Reactionary Authors and Conspiracy Theories

From time to time, I receive links to articles posted on a site titled" News With Views. This particular site has decided conservative bent. Or, maybe it doesn't. A conservative, conspiracy theorist bent? Any way, sometimes the stuff they publish is amazingly 'non-mainstream.' Some of the authors are anything but mainstream.

Today, I received a link to an article entitled "Tragedy in Japan Affects World Population." The subject of the article leads one to believe that it offers some insight into the nuclear reactors in Fukushima. It does, sort of. If you consider conclusions based on nothing "insight".

Before I get to the article, I would like to discuss the man who wrote it, James Howinstine, M.D.[1] Dr. Howenstine claims to be a board certified internist. However an Internet search reveals nothing about where he went to medical school, where he interned or did his residency. I am not saying he isn't what he claims to be. I just couldn't find any evidence to support his assertions.

Dr. Howenstine, is a fairly proliferate writer. Although not in peer reviewed articles. I would say his writing runs more to reactionary than science. 

His article entitled: Stay Away From Chemotherapy and Radition was posted on a website called India Divine: Welcome to the Sacred World of Hinduism[2] The article credits Dr. Howenstine as saying it has, "...been known to well informed individuals within the medical community that chemotherapy and radiation were [sic] quite toxic and essentially worthless in the management of malignancies". He goes on to say, "It is all about money. Chemotherapy drugs bring in more than a trillion dollars, [The gross national product of the US is $14 trillion dollars and I find it hard to believe the pharmaceutical industry comprises 1/14th of the entire GNP. The profit of Exxon-Mobile this year was only $10.7 billion. Does anyone actually believe cancer treatment is worth more than Exxon-Mobile?] annually to the pharmaceutical industry. Oncologists frequently make $1000 from every injection administered to a patient. There are 40 National Cancer Institute Centers scattered across the USA. Each of these employs thousands of employees. Curing cancer would be devastating for the economy and must not be allowed to occur. Research programs whose alleged purpose is to cure cancer see their funds steered into harmless areas where no cancer cures will ever result."

His article: "Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines" published on a website called "Whale.to" which is located in Switzerland. [The top level domain identifier ".to" is for the Country of Tonga.] The home page of "Whale.to" is filled with links to various and sundry conspiracy theories - "Luciferian Symbiology"; "Mass Murder, Inc"; and the "Vaccine Conspiracy".

In his "Avoid Taking Vaccines" article, Dr. Howenstine says that most of the reduction of disease allegedly produced by vaccines is actually due to increases in public health practices. He ties vaccines to sudden infant death syndrome, among other things. He claims that black males were intentionally injected with Hepatitis B 'vaccines' containing HIV in order to decimate their population. [This statement is based on a quote from Robert Strecker, M.D. There are 3 articles allegedly written by Dr. Strecker on the Whale.to site, but the links are dead. At any rate, this would indicate a genocide of huge proportions was ongoing right under our noses which would be easily noticed.]

Dr. Howenstine has also written an article titled: Is Psychiatry Scientific and Dangerous in which he states that psychiatry is a fraud. This article was published on a  blog called psychdata.blogspot.com. The title of the blog is: Pyschdata - Dedicated to Exposing the Fraud of Psychiatry.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

In the article I am discussing this evening, Dr. Howenstine makes several reactionary and totally false statements about the nuclear reactor accident in Japan.

He states that Japanese physicist physicist Michio Kaku has said that "...all three Fukushima reactors are melting down and that the battle has been lost." To begin with Dr. Kaku is a Japanese-American professor who works at the City University of New York. He isn't in Japan. And Dr. Kaku's actual statement was that "Chernobyl represents the high end of the category. Right now Fukushima would be more on the low end - about one-tenth the level of Chernobyl." So much for all is lost.  

Dr. Howenstine then goes on to say that, "...dangerous levels of radiation in the Midwest, California, Washington, Oregon and Western Canada were reported by the Norweign Institute of Air Research. I looked over the NIAR website and can't find any reference to radiation. In Japan or anywhere else. The Institute appears to be frequently cited in articles of the same type as "Tragedy...", but nobody seems to remember to put a link to where the statement is on their website.

My favorite quote from Dr. Howenstine's article is this one: "Everyone in Japan will possibly die from radiation poisoning. The people of Hokkaido, the northern island, may be spared because of different currents and winds." Everyone. All 127,078,679 of them. [This would compare to four times the entire population of the State of California.]  The third largest economy in the world will just disappear into a cloud of radioactive steam. That statement is so ridiculous it doesn’t even merit comment.

