “Supplement to AVA License.” This was 14 months after the submission of the IND application by the manufacturer, which was submitted in September 1996. The briefing slides clearly show the three changes sought (including an indication for inhalation anthrax) and that Colonel Friedlander was responsible for the pre-clinical portions of these studies intended to obtain FDA approval for these changes.[xiv]

    There are only two possible conclusions to be reached when re-reading Colonel Friedlander’s denials at the Canadian court, and neither is particularly favorable. In the best light, he completely forgot everything he knew about the anthrax program and his participation in it. In the worst light, he intentionally lied under oath. In either case, these types of inconsistent statements by senior military officers involved with the program break down the trust between service members and their leaders. This is not even close to being the only instance of this happening.

    There was a separate complaint filed by 74 Guard and Reserve officers surrounding statements made by Major General Paul Weaver before Congress. The complaint cited testimony before the House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations. At a Sept. 29, 1999, hearing in front of the House, Weaver stated:

    “So, when I hear all of these other figures about these mass resignations [due to members refusing the anthrax vaccine], and what not, they’re just not there. There are challenges with explaining, with discussing, as they all are, with the members of their unit, on the anthrax issue. But when it really gets down to it, we’ve had 10,700 people inoculated for anthrax in the Air National Guard, with one known refusal.”[xv]

    The problem with this testimony is that months before his statement to that Committee, Weaver had been made aware of the resignations of pilots from both the Connecticut Air National Guard and Wisconsin ANG. In the case of the Connecticut pilots, a memo was forwarded to Weaver about the Connecticut resignations. Additionally, both the Wisconsin and Connecticut resignations received widespread media coverage, including the Connecticut resignations being referenced by former Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon on Jan. 21, 1999. While ultimately the DoD IG did not punish Major General Weaver, it did find that his statement “lacked the necessary element of ‘straightforwardness,’ and so was inconsistent with guidelines for honesty as set forth by the Joint Ethics Regulations (JER).”[xvi] Major General Weaver later qualified what he meant by a refusal, which he defined as a person who had a commitment to the ANG and could thus be subject to disciplinary action, as opposed to someone who could simply resign because their status allowed them to. There were some emails by staff members prior to the General’s testimony that confirm that this definition was being contemplated, but it is clear no such qualifiers were made in the broad statement made to Congress – only one “refusal”, period.

    The sum total of these kinds of parsings, misrepresentations, or flat-out lies, is a disintegration in the trust between those being led and those who are supposed to be doing the leading. When 74 officers are filing a complaint because of a General officer’s mis-statements before Congress, there is a serious problem. The DoD’s refusal to acknowledge in sworn testimony before Congress that such a problem even exists, rather than making it go away, only exacerbates the problem and further erodes trust in senior leaders. The final example of this is the most disturbing because at best, it illustrates a severe disconnect between senior military leaders and those they lead and have led (i.e. veterans) and at worst, it is a case of an intentional coverup of experimentation on service members.

    In testimony to the Senate Armed Service’s Committee on 13 April 2000, then-Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Ronald Blanck misrepresented the purpose of the Investigational New Drug application prepared by the Army for the manufacturer. The Senator who queried LTG Blanck was unfamiliar with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and accepted LTG Blanck’s testimony without question. This question goes directly to the heart of the legal status of the vaccine and the General either lied or was grossly misinformed. It is difficult to believe that the United States Army Surgeon General was not “in the know” about the DoD’s plan to amend MBPI (and then BioPort’s) license.

    SEN. ROBERTS: General Blanck, the annual Congressionally mandated chemical and biological defense program report to Congress submitted on March 15, 2000, states: “The Department submitted data to the FDA last year to license the vaccine to provide protection against aerosol exposure to anthrax.” My question is why is the Department seeking a license for the vaccine when the license for the anthrax vaccine has existed since 1970?

    GEN. BLANCK:  It is really for the facility, not for the vaccine per se.

    SEN. ROBERTS: Oh, I see, okay. All right. That clears that up.

