WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former colleagues of Bruce Ivins, the man blamed for the 2001 anthrax attacks, accused federal agents Wednesday of hounding the government researcher and his family to the point where Ivins took his own life
Officials said biodefense researcher Bruce E. Ivins, seen here in 2003, committed suicide.
A source with knowledge of the case told CNN that federal agents searched Ivins' home in Frederick, Maryland, and questioned his children. They offered Ivins' 24-year-old son the $2.5 million reward for information about his father and showed his twin sister pictures of the anthrax victims, telling her, "Your father did this," the source said.
Ivins' former colleague, Jeffrey Adamovicz, said Ivins gave him a similar account of events.
"One of the statements that he relayed to me -- that his children were, in fact, told by FBI agents that were doing the interview that their father was a murderer," said Adamovicz. "And that I could tell greatly disturbed Bruce, as it would anybody."
But federal agents, who presented evidence Wednesday they said implicates Ivins as the lone culprit, defended their tactics and denied harassing the family.
"The notion that, somehow, these people were coerced by the agents or the lawyers is categorically false," said U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor. "These agents handled themselves professionally, with great respect for Mr. Ivins and his family, and I'd say the same thing about the prosecutors in the case."
Authorities say Ivins, a 62-year-old Army biodefense researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Maryland, committed suicide last week as they were preparing to charge him with carrying out the anthrax attacks.
His lawyer denies Ivins was involved. The attorney and Ivins' former colleagues told CNN they think the pressure of the investigation led Ivins to kill himself -- an assertion federal officials dispute.
CNN's source with knowledge of the investigation said Ivins was a recovering alcoholic whose concern over the investigation led him to resume drinking this year. And though FBI officials deny harassing Ivins or his family, another researcher who got caught up in the investigation -- only to be exonerated -- described having been subjected to similar tactics.
"My girlfriend's home was also searched," said Steven Hatfill in July 2002 after being declared a "person of interest" in the case.
"She was manhandled by the FBI upon their entry [and] not immediately shown the search warrant. Her apartment was wrecked while FBI agents screamed at her that I had killed five people and that her life would never be the same again. She was terrified by their conduct; put into isolation for interrogation for eight hours," he said.
Federal officials did not respond to those claims, but they did settle with Hatfill two months ago for nearly $6 million.
In a written statement, Ivins' attorneys dismissed Wednesday's news conference in which a federal prosecutor declared Ivins the sole perpetrator.
"What the public demanded today was concrete evidence," said lawyers Paul F. Kemp and Thomas M. DeGonia. "Instead, it was deluged with everything but ... The government's press conference was an orchestrated dance of carefully worded statements, heaps of innuendo and a staggering lack of real evidence -- all contorted to create the illusion of guilt by Dr. Ivins."
They said hundreds of soldiers, scientists and family members showed up Wednesday to attend a memorial service for Ivins held at Fort Detrick.
"Dr. Ivins was characterized by his commanding officer for his 'openness, sharing, humor and curiosity' and was lauded for the central role he has played in the protection of the American soldier," his lawyers said in their statement. "No one who attended that service could believe that Dr. Ivins committed any crime."
Peter Hotez, chairman of microbiology at George Washington University, rejected the government's contention that Ivins' access to a sophisticated lab device called a lyophilizer -- used to dry anthrax -- was in any way damning.
And Richard Spertzel, a former colleague of Ivins at Fort Detrick, said there was "no way" a lyophilizer could have created the fine anthrax spores used in the 2001 letters.
In addition, Spertzel said, no one working at a U.S. government lab could have produced such high quality anthrax in secret.
I am in town for a night and thought I'd give an update. Prolly won't be here to answer it, so save yer questions...
IGNORE ALL RUMORS!
There is a small contingent of family over at Synder Basin. Very Small. Look people, I dislike the FS as much as the next rainbow does, but running away because you're unable to see the big picture or try to work together to work out the Boy Scout trip is disheartening to say the least.
We tried hard to work with the Boy Scouts. It was dumped in our laps at the last moment, so playing the blame game, as I've seen done here on AGR isn't a healthy way to go. It just happened.
They are still coming(the Boy Scouts)and won't lose anything at all by working around the issue of us being there when they come in, which isn't until the 26th of July.