Howenstine goes on to say that Lauren Monet, Ph.D. has said that radiataion levels in California are the same as they are at Fukishima Reactors. A web search for Dr. Monet reveals her primary interest seems to be the danger of depleted uranium munitions - which she thinks are hazardous and which I agree. Dr. Monet's Wikipedia article is pretty sparse and makes reference to an article titled, "Globalists Attempting to Depopulate the World" which was published in the Tehran Times, (Tehran, Iran). And is, actually, about depleted uranium munitions. And I don't think Dr. Monet picked the title of the article, which devolves into an anti-American screed.

Dr. Howenstine goes on about plutonium contamination on the west coast and says that he hopes the world will give Japanese citizens "asylum" when they have to flee their country.

By this time, you are probably getting my point - Dr. Howenstine is not credible, nor are his writings. Whether he is a dangerous, depends on your point of view. [I vote for crackpot, but it is hard to believe anyone could actually accept what he writes as face value.] 

His statements suggesting vaccines don't work is completely irresponsible. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that vaccines prevent disease.[3]. Likewise, his assertions that cancer treatment is just a scam to get money from people. And can anyone reasonably believe that AIDS was invented to kill off black males? [The largest group of persons vaccinated against Hep B are health care workers. Although vaccinations for Hep B is becoming more common for newborns.]

With his impressive sounding credentials, including the white lab coat he wears in all his pictures, and his prominent presence in the literature of the reactionary press, maybe there are people who actually believe his tripe. I mean, it sounds good if all you do is read it, without checking his sources. It fits with the belief by some that the government is out to get us and isn't telling us everything. [I agree that the Japanese government has not been as forthcoming as they should be about the Fukushima reactor accident, but that is for another post.] [Is our government working in the best interests of the populace? That's debatable and, also, an issue for another post.]

So, why do people read this stuff? According to Frank P. Mintz, [4] author of The Liberthy Lobby and the American Right, "Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology". [Conspiracy theories were actually quite common in America around the time of the American revolution.]

I read this quote posted to the Further.com blog and thought it was a pretty good explanation of why conspiracy theories exist.

"Denial as a defense mechanism. Perhaps projection.

I’ve long said that conspiracy theories differ from radical political analysis in that they both recognize that the state of affairs are not good and that the average person is somehow exploited, subjugated, or taken advantage of, but conspiracy theories remove the factors of society and economics from this understanding so that the believer doesn’t need to seriously examine their culture and their role in atrocities, and can ignore things like class, race, and gender privilege. Sometimes the externalization is so extreme that things are based on inter-dimensional aliens or somesuch [sic]"

Both, basically, say that conspiracy theories are used to explain, and assign blame for, things people cannot understand or control. Like the accident at the TEPCO nuclear reactors in Japan. Or the current economic crisis.

Our country is going through a difficult time. Life is tough for a lot of people. The source - the government - we normally turn to in situations like this is no longer responsive to the needs of a large percentage of the population. At the same time, the government is seen, (correctly, I might add), as actively attempting to remove the safety net that social services provides for people in need and, thereby, is making things worse.

In times like these people like Howenstine assume some seeming credibility. Or, at least are more likely to be listened to. Someone who will put everything in a nice neat little bundle. With impressive sounding credentials and citations that appear, on the surface, to be "reasonable" and make sense. [Although, I think conspiracy theories are self-reinforcing, the more you buy into them, the easier it is to accept any information that you believe supports the theory as genuine.]

So, is Howestine harmless, dangerous, annoying, tragic or laughable? I think all four. Whatever he is, he is a product of the current state of the world - scary, difficult to understand and extremely uncertain. There certainly is no place in rational society for people like him. We need to approach out problems with sobriety and a clear head. We need to use our time, effort and intelligence to work towards solutions that actually will help make things better.

Somehow, though, I think Howenstine and people like him will be with us always.

[1] I am giving this man the benefit of the doubt and calling him 'doctor'.

[2] Actually, the article has nothing to do with Hinduism.

[3] At least he isn't blamming vaccines for autism. I do wonder what Jonas Salk  and all the people that would have gotten polio, had it not been for the polio vaccine Salk developed, would think about his claims.

[4] I couldn't find much out about Frank P. Mintz. He is quoted all over. His work, "Libery Lobby..." was described as his dissertation, but I can't find where he studied or what his Ph.D. is in. I find this kind of odd that someone a widely quoted doesn't have a bio anywhere online.

[5] If Howenstine is a medical doctor, I don't know how that qualifies him to offer commentary as to what is really happening with the reactors.