    There is a big difference between seeking a license change for a new facility and getting a new indication for the vaccine itself. In light of emails later discovered regarding DoD’s people “on site” and the supplemental testing conducted by the DoD, even in a light most favorable to the General, if he wasn’t lying, then he was either completely misinformed by his subordinates about what was going on (which isn’t reassuring in any way) or completely misunderstood the FDA regulatory process, which doesn’t speak well for his knowledge as the Surgeon General. Furthermore, in 1994, General Blanck, when he was the Commanding General of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, briefed a Congressional committee that

    Therefore, its [AVA’s] safety, particularly when given to thousands of soldiers in conjunction with other vaccines, is not well established. Anthrax vaccine should continue to be considered as a potential cause for undiagnosed illnesses in Persian Gulf military personnel because many of the support troops received anthrax vaccine, and because the DOD believes that the incidence of undiagnosed illnesses in support troops may be higher than that in combat troops.[xvii]

    Just a few years prior, General Blanck asserts that the DoD believes that the AVA should be considered a cause of Gulf War Illness. Yet after his promotion to Surgeon General of the Army and the launch of the AVIP, he tried to disavow these statements. It would be understandable if General Blanck’s change in position were due to some scientific evidence that proves that the AVA is or was not a potential cause of Gulf War Illness. Unfortunately, the evidence continued to mount that the AVA was a possible source of Gulf War Illness. The DoD consistently opposed any study that showed a link between vaccines or other medicines that were given to soldiers and Gulf War Illness. The evidence supporting this would eventually become conclusive and the VA would acknowledge pyridostigmine bromide pills as causal of GWI for VA benefit purposes.

    The problem with the dissembling and misstatements by senior military leaders isn’t just the loss of trust from the junior servicemembers. When all of the dissembling continually concerns the anthrax vaccine, it only serves to make people more suspicious of the program. The DoD repeatedly complained that it was “internet misinformation” undermining the program, but the real culprit was the DoD’s own misinformation that served to erode all faith in this program. This pattern of deception was most evident when the issue of the anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illness came up. The DoD showed just how far it would go to protect the AVA.

    Endnotes

    [1] In the Marine Corps, for example, someone with 3000 flight hours would most likely be a Major returning to a squadron for a second tour or already into a second tour.

    [i] GAO 01-92T p.6

    [ii] Statement of MajGen Paul Weaver, USAFR (see background brief).

    [iii] GAO T-NSIAD-00-36 p.37

    [iv] GAO 01-92T

    [v] Id. p. 1.

    [vi] GAO 01-92T p.5-6

    [vii] GAO 0192T p.4

    [viii] Id. p.4

    [ix] Canadian court-martial trial transcript, Judge G.L. Brais, 30 Mar 2000, Office of the Chief Military Judge, Canadian Forces

    [x] LTC David Danley, “Minutes of the Meeting on Changing the Food and Drug Administration License for the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) Anthrax Vaccine to Meet Military Requirements”, held on 20 Oct 1995 meeting; Joint Program Office for Biological Defense memorandum, 13 Nov 1995.

    [xi] Id.

    [xii] Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, Minutes of the Anthrax License Amendment Issues Meeting, briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”, 9 Feb 1996.

    [xiii] Id.  Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, Minutes of the Anthrax License Amendment Issues Meeting, briefing titled “Research Plan to Support Reduction in Dosage of Licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVA) and Indication for Aerosol Exposure”, 9 Feb 1996.

    [xiv] Col (Dr.) Arthur Friedlander, briefing titled “Supplement to AVA License” (slides), meeting attended by USAMRIID and contractor representatives, 10 Nov 1997

    [xv] House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans’ Affairs and International Relations.  Sept. 29, 1999

    [xvi] Reported by Dave Eberart, Stars and Stripes, May 11, 2001, quoting from March IG Report.

    [xvii] Senate Report 103-97, note 143

  • Term Limits, Part II

    Filthy Lucre
    A. Take money/donation; then 1. Gin up angst; 2. Claim “dire consequences, UNLESS;” 3. Pass law; 4. Start Over at A

    How to Justify Legislation

    Every problem, no matter how small or inconsequential, can never fail to be magnified, exaggerated, or – with a suitably agenda-driven Media – simply concocted out of whole cloth by partisan hacks and flacks, and then subsequently painted as requiring government intervention of one kind or another. This typically take the form of regulation, spearheaded by those fearsome warriors of the quill, our legislators! Boies Penrose, the PA legislator and US Senator (quoted in Part I) was famous for his “squeeze bills.” These were essentially extortion threats to businesses within a given industry that they would be strictly regulated by Congress…unless they paid a certain fee to the re-election campaign of a given politician. If you think this is some relic of the past, please understand: your Congressional representatives do this to businesses ALL. OF. THE. TIME. In other words, Virginia, not only is there not a Santa Claus, but Congress is also not very different in result from the Mafia in its shakedowns of legitimate businesses. It is nothing more or less than the same ol’ protection rackets, except the armed thugs who enforce it will not be Bent-Nose Tony or One-Eyed-Vito, instead it will be the police who, like good soldiers, will dutifully take to the streets to ensure the dictates of their legislative masters are not being ignored by the tax-donkeys citizenry.