I've attended all of the meetings with the FS and the locals and for the most part, they all went well.
There is a faction of BLM LEO's who aren't happy about the Gathering and being as they are ex-FS employees, I think they are taking the opportunity to play games at our and the FS's expense. Not defending the FS here but we did get a firm commitment from Mark Rey that there would be no hassle inside the Gathering from LEO's and so far, that has held.
I have PERSONALLY witnessed our brother Plunker giving selflessly to make sure we have a safe, secure, peaceful front gate this year and I believe he should be commended for that effort!
If you aren't here on the land or speaking with somebelly who is, PLEASE stop promoting rumors. It does nothing but add to the confusion of people who ARE on the land, trying to work these isses out and helps to discourage or sometimes frighten people who aren't here yet but plan to be.
I've been to over twelve nationals starting in 1975 and this is by far one of the most beautiful sites we've been at so far.
Front Gate elevation is about 7800 feet and there is a beautiful way station that Summerbreeze and Raven have set up to welcome folks home and where they can chill for the night. From there, it's about 2 miles to the trailhead and then 200 yards to Welcome Home and then a 2 1/2 mile walk to main meadow NOT TEN MILES AS SOME HAVE POSTED HERE. Also, there is a middle back gate with a bus village that is only a mile walk to main meadow. Main Meadow IS about 9,200 feet, so yes, it is a challenge for the disabled but still doable, with help, which is there and waiting. There are about 6000-7000 of us there now, with more arriving all the time.
Mostly, folks are working together and making this work, FS included.
Front Gate this year is the most peaceful and serene I have seen in years.
Loving you all, family! Take care! Hope to see you at Main Meadow.
Hello! This is The Other Karen. You might know me from the Info Booth at the Gathering, but I am not able to go to Wyoming this year. I did, however, get a phone call this morning (June 21) from Karin Zirk (the one and only). She was able to reach me on her cell phone from the back entrance to the site, on the hill. (She was using Creedo which she thinks is through Sprint's service. There was a good deal of static, but I was able to pretty easily converse with her.)
*At the town hall meeting with the Forest Service, the situation regarding the Boy Scouts and their planned work on the land (at the site where we are gathering) was discussed. It seems that the Boy Scouts did not plan to arrive until the 26th of July, well into our clean-up process. It is unclear as to whether they will cancel their rehabilitation. Karin said there is a "slim chance" they will go ahead with it.
*The Forest Service asked us to move to another site. The Rainbows at the meeting agreed to go back to the land and call a council about the matter. They did. About a hundred people were at the council (coming and going) and in the end, the council was unable to come to consensus about whether to stay or go. Because of this, the old consensus still stands (reached by Spring Council) to gather at the current site.
*There is some disagreement on the land… some folks, including Garrick and Summer Breeze, feel the Gathering should move to the 1994 Wyoming site at SnyderBasin. Some folks plan to move there. Lots of people are definitely staying where they are.
*Mark Rey, (the Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, US Dept. of Agriculture) said that their will be no repercussions whether we stay on site or move to another. They would prefer that we move, but are not forcing the issue and are being, according to Karin, "nice and accommodating".
Karin's two cents is that the site will either be where it currently is, or that it will be a split gathering, but that it will most likely not be moving completely. Also, she says, "If in order the maintain the spirit of cooperation with the Forest Service, we have to abandon our consensus process, then what is the point?"
Last night (Friday the 20th), there were 180 people at dinner circle, the Magic Hat was passed for the first time, and 5 kitchens served at circle. A good time was had by all!
It is estimated that there are 1000+ people currently on the land (July 21st, '08).
THE FOLKS ON SITE ARE ASKING FOR EXTRA BLANKETS, SLEEPING BAGS AND TENTS!!! Many folks came unprepared for the cold night whether and there are kids with not enough bedding. Please help.
Colorado Springs City Council Votes No to Fluoridation
..>
Colorado Springs City Council Votes No to Fluoridation
..>
Colorado Springs Gazette Thursday 17 January 2002
Fluoride gets the Brush Off Council votes 5-3 against adding chemical to city's drinking water
by Tom Ragan
Colorado Springs residents will have to rely on the old-fashioned method of getting extra fluoride: brushing with fluoride toothpaste.
That's because the city, after nine months of sometimes acrimonious debate, has decided not to add fluoride to drinking water.
