Flying for Swine Flu

The New York Times Week in Review yesterday dedicated its back page to preparations for a swine flu or H1N1 epidemic. And as one might expect, the airlines are not doing what they need to do to make sure that cabins, the air in the cabins, and the habits of crew and passengers will not be a major conduit, anymore than airplanes currently are, for the spread of the illness.

This past spring every time I flew, I got bronchitis, because someone near me was coughing or sneezing, and the air quality in planes now is treacherously bad. And I am a handwashing maniac, too.

Mark Gendreau, the vice chairman of emergency medicine at the Lahey Clinic and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Tufts University, wrote a scathing critique of just how badly the airlines are doing when it comes to avoiding the spread of swine flu, and for that matter, all contagious diseases. Read Fly the Germ-Free Skies.

According to Dr. Gendreau, the airlines should be training its cabin attendants to help passengers maintain a level of hygiene, like distributing hand sanitizers, and the airlines themselves should be upgrading the quality of air filtration in their planes. But with the economy in the pits, and airlines worried about the bottom line, it's unlikely that they will respond to this call for action. And since passengers have to avoid carrying liquids on board, we should at least be carrying wipes to make sure that we keep ourselves as germ-free as possible especially before we eat our peanuts and drink our coffee.

In a related article, Arthur Allen, author of “Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver,” speaks about the government's responsibility to alert us about the dangers of any new flu vaccine, and distinguishes between correlation and cause, especially when people get sick from taking a vaccine. Read "Prepare for a Vaccine Controversy."

Either It's Getting Closer or It's the Illusion of Getting Closer

Accountability for the torture used by the Bush administration in the "war on terror" might have come one step closer to being actualized, or the leaks to the press might be making it look like tortured, hard decisions are about to be made within the Obama administration.

I can't tell the difference yet. Newsweek's Daniel Klaidman reported in a long and very "personal" look into the character and family of Eric Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, that four separate sources claim he is struggling with the decision whether to go after the Bush administration officials responsible for authorizing torture.

Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision.

Citing the two recent extremes of attorneys general--Janet Reno who was fiercely independent and therefore not an insider of the Clinton administration and Alberto Gonzales, a mere "yes-man," Newsweek claimed that since Holder was the White House liaison during the embattled Reno years, he is extremely sensitive to the balance he needs to bring to his job--enforce the law yet also support the President's agenda. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, is the constant reminder of just what that Presidential agenda is. But according to these sources, what Holder has learned about what occurred during the Bush years is moving him closer to opening an investigation.

Then there is the New York Times story this morning by Scott Shane. What began as a disingenuous attempt by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to wiggle out of responsibility for knowing that the CIA was waterboarding has turned into admissions that the CIA, under orders of the evil mentor of Bush, that's vice president Dick Cheney, to prevent Congressional oversight committees from being briefing on a yet unnamed CIA program: extraordinary rendition, more wiretapping, assassinations, torture of detainees?

According to the Times: The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

This is major news. Surely the Sunday morning talking heads will be all abuzz. We have to find out what happened, and hold people accountable. That is the essence of the rule of law. Yes, Obama's popularity around the world has restored much of America's lost credibility. But the only way to restore our credibility at home, among the voters and citizens, is to undo the corruption to the rule of law and restore government to its foundations in the constitution.

April 15th--Where Has All The Money Gone?

For those of you worrying about how you are going to get that check to the IRS today, consider this: on April 13, 2009, in an article in The New York Times, Luis A. Ubiñas, the new head of the Ford Foundation admitted that it lost one-third of its endowment in the last year.

Last year, Ford’s assets fell 30 percent to $9.5 billion, yet it remains the country’s second-largest foundation after the Gates Foundation.

Ford didn't do much better than I did with my retirement fund. Happy Tax Day.

Endorsements

There is a growing list of Republican stalwarts who are endorsing Barack Obama for President. the most impressive for me, at least, was the seven minute monologue by Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State under George W. Bush. There might be personal motivations for his endorsement, as eloquent and thoughtful as it was. Powell might have seen an opportunity to distance himself further from the failed policies of the Bush administration, its failed war on terror, its failed war in Iraq and Afghanistan, its ruthless denial of civil rights and civil liberties.

But what is Charles Fried's motivation? Charles Fried is the former Solicitor General for the United States under Reagan and now a professor at Harvard Law School. He asked that his name be removed from several McCain committees, and publicly announced that he had voted for Obama by absentee ballot.

Christopher Hitchens, the author and columnist, also endorsed Obama, calling Sarah Palin a "disgrace."

Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley and founder of The National Review, endorsed Obama in The Daily Beast and was fired from the magazine his father started.

Lincoln Chafee, the former Senator from Rhode Island, one of the last moderates in the Republican Party, has supported Obama since well into the primaries.

Then there are the newspapers:
The New York Times ran a thorough and unreserved endorsement on October 23, 2008.

Washington Post wrote its endorsement on October 17, 2008, again without reservations.

Way back in February, the Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama.

And did I mention the Chicago Tribune, endorsing Obama, the first Democrat in its history?

And now for some humor: Catch Will Farrell as Bush endorsing a reluctant John McCain played by Darrell Hammond from SNL with Sarah Palin, of course it was Tina Fey, mugging for the camera.