    If this seems unduly harsh on the police, consider the underlying circumstances that instigated the encounter between Eric Garner and New York police in 2014. All of the hoopla was around choke holds, police training, and racism, but flushed down the memory-hole is the reason police had an interaction with Eric Garner in the first place: he had been picked up previously in that same area for selling “loosies,” a term for single cigarettes. “Why is selling loose cigarettes a crime in the first place?” you might ask. Well, that was made a crime by the New York legislature, which came on the heels of massive sin taxes they placed on cigarettes, which created the black market for “loosies” in the first place. In summary then, the police killed a man, Eric Garner, who wasn’t even selling cigarettes at the time, but was in the same location where he had been arrested for it previously, and when the police encountered him trying to break up a fight, the fatal encounter began. The real tragedy goes unaddressed amidst all of the hoopla over whether the encounter/actions of the police were racially motivated or not. It wasn’t racially motivated: it was economically motivated… by the legislature. Tobacco companies, demonized (justly or not) by the public because of their actions in hiding what they knew about tobacco’s addictive properties and higher statistical propensity to cause lung cancer, became easy, easy targets for legalized extortion by your elected representatives: the legislative branch. No one stood up in defense of those companies’ rights – and that is exactly how everyone’s rights are diminished. If you won’t stand up for the rights of the most odious among us, then you don’t really believe in those rights. You just like to tell yourself that you do.

    Only a rare few magazines or authors have focused on this point.

    Why were the cops so hell-bent on stamping out the sales of loosies, which typically sell for 75 cents a pop in Staten Island (and two times or more that in Manhattan)? New York City boasts the highest cost for cigarettes in the nation, with a pack ranging anywhere from $12 and up. The city lays its own taxes on top of the state’s, in an effort both to raise revenue and discourage use of tobacco.

    The result is a thriving market in sales of loosies and black-market cigarettes more generally. Since 2006, the tax on cigarettes in New York have risen 190 percent and cigarette smuggling has risen by 59 percent, writes Lawrence J. McQuillan of the Independent Institute. Whether it’s liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, when you try to stamp out something consenting adults want, you cause as many or more problems as you ameliorate.

    – Nick Gillespie (from the above-linked article).

    And if you didn’t believe these phenomenon are in any way related, note this article from the Wall Street Journal, subtitled, “The New York Police Department has made nearly 33% fewer arrests citywide so far this year for selling untaxed cigarettes.”

    The police enforce the will of the legislature. The legislature sells legislation to political donors. Political donors, both corporate and individual, become ‘constituents’ only one way… You aren’t a recognized constituent until you start donating to politicians’ campaigns. Prior to that time, the only time politicians can “hear you” is if you manage to make a big, loud, angry mess that gets picked up by the Media and either (a) they see an opportunity to leverage you/your issue, or (b) might harm their reelection chances.

    In summary thus far, we know that (a) even the previously-believed-to-be-a-saint Father of the Country, George Washington, bribed the voters in his district to win election; (b) no modern legislator comes anywhere moderately close to being even half of the gentlemen that George Washington genuinely was; (c) and Lord Acton was entirely correct.

    Devalue Politicians by Changing the Economics

    Having identified the root of the problem, the question becomes how to control the flow of money into politicians’ coffers. Every attempt has failed because even honest and well-intentioned reformers seek to attack the “money” – and not the underlying economics that are at the heart of the entire corrupt enterprise. It is unfortunately the same kind of animist thinking that sees banning guns as the only way to stop shootings, or banning drugs as the way to lower drug addiction, etc. The simplest, most effective solution is to attack the basis of the underlying economy: in this case, to make politicians not worth buying. (In the other examples, it’s to stop re-enacting Prohibition by legislative fiat over and over again, but those are separate subjects for their own space another time.)

    What does it Cost for Legislation?