The Colorado Springs City Council, acting as the Utilities board, voted 5-3 after another public hearing Wednesday to reject a proposal to add hydro-fluosilicic acid to two-thirds of the city's water - a move that would have fluoridated the water on the northeast side of the city.
Water in the remainder of the city is naturally fluoridated.
Utilities board members said they still aren't certain the acid is safe. Some said they didn't think it was government's role to dabble in public health.
Local dentists have been pushing for fluoridation for years. In 1999, they told the Utilities board that cavities and tooth decay were more prevalent in the northeast section of the city, where the water is not fluoridated.
In mid-April, the board was ready to give the fluoridation program the green light.
But that's when a group of concerned citizens showed up to protest, saying the acid was unsafe.
The group, It's Not Fluoride Only, cited numerous studies, including one from Dartmouth University, that showed hydrofluosilicic acid raised the level of lead in the blood when consumed in water.
The Utilities board decided to study the matter further. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta was called numerous times for its opinion.
Though opponents refer to the acid as an industrial waste byproduct that comes directly from the phosphate fertilizer industry, the CDC said the acid is safe once it breaks down in water.
At Wednesday's public hearing, perhaps the most emotional testimony came from 41-year-old Carol Geltemeyer, a Colorado Springs woman who was two months pregnant and approached the public hearing podium with her d2-year-old daughter in her arms.
"If you do this, I'm going to have to go out and buy bottled water," Geltemeyer said. "Leave it up to the parents. Leave it up to us. If you take away our choice, you're taking away our responsibilities."
Councilman Ted Eastburn, who voted in favor of fluoridation, said he found it hard to believe that some Utilities board members failed to place their trust in the CDC.
"It's the same agency we're turning to for help in the threat of bioterrorism," Eastburn said, moments before he cast his vote.
But Richard Skorman said he voted against the measure because conflicting studies and conflicting evidence prevented him from conscientiously voting in favor of fluoridation.
"It's not that I'm convinced that it's dangerous," he said. "I'm not, but it makes me nervous."
Councilwoman Margaret Radford said if there had been no other method by which Springs residents could obtain fluoride, she probably would have "caved in" and voted in favor of the measure.
Mayor Mary Lou Makepeace, who voted in favor of fluoridation, scolded the anti-fluoride people for breeding hysteria when passing out petitions.
"They talked about it in terms of 'poison' and 'toxic waste,'" she said. "The emotionalism got ahead of the data."
The decision was made in a matter of minutes after nearly three hours of testimony by both sides. Other board members who voted against fluoridation were Charles Wingate, Sallie Clark and Judy Noyes. Lionel Rivera voted in favor of it. James Null was not present.
106 JUST SAY NO
Ninety percent of utilities companies across the country that fluoridate their water use the liquid or powder form of hydrofluosilicic acid. More than 100 million U.S. citizens from San Francisco to Seattle to Florida to Maine have been drinking it for the past five decades.
With the decision Wednesday, Colorado Springs now becomes the 106th city in the United States since 1990 to halt or reject fluoridating its water.
Some of the other communities:
Arizona: Flagstaff California: Modesto, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Colorado: Erie Florida: Palm Beach County Hawaii: Maui County Kansas: Winfield Massachusetts: Worcester Nebraska: Grand Island Pennsylvania: Erie (sic) Utah: Wood Cross and Tooele Vermont: Bennington Washington: Olympia and Spokane
A Vote for ANYONE but Ron Paul is a WASTED VOTE! Here’s why.....
I found a list of tons of reasons to vote for Dr Paul..here are a few of them and some of my own.... If someone could find a reason NOT to vote for Dr Paul..I'd like to hear it. And don't make it "because he can't win", cuz if everyone that said that voted for the man he WOULD> ~Neo
Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul
He Really Supports the Constitution.
He Is Against The National I.D. or Real I.D. Act.
He Supports The Rights Of Private Property Owners. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Wants Us Out Of The U.N.
He Wants Us To Trade With Nations And Not War With Them.
He Is For 2nd Amendment Rights.
He Wants To Bring Our Troops Home from Iraq.
He Wants To Bring Our Troops Home from the rest of the world also. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Has No Plans To Start A War With Iran Or Anyone Else. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Wants To Shrink The Federal Government, Not Expand It. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Does Not Belong To The Criminal CFR! (Council On Foreign Relations).
