Boston: The Patriot Act revisited.

21 April 2013

Prague, Czech Republic

By Thomas Secrest

I often lament that the dream that was American democracy is dying such a terrible, untimely death. I’m not sure how many of you will remember this scene from the Gladiator, but I can hope that it made a similar impression on you. If you have forgotten the scene, it is certainly worth dusting off the old DVD and firing up the DVD player. The scene took place early in the film while they legions were in Germany fighting the Germanic tribes. The battle was over and the emperor had called Maximus into his tent to discuss who would rule Rome after his, perhaps imminent, death. During the discussion he painted a verbal picture of the republic. 

There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter.

It was nicely spoken and it is easily imagined to be no less true of the American dream of democracy and what that dream could have meant for the people of the world.

It reality, the dream of democracy is just as fragile as the republic described by Marcus Aurelius. In the hands of the ham-fisted, the dream could be quickly, easily and perhaps irreversibly crushed.

The events of 15 April 2013 will live in memory for years to come. All worthy members of our species will feel remorse and pain for the suffering inflicted. Citizens of the Boston area proved themselves just as the citizens of West, Texas proved themselves a few days later. Humans have always had considerable strength and determination when it comes to helping others in times of need or disaster. Certainly it was no less true in these recent tragic events.

Unfortunately, the worthy efforts of citizens in Boston were tarnished by those unworthy members of our species. The invasion and occupation of Boston by America’s new armed para-military units was a disgrace. These units operate under one of the most repressive pieces of legislation ever passed in America; the Patriot Act 1 and Patriot Act 2. There was no justification for Martial Law in Boston. Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis. No doubt you may object on the grounds that the military was not involved. In response to your potential objection I suggest the following term, ParaMarital Law. ParaMartial Law is the imposition of para-military rule by para-military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis. In this case, para-military means FBI, CIA, Homeland Security Contractors, Private Military Contractors, National Guard and special and non-special forces of the US Military in conjunction with local and state police forces acting under the jurisdiction of the any of the above.

Now if you think Boston wasn’t under ParaMartial Law, then perhaps you should review the events of the week of April 15, 2013 more carefully.

Regrettably all the profit mongers were quick to react and fully demonstrate the risk of the new para-military securitization of American society. Please don’t confuse profit with only money. Certainly money cannot be excluded but, equally important is political profit and power profit.

The following is a good example of how fast irrational thinking can be used to further crush the fragile idea we once held so valuable. 

Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte and Rep. Peter King argued against trying Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in a criminal court, instead saying that he should be held as an enemy combatant and questioned. (The above was released to the public as a joint statement.)

What is amazing is that the comments of the senators come in the same week that an independent commission brutalized the current and previous administrations for engaging in serious human rights violations of those held as “enemy combatants.” America is rapidly becoming a rogue nation that feels that it can make the rules, but it does not have to follow them. The country, as an entity is now behaving as a full blown schizophrenic; condemning the actions of one country or group while rationalizing and even praising those exact same actions when carried out by acting in the name of the U.S.

What the unworthy senators realized, but ignored, is that the Boston bombing suspect IS an American citizen. His citizenship carries the EXACT same rights and responsibilities as your citizenship or the  citizenship of Graham or McCain. As a citizen he has rights under the U.S. Constitution and those rights are in force whether he is innocent or guilty. The 5^th Amendment exists for a reason. The threats perceived by the Patriot Act were no less conceivable by those who wrote the Bill of Rights and yet the 5^th Amendment was still added to the constitution. I believe it was added because the founders fully understood and had first-hand experience with the abuses that could exist without such an amendment. I believe they clearly realized that if everyone wasn’t protected in all circumstances, then no one was protected under any circumstances. Let me put it to you in a different way. The citizenship you enjoy is exactly the same as the citizenship the suspect enjoys. There is not a shred of difference. Therefore, whatever they can do to him, they can do to you.

I add this just as a analogy and I think you will understand my meaning. Consider the possible outcome if Columbo had been put in charge of the bombing instead of the unknown and uncoordinated authorities that ultimately handled or mishandled the situation. I think there is a real possibility that if the case had been handled exclusively by the Boston homicide department, all additional deaths and injuries could have been avoided and our constitution would be in far better condition than it is now.

In conclusion let me suggest a tool by which you might want to reassess the Patriot Act 1, 2. Consider the counties that have polices that in many ways mirror the measures found in the Patriot Act. Then ask yourself, do these countries offer an environment under which the ever so fragile idea of democracy could flourish. When this most beautiful of social ideas is gasping its last breath, would we really want to move it to one of the countries on the list you created?

Here I offer a partial list of countries where I think the Patriot Act would feel right at home, maybe just a little too much at home: China, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Egypt, Columbia, Cuba, Mali, DRC, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, and let’s not forget Chechnya.

Thomas Secrest

To drink or not to drink: Keep your brain young with moderate alcohol consumption

By Tom Secrest

27 August 2011

We get a lot of conflicting information regarding alcohol consumption and our health. It seems like that for the past 20 years, the more or less official line has been alcohol is bad. However, every now and then we hear reports that say alcohol, in moderation, is okay. When we analysis the word ‘okay’ it turns out to not be a powerful endorsement. If you needed surgery, knowing that your surgeon was ‘okay’ at their job wouldn’t be particularly reassuring.

So where does the medical and scientific community stand on this issue now? In Aug. 2011, Dr. Edward J. Neafsey, published a paper in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment that suggests that light to moderate drinking may reduce the risk cognitive decline and dementia. Up front it is important to define what light to moderate means and it probably doesn’t mean what you think. For men, moderate drinking means no more than 2 drinks per day and for women, it means no more than one drink per day. As you can see moderate drinking is a misnomer, it really means that alcohol should be treated like medicine and not a social enzyme.