    The primary method politicians use to avoid the sticky problem of being directly bribed by their political donors has been the “re-election campaign as front for political quid pro quo.” That is the current popular way to solicit money from paying customers. (i.e. political constituents who would be affected by a given piece of legislation). While it is true some politicians have found other, more ingenious variations on this theme, political campaigns continue to be the primary vehicle for buying legislation.*

    (*One could, however, set up a really bizarre shell Foundation/corporation/non-profit with subchapters in other countries, and then launder your political payoffs through said Foundation, where all of your friends, family, political lackeys, and supporters also happen to work and draw a handsome salary… some while simultaneously drawing a government salary! You might even get your disbarred spouse to give highly-paid speaking engagement in countries where you might be able to affect United States foreign policy in favor of those paying for said speaking gigs… just an idea, of course.)

    Buying legislation (i.e. making a large donation to a campaign) for your own benefit, or to the detriment of your competitors or smaller businesses, always comes with the possibility that the legislative promise can’t be kept. The best thing the Founding Fathers did was to spread the legislative power out over a wide geographical and political area, and make it procedurally difficult to gain a consensus. Congress is filled with a myriad of committees and subcommittees and byzantine rules of procedure. That reality is already priced into the market for legislation. It’s why politicians are constantly campaigning – they don’t just get big sacks of money by promising they’re going to pass a law. It’s not that simple.

    The junior Congresswoman from Nebraska, for example, is unlikely to be able to do squat legislatively for several terms. Thus, what she can expect to solicit in campaign donations is not very much. Committee Chairs, however, have power to control agendas for their committees, including what legislation gets “tabled” or considered. Consequently, those committee chairs are “worth” more on the market for legislation/campaign donations. Speakers, the Whip, and other senior party members are obviously worth even more again, and so on up the line, which is why Presidential elections are like the Super Bowl of political campaigns: the money spent is a direct reflection of the power that the “marketplace” for political control sees in the Presidency: the veto power, the right to appoint Supreme Court justices for life, foreign policy, the military, etc.

    Now that we start to understand how the legislative sausage is made, or perhaps more importantly, who actually pays to have the legislative sausage made, we’re in a better position tot understand what real “reform” would look like. It also helps explain why reform never really happens: because the people who pass the laws are in no way going to slaughter their own cash cow. In the next part I explain how to change the economics around politics.

  • Glibertarians.com LITERALLY DESTROYS Eric Swalwell with FACTS and LOGIC

    Introduction

    Is this the dumbest thing we do here?  No, not at all.  You see reader, progression of culture is driven by those that exist on the fringe of polite society.  Quite frankly this site was built upon pillars known as The Hat and the Hair.  There is nothing more fringe than the idea the actions of a semi-mindless automaton named Donald Trump being dictated by the sentient headgear he is wearing at the time.  Using sound experimental methodology to recreate sounds in an effort to test the hypothesis this was not the sound of a congressman producing flatulence is not beyond this site.  Indeed, to do so with a straight face while reviewing beer, therefore is most certainly something you can only find on Glibertarians.com.

    This is my review of Samuel Smith’s Welcome Winter Ale.

    This whole thing was prompted last week when MSNBC interviewed Rep. Eric Swalwell regarding the first day of the “impeachment inquiry”, who appeared to flat loudly on live television.  Roll Tape…

    Naturally, the internet did what it does best and give MSNBC more attention that it could possibly gain on the merits of their own content.  In response to the reaction from the internet suggestions were made as to what was the sound.  Specifically, MSNBC said it was a mug off-camera being dragged across a desk within range of the microphone.  Swalwell himself, also denied the sound was flatulence.

    Hypothesis

    If the sound in the background of the original interview is a mug being dragged across a desk, then dragging a mug across a desk will produce a sound similar to flatulence.

    Methodology

    Three tests to drag a Glibertarians Beer Stein (available the WordPress Store) will be performed with a video and audio recoding each test.  This is not only in essence, a ceramic mug, it is a particularly large ceramic mug.  The first test will be a simply drag across part of the desk immediately in front of the mousepad that has made an appearance on multiple occasions on this site.  The second test will account for the possibility the mug was dragged on a corner.  Finally, the third test will be much like third test, except more pressure will be placed on the mug that the first test.

    Results

    .
    .
    .

    .
    .
    .