The Guantanamo Files, Pt. II

Note: When I wrote my last piece about the NYTime’s “Guantanamo Files,” I originally referred to the men incarcerated there as “detainees.” That was wrong. These men are human beings and deserve to be referred to as human beings. ‘Detainees’ is a euphemism designed to de-humanize them. I will not participate in removing their humanity.

The 'Wikileak' of data concerning the men detained at Gitmo continues to lead in the New York Times.

There are three articles in the Times: As Acts of War or Despair, Suicides Rattle a Prison; Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts; and Classified Files Offer New Insights Into Detainees.

These follow up pieces reinforce the reality that the jailers at Gitmo are being ‘handled’ by the men incarcerated there and that the guards don’t have a very good read on how to relate to the men detained there. It seems that guesses and conjecture substitute for logic, reason, compassion and competence. The Gitmo portrayed in these articles appear to describe a series of personal struggles between the guards and the men. A game, if you will, with the government on the one side and the incarcerated men on the other. And, according to these articles, the government isn’t necessarily coming out on top.

As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War, numerical superiority does not always convey an advantage.

In the first article, As Acts of War or Despair, Suicides Rattle a Prison, the records show that the government sees suicide attempts as a way for the men to fight back. One unidentified military official described suicide as “an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us.”

This statement is incredibly egocentric. It shows the inability of the government to view these men, and what they did, in terms other than themselves. The government sees everything that happens in Gitmo as happening to them. This is a horrific reflection of how the incarcerated men are viewed by the government. To the government, the act of taking one’s life seen as an attack on the government. And not the death of a fellow human being.

This is the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard.

In Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts, the times describes how Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu  had been incarcerated at Gitmo before he was released to Libya.[1] And how the US government is now supporting Qumu’s fight against Libyan leader, daffy duck.

The ‘information’ that was being use to keep Mr. Qumu at Gitmo came from the Libyan government.

Now, it seems that the adage, “An enemy of my enemy is my friend” applies to Mr. Qumu. It’s amazing how quickly the chairs are moved around the table when it becomes expedient to manipulate a former ‘enemy’ to act against a new 'enemy,' (who, until a very short time ago, was our 'friend').

In Lives in An American Limbo, the Times once again looks at the ways the government decided who was a ‘bad guy’ and who was a ‘badder bad guy.’ It describes how the game to obtain ‘evidence’ that can justify holding the men longer has become a game of gossip. 

This makes sense. The incarcerated men have been isolated from the rest of the world for up to six years. It seems likely most of the men have been investigated to death. There really wouldn’t be any new tactical information to be had from men who haven’t seen the light of day for that many years. So, the government is reduced to listening to prison gossip, accusations, counter-accusations and tales told for personal gain[2]. 

The article also examines the data that was used to determine whether a man was considered enough of a threat to send them to Guantanamo. After reading the article, let’s just say, these decisions were made on ‘evidence’ so flimsy, it was transparent.

[1] In 2005, Qumu was described as  a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.”

[2] In such a situation, it is easy to see where the incarcerated men have a distinct advantage over their captors. Once the men learn the system, they can game it. In one such instance, a man was put in a cell next to another man he did not like. The first man realized he would be moved, if he attempted suicide. So, he did. And gamed his way out of a situation that he didn’t want to be in. It seems, within the tightly enclosed ‘society’ of the prison at Guantanamo, the advent of this type of manipulation was inevitable. Particularly given the government's deep desire to glean any intelligence from the incarcerated men. And their willingness to listen to sad stories, tales of glory and just plain fabrications. 

The Guantanamo Files...

The NYTimes “Guantanamo Files”[1] published a piece on how the US government decides who is ‘dangerous’ and who isn’t at Gitmo.

According to leaked and un-redacted documents obtained by the NYTimes via Wikileaks, one Mohammed Alam Shah convinced the authorities at Gitmo that he was an Al Qaida conscript who was just trying to save his brother from the Taliban. Mr. Shah was described as being cooperative and non-threatening to the US during his incarceration. So, they let him go.

Mr. Shah turned out to be Abdullah Mehsud. Mehsud subsequently killed 31 people in an attack on the Pakistani Foreign Minister. Then killed himself in the course of a suicide bombing. Apparently, there are some flaws in the procedure for assessing the risk of recidivism of men detained at Gitmo.

The records obtained via Wikileaks described the rational that formed the basis for 704 assessments of future risk posed by men detained at Gitmo. In 55% of those assessments the conclusions reached described those men as “possibly” dangerous. Another 26% of the men assessed posed an “unknown” threat to the US. 