With that in mind, this huge meta-analysis study found that those who consumed beer, wine or spirits, in moderation, reduced their risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, by 23%. The evidence appears to indicate that there is little or no distinction between beer, wine and spirits. It is the alcohol that is protective and the source of alcohol seems to be relatively unimportant.

Let’s pause here and define what constitutes a ‘drink’ with regard to beer, wine and spirits. What constitutes a single drink depends on the alcohol content of the drink. The alcohol content of a beer is about 5%; although, some can be higher, perhaps up to 7%. Therefore, 12 oz. (355 ml) of beer is considered 1 drink. Remember not all cans are the same, some cans are 12 oz. and some are 22 oz. and represent almost two drinks in one can. The alcohol content of wine is around 11%, but like beer, it can be higher, perhaps up to 13% or 14%. The % content is clearly shown on the label. Therefore, 4-5 oz. (118 ml – 148 ml) of wine is considered to be one drink. Spirits can be confusing because the alcohol content is given as ‘proof,’ which is twice the percentage (i.e. 40% alcohol is 80 proof) and the variation in alcohol content between brands is considerable. Mixed drinks are even harder to calculate, therefore, I have linked to an alcohol content calculator so you can easily find the alcohol content of your favorite mixed drink.

One possible explanation for the benefits is offered by Dr. Neafey and Dr. Collins. They suggest that small amounts of alcohol stress brain cells just a tiny bit. The brain cells respond by increasing their production of protective compounds. As a result, when a more significant or even lethal stressor comes along, the brains cells are unaffected, due to the higher levels of these protective compounds.

If you plan to consume alcohol in a medicinal way, i.e. as described above, you might want to consider red wine. Current research suggests that there is some health benefit associated with resveratrol. This compound is found in many plants including red grapes. As a result, wine production tends to concentrate this substance in red wine, which makes red wine a reasonable source of this biologically important compound. For now the health benefits seem to be cardiovascular in nature, but current research is looking into many other potential health benefits.

It probably doesn’t need to be mentioned, but, if you have had alcohol problems the benefits are unlikely to outweigh the risks and if you are pregnant, definitely discuss even light to moderate alcohol consumption with your doctor. For everyone else, the research is very conclusive; there are no health benefits and multiple health risks associated with over consumption.

Live long and well.

Something New for Halloween: Trick or Flu Sho

By Tom Secrest

October 17, 2010

Each autumn, along with the arrival of pumpkins, ghosts and goblins, we start hearing Public Health announcements reminding us that it’s time for our annual flu shot, or as the British would say, our annual flu jab. Most people shrug off the suggestion, feeling that they are constitutionally strong enough to handle four or five days of a running nose, a slight fever, muscle aches and joint pains. For the most part they are probably right. Part of their apathy stems from busy schedules; however, some comes from stories they have heard about people who got the flu shot and then got the flu and some comes from rising public apprehension regarding vaccines in general, especially after the swine flu fiasco of 2009.

There’s not much I can say about the Swine Flu–Chicken Little situation, or perhaps I have more to say than a have paper to say it. Either way it’s not the topic of this article. On the other hand I can quickly and easily cast aside the myth about getting the flu from a flu vaccine: It can’t happen, it doesn’t happen and it won’t happen to you. Some people may have very, very mild flu-like symptoms (usually in the form of muscle aches) for 24 hours, but that’s usually the extent of it. If you actually come down with the flu after the vaccine, it simply means you were already infected when you got the vaccine or you were infected very shortly after getting the flu vaccine. The vaccine takes 2-3 weeks to work, so if you’re already infected when you get your flu shot or you are infected shortly after, you will still get sick, but it’s not because of the vaccine.

Even though there are many people who opt out of the annual flu shot, many people, including myself, go out of their way to find the time needed to get the jab. People get the flu shot for many reasons; some are specific health related reasons, while others, this would include me, find it much easier to find an hour to get a flu shot than to find 4 or 5 days when we can stay home sick.

Perhaps you’ve been sitting on the fence just waiting for that little piece of information that prompts you to become a regular flu shot recipient. Well this might be the piece of news you’ve been waiting for.

A new study from the United Kingdom, published in the September 21, 2010 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found that the flu vaccine is associated with a 20% reduction in the risk of a first heart attack or myocardial infarction (MI). Any way you cut it, 20% is nothing to sneeze at. The authors noted that there was no reduction associated with the pneumococcal vaccine, which is also routinely recommended for those with pre-existing health complications.

The study also found two things that were a bit surprising; (1) earlier vaccinations (i.e. given before the middle of November) were associated with greater reductions in the risk of a first MI than vaccinations given after the middle of November and (2) the benefits extended to those aged from 40 to 65 in the same way as those 65 and older.

Historically, flu shots have been aggressively recommended only for those over 65. In an interview with Heartwire, the lead author, Dr. Siriwardena, was asked if he thought flu vaccine recommendations needed to be changed. Dr. Siriwardena responded that recommendations won’t likely be changed until the cause and effect of the MI risk reduction was established, but added that if it is established, recommendations might be extended to those between the age of 40 and 65 who are at increased risk of heart attacks (i.e. smokers, those with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc.).

Now when you consider the inconvenience of going to get a flu shot you must also consider the inconvenience of having a heart attack. With a potential 20% reduction in your risk, finding the time seems like a pretty good value. Remember, don’t delay, the study showed you can reduce your risk even more if you get your flu shot before the middle of November.

Live long and well.