     

    Discussion

    In none of these tests, did the sound produced by dragging the mug across a desk sound in any way similar to the sound produced in the background of the MSNBC interview with Rep. Eric Swalwell.  While it can be argued or denied the sound was flatulence, the explanation the sound was produced by a mug being dragged across a desk is not supported by the results of this experiment.

    Conclusion

    Don’t piss on my leg, and tell me it’s raining, MSNBC.

     

    Samuel Smith typically makes good beer.  This one is brewed and sold once a year apparently, and I managed to find it at Trader Joe’s for a very reasonable $4.  It is a traditional English ale with a twist…they hopped it.  What?  Don’t run away!  It’s not like that.

    No, seriously it’s not.  It winds up being quite balanced between the usual bready malt, Golden, and Fuggle hops.  Get it while its available.  Samuel Smiths Welcome Winter Ale 3.7/5

  • Term Limits, Part I

    Freedom's just another word for...?
    Imagine being arrested and thrown in jail merely for expressing an unpopular opinion. Okay, now analyze and explain “hate speech.”

    Campaign Finance Reform – A Primer

    All attempts at Campaign Finance Reform in these United States have failed. ALL. Every single one of them.

    If that sounds like exaggeration, just consider that attempts to limit the influence of money in politics is typically taught in history or civics classes as beginning (in earnest) shortly after the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the pro-slavery founder of the Democratic party whose administration ultimately produced the political “spoils system.” That would put us back to the mid- to late- 1830’s. Good ol’ “Honest Abe” himself was bankrupted trying to personally finance his first Senatorial campaign in 1858, so he had to rely upon businessman from Philadelphia and New York to finance his Presidential campaign in 1860. According to some historians, however, money was in politics from the beginning of the Republic.

    In the United States, concerns over financing campaigns for public office have been around since before the writing of the Constitution. Candidates traded influence, power, and gifts, for constituents’ money and votes even before the dawn of the Republic. George Washington – later President, but at the time, a candidate for the Virginia House of Burgesses – bestowed upon the 391 voters in his district the “customary means” of winning votes: “28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and 2 gallons of cider royal.” James Madison lost his reelection campaign to the Virginia legislature 20 years later because he refused to provide voters with the customary whiskey.

    Gardner and Charles, “Election Law in the American Political System,” p. 637.

    In 1867, just two years after the Civil War, the first legislative attempt at campaign finance reform appeared in a Naval Appropriations bill. It forbade government officials from soliciting (i.e. “shaking down”) Navy Yard workers for money to finance the ruling party’s election campaigns. This had become a routine practice in prior years. So routine was it that federal employees would have some portion of their pay directly “assessed” by the government to the Party’s re-election fund. The protections of the 1867 Navy yard workers were eventually extended to all civil service workers… (But not the rest of us, evidently.) The Presidential campaign of 1896 was so openly a case of dueling donors obtaining political promises from each Parties’ respectively well-financed candidates – William Jennings Bryan for Team Blue and William McKinley for Team Red – that the public began yelling for campaign finance reform… and here we are 120 years later. This brief timeline of attempts at reform shows just how fruitless they all have been.

    Modern, seemingly sophisticated attempts at campaign finance reform, by people from both political parties in Congress, have ultimately been set aside by Supreme Court decisions. While it may be unpalatable or politically inexpedient to say this, the Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases are very solid reads of the First Amendment… proving yet again the old adage that “sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut” or  that “even a broken clock is right twice a day.” Lawsuits by public interest groups have ultimately failed to produce anything even close to a good result. Now the public feels so desperate for something to happen that they’ll embrace even nonsensical calls for reform by (of all people!!) Hilary Clinton. The much-ballyhooed, and almost totally misunderstood, case of Citizens United, 558 U.S. 310 (210) was about a non-profit movie company that made a film about then Senator Clinton. The Federal Election Commission agreed that the movie would be subject to a federal campaign finance law that would have imposed criminal and civil penalties on the movie company. That is to say, the law as it was made it a crime for a collection of people – using a corporate form – from expressing their political opinions, quintessential First Amendment conduct. Hard to imagine that the words “Congress shall make NO LAW” are ambiguous, but here we are, with a mountain of laws collectively regarding each and every one of the subjects specifically listed as exempt from regulation in the First Amendment.

    Either We Are a Republic With a Charter To Be Faithfully Followed, or We Are Not.

    Understanding How the (Legislative) Sausage Gets Made

    To understand why campaign finance reform doesn’t work – and what simple fix would work – you have to understand some basic economics around how the political sausage gets made, so to speak.