The evidence relied up on to make these assessments was largely hearsay from other men who were also detained. In other words, we are keeping people locked up on the word of other people we have locked up, because we think they are a threat to the US, world peace and the continued domination of the middle east by an ascendant American military. But, lacking any evidence to be considered against men who have been tortured and held for years without trial, the US government finds these same dangerous men to be credible witnesses to justify the massive denial of the basic human rights of themselves and others.

Somewhat understandably, in a perverted, lack of due process, human rights denying, subjective kind of way, authorities at Gitmo became more cautious about who they let go after Mr. Meshud turned out to be more than he appeared. Despite the fact quite a few other, formerly high risk prisoners had been released without incident, the government became more cautious about who they released.

Given their difficulties in determining who was who, a 17 page ‘guide’ was prepared to help determine the amount of risk a detained man posed. 

Much of the guide relied on the detained man's history of association with certain other persons the US considered to be terrorists. It, also, relied on certain physical evidence - for instance, if a man had a particular brand of wristwatch, it was speculated he may have been  at an Al Qaeda bomb making class were that type of watch[2] was handed out.

The guide also said that “refusal to cooperate” was considered to be indicative of the man being a terrorist. (Did they really believe that anyone would be naturally pre-disposed to cooperating with people who captured him, flew him thousands of miles from his family, friends and home in the middle of the night and deposited him in a prison where they kept him, in clear violation of his human rights, for an indefinite period without being charged or tried? Are they complete fucking idiots? Don’t answer that question…)

The leaked records show the government used informants to gather “evidence” as to the motives of other men. Yasim Muhammed Basardah was one of those informants considered to be a credible source of information against other man on 30 occasions - even after several judges questioned Basardah’s[3] credibility due to a history of serious psychiatric illnesses.

Incentives were also used to get men to inform on their fellow man. Sometimes falsely.

Another factor the guide considered in deciding who to release was the man's country of origin. Europeans and Saudi’s got released. Men from Yemen didn't.

Despite the help of the guide, some men were detained for non-sensical reasons.

A man with the same name as someone the government was looking for was arrested and held for 2 years. Even after analysts realized they had mistaken him for someone else.

Another man was found to be in possession of an ‘Al Qaeda training manual’ when he was caught. It took the government 6 years to realize the documents were in Arabic and the man didn’t speak Arabic.

In another instance, in a hearing to decide whether a particular inmate was dangerous, the witness the feds relied on was found to have been psychotic. The government described the witness as being in ‘good health’.

The same judge who presided over the hearing with the psychotic witness, said this about considering the threat a man would pose if they were released: “...candor obliges me to admit that one can not help but be conscious of the infinitely greater downside risk to our country, and its people, of an order releasing a detainee who is likely to return to terrorism.”

In other words, screw the facts, screw reasonable doubt, screw probable cause. None of that counts when the judge considers what a man might do if he were to be released. MIGHT DO. I wonder where he read that in the constitution.

One man, Omar Hamzayavich Abdulayey, was accused of having been trained in the use of poisons and explosives, as well as meeting with top Al Qaeda operatives. Only the Kuwaiti accusing him was later found to lack credibility, because he was too vague and contradictory.

Unwilling to release Mr, Abdulayey, the government found a list of supposed miscreants that included one “Abdallah al-Uzbeki”. The government postulated that Abdallah might be another way of saying Abdallaahyey. And, so, Mr. Abdallaahyiv has remained a guest of the US at Gitmo - for a total of nine years as of 25APR11.

Now for more commentary:

It seems pretty clear to me that no one really knows what they are talking about. That they seem to be making things up as they go along, in blatant violation of the constitutional and human rights of the men being held. 

In reality, I doubt there is a good way to determine who these men are and what might happen if they are released. Fortunately, in our system of justice, you can't be punished for something you might do. Unfortunately, for the remaining men held at Gitmo and for us, Americans who actually expect the government to follow the constitution they swore to uphold, reality, apparently, holds no sway at Guantanamo.

Despite what the government doesn’t know, it is more than clear they do, know one thing - if they release one man who goes on to bomb or shoot an America[4] or a European, the person who authorized the release of that man is going to get barbecued and lose his cushy job with the DOJ or the CIA.

So, endless reasons are devised to keep the men  who are still there imprisoned indefinitely. What’s the freedom of another human being to a man who is afraid of losing his job if he decides to act in a humane manner consistent with the constitution he swore to uphold?

Then there is the 'monetary reality'. Gitmo has become institutionalized. There are no plans for it to ever close. Obama wanted to close the prison, without changing anything but the location. However, even he has concluded that it will be necessary to keep some men forever. FOREVER. So, the existence of the facility and the people who are making money off it depend upon their being men to detain.