    First, you must know what politicians all know: there has only been one time in the last 42 years that the rate of re-election for Congressional incumbents dipped below 90% – that was 1974, when it was only 89.7%, a rounding of tenths away from being 90%. Muse on that for minute – Congress has had historically bad approval ratings – like below 20%, for decades, by any polling company. Everyone thinks Congress sucks; yet Congressional incumbents get re-elected over 90% of the time. It’s a near-certainty. Many people have speculated or offered reasoned opinions about this phenomenon, but I don’t really care about the “why” because the mere statistical truth of it is all that matters for my argument.

    Second, we must make the rather short “hop” of faith and assume that politicians are at least as self-interested as the rest of us… one might humbly suggest that they are (perhaps) even a bit more self-interested than the rest of us, or make the claim that the job attracts the type, but I don’t need to prove that as crucial to my theory. Suffice it that my claim rests on what I believe to be a rather well-observed phenomenon about the self-interest of politicians. Lord Acton wrote an entire tract explaining this, but unfortunately no one reads it and all that we remember (if at all) is this quote: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” My own observation from many years of government service and being an American is simply that the government does not choose its prospective employees from some magical pool of magnanimous, morally benevolent, and personally-disinterested human beings. If you think I am incorrect, you’ve obviously never been to the Department of Motor Vehicles to register your car, or change the title, or correct a typo on a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). Try to manage that over your lunch break and let me know how it goes; and ask yourself about how good the customer service is while you’re there.

    The Currency of the Politician is Law – Legislation For Some and Against Others

    He's Lying!
    Rep. Chuck Schumer (D, NY) explains how he can’t read, doesn’t understand, and doesn’t care about the 1st Amendment.

    To the above facts we have to add some economics. In my opinion, the best way to begin to understand this is to ask a very simple question: if you were a legislator looking to raise some cash, what would you have to sell? (Think about it seriously for a moment).

    ANS: Legislation. i.e. Laws.

    Legislation is the only thing that a lawmaker can offer any prospective “buyer.” It is the medium of exchange (i.e. the currency) of the political class and a specific instance of the more general “Law of the Instrument.”* In return for a piece of favorable legislation, or a clause in the next omnibus bill – or exemption from cuts or regulation – political donors deposit sums into re-elections campaigns, or exchange different favors with lobbyists – the “middlemen” of the entire Money-for-Favor-for-Reelection Triangle.

    If this seems unduly cynical, it shouldn’t be. If you have a friend who is a cop, who hasn’t heard of, or considered, asking him or her to “look into” a ticket…? Now magnify that onto a scale where instead of your hundred-fifty bucks plus court costs being at stake, it’s someone else’s multi-million dollar, multinational business and a piece of legislation that would ensure government contracts flowing that direction for the next 10 years. Or a promise to keep government regulators out of your business for at least your friendly Senator’s next 6 years of office. If all of this seems speculative or just too much to swallow at once, consider this quote right from the horse’s mouth, as it were:

    You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money…and out of your profits, you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money.

    — Senator Boies Penrose, (R, PA) 1896 (quoted in Id., Gardner and Charles, p. 638.)

    I always hear people complain about the influence of “corporate money” in politics and yet no one ever seems to consider that if their Senator wasn’t offering legislation for sale, the corporation wouldn’t be able to make a purchase. And it is in no way solely corporations buying-off politicians. Unions are at least as powerful and well-off as any corporation and billionaires with agendas sit on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. In fact, if we’re dealing in generalities, it is worth wondering: if corporations are filled with greedy, capital-obsessed Scrooges, why would any of those money-grubbers ever voluntarily give their money to a politician in the first place? To ask the question is to destroy the premise.

    When you’re starting a company in your garage you don’t start by setting aside your political lobbying budget, then make whatever widget, software, computer, or other item that is the money-making aspect of your new venture. You first have to make something that a large enough number of people are willing to voluntarily pay you such that you have a growing enterprise, be it a successful song, an iPhone, the personal computer, or a rubber tire. Legislators don’t enter your mind until well down the road in the business cycle. Thus, perhaps it is enough to agree that legislators aren’t the unfortunate victims of a “system” that is foisted upon them. What Senators and Congressman do to fill the coffers of their re-elections campaigns is a perfectly natural, foreseeable byproduct of the funding of the political system.

    Part Two explains how it works in greater detail.

  • Chapter 15 – The Stay

    “Well, if they’re going to issue the stay at all, now would be a good time! I mean, if no stay today, by tomorrow night my guy is eating with the big metal spoon, if you know what I mean.” I’m on the phone to appellate defense in Washington, D.C. I look at my watch. The digital face reads 00:31. Ten-thirty in the morning east coast time.

    “Alright, bye.” I hang up. I’m looking at documents, but I’m not really seeing anything – David Ponder’s record book, letter from his wife, character statements, and I’m trying to imagine how I’m going to defend him tomorrow. I’ve got one last motion that I’ll bring at the close of the government’s case. One last grasp that has a sound basis in law, but the judge will deny it, at this point. It’s a technicality.

    From the beginning I’ve had the sense that they have mischarged the offense, perhaps intentionally. The prosecution has charged it as willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer. Under the UCMJ, that has a stiffer penalty than the more general charge of violating a lawful general order, such as the order from the Secretary of Defense, to take the anthrax shot. The government has charged it as violating the specific Navy Lieutenant’s order, but there is an old case that stands for the proposition that merely repeating a higher order can not make an orders violation the more egregious willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer. It is called the “ultimate offense doctrine,” but it probably isn’t going to work. Nothing else has.

    I’m tired. I haven’t slept much, I need a shave, and my back is killing me from my tiny desk chair at home and my broken desk chair at work. I need to get David’s sentencing case together, review my opening statement and closing argument, and make sure all of the documents are in my case file, with necessary copies for each of the jurors…

    My head nods and I realize I’ve drifted off at my desk. I look at my watch and see it’s 2:33 am. I rub my face and decide to take a walk.

    The building is dark and empty, except for me and the feisty Okinawan cockroaches. I stroll the dark corridors, my sneakers making a light tread on the tile. I stretch my arms over my head as I walk to the entrance. Out the window, the open field beside our building is dark. I can barely see the slope that I know rises up to a road that runs next to the next set of office buildings and the barracks.

    I hear the phone in the clerk’s office ring, but there’s nothing particularly unusual about that at this hour because of the time difference; people frequently fax documents from the States during our nighttime in Okinawa. The fax ticks away, a counterpoint to the flying bugs banging into the glass on the door and the light just outside of it. Tick-tick-tick. In seven hours, David Ponder is going to be facing a jury, and likely going to jail. Unless that fax. . .

    I walk hurriedly to the defense clerk’s office and go to the fax machine behind the clerk’s desk. Letter-sized sheets are spitting out, face down. I grab one and flip it over to see if it has anything to do with me. The cover sheet is from the Washington Navy Yard. I grab the whole stack while more keep sliding out.

    My eyes flick over the words.

    “YEAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!” I let out a guttural yell that echoes throughout the empty building. “Can you feel that, huh!?! Baby, can ya’!?” My best Ace Ventura, hips thrusting, fist pumping. I want to cry with relief. We beat the clock by seven hours. I’ve kept my promise to David and his wife, to Jason Stonewall, and Vittolino Arroyo. We have a stay from the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. No one’s going to jail tomorrow.

                                                                                                                                                                           

    I take my time packing up and make a few copies of the stay. Before I leave, somewhere near 3 am, I take a ten-penny nail and hammer the stay to the prosecution’s office door. I don’t do it right through the middle, however, because I’m still a Marine Officer and someone might bitch to the CO about a nail in the door. I hammer the nail just deep enough to look like someone was careless; but not all the way through the door, for example. I also place the nail an inch or two above the middle of the sheet, close enough to the top of the sheet that it doesn’t look like it was intentionally in the middle, but far enough down that someone will have to either rip the paper in half to get it off or pry out the nail. It’s an asshole move, to be certain, but I know it might be all the satisfaction I’m going to get in the long run, so I indulge myself. It’s the little “fuck yous” that matter in life. It won’t be the last laugh, but it’s enough to make me smile as I walk to my car for the drive back to Kadena Air Base officer housing and my wife and four daughters.

  • Something, something, animals are more equal, something, something

    I honestly try not to flip out at the news.  It more or less has become a part of life and others might argue one should be aware of current events in order to be a good citizen.

    Then something like this comes up, and breaks my chill.