This is really bad news for the men still in prison. Now, they have a financial value. If we were to do the right, correct and constitutional thing, a lot of people would lose out on a lot of money. And, in the military-industrial complex, the national security state and the emerging police state, money trumps everything else. Particularly constitutional and human rights.

So, now Obama has decided that the remaining men are too dangerous to ever be released. FOREVER. (There’s that word, again, FOREVER. Just keep reading it until the reality of forever soaks in.).

The US government, though Barack Obama - who promised to close Gitmo when he was elected and failed to do so - has decided the remaining 47 men, (reports of the number of men still held at Gitmo range as high as 172),  are so dangerous to the US and the rest of the world they can never be released.[5]

47 seven men can render a 250+ year history of the rule of law moot, because the federal government is more afraid of doing the wrong thing than they are afraid of destroying the basic, inalienable rights this country was founded on.

At this point, I could get all sarcastic. But, I don’t feel sarcastic. I feel really, really, sad. I grew up and spent the majority of my life in country that was governed by the rule of law. A country where you didn’t have to worry that the government was going to engage in the wholesale denial of constitutional and human rights of anyone they didn’t like.

Now, I live in a country that only pretends the constitution and the rule of law applies. A country that has set aside a place, on an American military base, where there is a ‘constitutional rights’ free zone. A place where they, routinely, trample the document that made this country what it was - a bastion of justice in a sea of injustice.

Now, I can only believe in the America I have loved all my life by closing my eyes and covering my ears to avoid being aware of what my country is doing in the name of a false security.

And I am very, very sad to see what America has become.

[1] The NYTimes sources the information in the “Guantanamo Files” to Wikileaks.com

[2] If you want to avoid being thrown in jail by DHS or FBI when you are out styling, trade in your Casio F91W watch for a more patriotic Timex. 

And, yes, the Casio F91W can still be had from a wide variety of vendors around the world for about $9 – including through Google Shopping. However, buying one can lead to some real problems if you are, or appear to be, of middle eastern descent.

[3] Basardah was transferred to Spain in 2010. He was no longer considered a threat, because it was felt his collaboration with the US ruled out his return to Al Qaeda.

[4] We don’t really care if they kill each other or other Arabs. When they do, it saves us from having to pay to have a Predator UAV fly over their house and destroy it with Hellfire Missiles, killing the alleged terrorist and everyone else in the building.

[5] I am not sure whether this was before or after he decided he could order the state sanctioned murder of an American citizen without due process of law.

Fixing Tickets, Part II

More on the NYPD ticket fixing story that I blogged about here.


The New York Times reported today, (24APR11), that the NYPD had devised a system to make it much harder to 'fix' tickets. It involves scanning barcodes and auditing by 'integrity control officers' (Integrity control officers, isn't that an oxymoron? And who watched the integrity control officers to see if they lack 'integrity'? The integrity, integrity control office?)


The tickets' barcodes will be scanned by a "supervisor" before they are given to the officer. The barcodes will be scanned, again, when the officer hands them in. Then the barcodes will be scanned a third time before the tickets are removed from the precinct to be taken to the borough headquarters. Then the tickets will be scanned a fourth time at borough headquarters. What happens after they get to borough headquarters isn't explained.


It seems to me that any system that requires a single ticket be hand scanned no less than four times is bound to have problems.


If I were a supervisor in the NYPD, I can't say I'd really want to spend my days scanning and re-scanning barcodes on tickets.


And, if there is a ticket missing, what then? Are they really going to spend the time to track down one ticket? Out of how many thousands in a day? Is this where the 'integrity officers' come in? Are they the ones who are going to be looking behind desks, in trash cans, desk drawers, etc for the missing tickets? 


Want to bet that there will be shortcuts taken? And that many of the 'lost tickets' discovered by hand scanning will never be found. After all, in the grand scheme of things, what is one speeding ticket here or there going to count?


When asked if ticket 'fixing' was widespread in the NYPD, department spokesman Paul J. Brown said it was "not common practice for police officers to engage in such misconduct."


Meanwhile, spokespersons for the police unions said, "ticket-fixing is a longstanding courtesy, not corruption, and suggesting that over the years many requests came from high-ranking police officials and other notables."


So, it appears that the NYPD thinks it isn't common and it is misconduct. While the unions believe it is a "longstanding courtesy" and not corruption. And that "high ranking police officials and other notables" have been doing it for years.


Somehow, if I were a citizen living on New York City, I don't think I would have any more confidence in the new system than I did for the old.


Oh, and, they had this new 'system' worked out last summer. They just didn't implement it. I guess it is good to hold the solution in reserve until the problem becomes public.