    This is my review of La Cumbre Piña Quercus

    So what part of this aggravated me?  Was it the part where a US District Judge overruled a lower court’s ruling the Covington Catholic school boy’s lawsuit for libel in the wake of a 16 year old kid having the temerity to smirk at a guy banging a drum and shouting in his face, and to eventually be called racist by social media, the legacy media, and some politicians?  No, of course not—it was this part:

    The students sued the Massachusetts congresswoman and 11 other public figures who criticized the students, including New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, actress Kathy Griffin, activist Shaun King and U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland.

    U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman ruled Tuesday that Warren acted within the scope of her employment when she tweeted and is therefore protected by sovereign immunity. 

    “The Court concludes that the challenged statements by defendants Warren and Haaland — whether one agrees with them or finds them objectionable — are communications intended to convey the politicians’ views on matters of public interest to their constituents,” Bertelsman wrote. 

    The judge also dismissed Haaland, of New Mexico, from the suit. Haaland had tweeted that Phillips was “harassed and mocked by a group of MAGA hat-wearing teens.”

    Attorneys for the students claimed the boys became the target of “a social media lynch mob” that spread misinformation and led to the boys receiving death threats and hate mail.

    Sovereign Immunity.  What is that you ask?  Let me preface that I am not an attorney, nor do I intend to convey the idea that I am one.  That said my graduate degree is in Public Administration and I not only wrote a paper on the matter, I did particularly well on the assignment.  Should one of the law dogs here wish to weigh in, please do so.

    I rule in favor of me. DILLY DILLY

    Sovereign Immunity is a legal concept Americans borrowed from the British.  The idea is to avoid the circular logic in filing a lawsuit against the Crown.  The British Crown set up the courts in part to settle civil disputes between subjects, the rulings which hold the force of law because the court is acting directly on behalf of the British Crown.  Quite frankly, the queen and the rest of her family is either (supposedly) drinking beyond her own government’s recommendation, flying in private jets while whining about climate change, or (allegedly) hitting up jailbait with Epstein…they simply do not have that kind of time.  A subject therefore can file a lawsuit against an individual, or a company that violated that individual’s rights under common law.  What happens if you are wronged by somebody working on behalf of the government?  The Crown enabled the official that wronged you, and you are now asking a court who’s power is derived from the discretion of Crown…

    You see where I am going with this, you cannot sue the Crown.  Even if you could, do you think they will rule honestly?

    But this is America, and we fought a war to get away from this, right?  We did indeed fight the war but didn’t get away from from it.  From the pocket Constitution on my desk, Article III, Section 2 says:

    Unfortunately, if you have a problem with a particular person in the US Government acting under the Constitution, you are stuck going through the courts set up under that same Constitution.  This concept is further reinforced under the 11th Amendment.

    Page break…

    Unfortunately, there will be no lawsuits affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsels, and those in which a State shall be Party.  Can you sue a government agency or the state itself for violation of rights?  Of course, but the asshole that did it is immune because he was just doing his job.

    The problem I have with this is the lawsuit is for libel, which is knowingly spreading false information that disparages the subject in print or other forms of media.  Unlike slander, which is spoken, libel has a record of happening making it easier to prove.  Even after an unedited version of the video suggested the story the media told about the incident was wrong, they continued telling the same story saying the MAGA hat wearing Covington kids started an altercation and the dude banging the drum was trying to keep the peace, and it was racist to smirk at the guy.  Only a racist would wear a MAGA hat.

    Well, Lizzy got busy spreading this misinformation on Twitter.  Per this clown’s ruling, a senator is immune from spreading what any reasonable person can determine is a lie, because a senator giving her opinion on current events falls under a senator’s daily duties.  I for one say this is bullshit, and she should be held personally responsible for spreading this lie.  Being a senator and now a candidate for president means the lie will spread faster from the press coverage she will recieve, harming the subjects further than had she done the sensible thing and said nothing at all.

    …but her inability to simply not lie is another matter.

    So what in the hell kind of beer is this?  This is a pineapple sour ale aged in tequila barrels.  I thought this was going to suck.  Arizona has a rather popular pineapple wheat beer that I go for from time to time that I find a bit sweet, but chuggable on a hot day.  This is not like that.  I thought it was going to to be too sour for me to enjoy.  This is not like that either.  Finally, I thought this was going to be a blast of tequila; no, this is not like that at all.  It is interesting, rather expensive ($16), but otherwise well done.  La Cumbre Piña Quercus 3.5/5.