..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Has Not Received Campaign Contributions From Rupert Murdoch (Like Hillary). ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Does Not Believe in Amnesty for Illegals. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Wants To End The I.R.S..
He Wants To Cut Spending! Really, Cut Spending.
He Is Against The North American Union Superhighway. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Against The North American Union Or SPP (It Exists- Google It).
He Is Against The Idea of The Amero (Google It). ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Against The Federal Reserve's Monopoly On Monetary Regulation.
He Voted Against The Misnamed Patriot Act That Stripped Us Of Our Rights. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is For The Bill Of Rights. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Knows The Meaning Of Liberty. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Believes in States Rights. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
His Supporters Love Him. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is A Once In A Lifetime Candidate. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
His Record Is Consistent. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Against Funding The So-Called War On Drugs (Another Unsuccessful War). ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Actually Against Funding Many Unsuccessful Federal Programs. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is A Student Of History.
He Votes In Accordance With The Constitution. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Will Not Forcibly Implant Us With Microchips Or Like Devices. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is The Only Conservative, In The Traditional Sense, Left.
Republicans Love Him Because He Is For Small Government. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
Democrats Love Him Because He Will End The War For Oil. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
Libertarians Love Him Because He Wants The Government Out Of Their Business. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is The Only Electable Republican Candidate. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He is Against The Creation Of A Surveillance Society. (See London).
He Supports Homeschool Rights. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Wants To End The Corporate Welfare System That Is Destroying Our Government's Credibility.
He Tells It Like It Is. He Is Truthful. He Reads. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
As A Doctor, He Is Informed On The Healthcare Issue.
He Wants to Get Out of NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT, all Terrible Trade Agreements.
He Has The Courage To Speak Out Against What Is Wrong. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Will Be Good For The Economy (Freedom Is Good For The Economy).
He Wants Us Out Of The WTO And Like Organizations. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
The I.R.S. Is Scared Of This Guy. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Smart Enough To Prefer Gold Over Paper. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Knows The Term FIAT-CURRENCY and knows what it means. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Wants To Secure Our Borders. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Favors Guarding Our Country Over Policing The World. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Opposed The War In Iraq From The Beginning.
He Believes Local Governments Are Better Suited To Handle Their Own Issues. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Willing To Listen And Reason With Others.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. ..-[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He voted against regulating the Internet. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
He Is Against Selective Service Registration. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Is Against A Mandatory Draft.
His Campaign Has People Across The Country Motivated.
He Wants To Apply The Golden Rule In Government (How Radical). ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Believes in Freedom Of Speech. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Believes In Individual Rights.
He Has Delivered Over 4,000 Babies And Values Life.
He Has Faced Tremendous Opposition With Dignity. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Values The Traditions That Have Kept Us Free. ..[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> ..[endif]-->
He Understands That Monopolies Are Bad Things.
He Understands The Difference Between Individual And Government Responsibility.
He Understands Inflation Is Not Just The Prices Going Up, But Rather The Value Of Money Going Down.
You Will Feel Good About Your Vote For A Change.
You Will Not Be Voting "For The Lesser of 2 Evils".
You Will Help Undo The Damage Done To Our Country Over The Last Several Decades. He Is Our Last Hope For A Free Nation.
State: Paper Ballots Will Be Used In This Year's Elections
Electronic Voting Equipment Was Disqualified In December
POSTED: 2:37 pm MST January 23, 2008
UPDATED: 3:15 pm MST January 23, 2008
DENVER -- It may be a step backwards in technology but lawmakers say it's the only way to make sure your vote really counts.Gov. Bill Ritter and a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Wednesay called for all paper ballots at all polling places for this year's elections. The group announced legislation that would resolve the electronic voting machine controversy.Lawmakers been conferring with county election officials about what to do since Secretary of State Mike Coffman disqualified most of the electronic voting equipment used in Colorado in December."Paper ballots are a tried-and-true election method that has worked for decades. They ensure a verifiable paper trail and minimize the possibility of technology failures that have caused Election Day problems in the past," Ritter said, in support of the legislation. "Our democracy depends not only on the people's ability to vote, but also on their confidence that every vote counts."Voters will also have a choice to vote early or through absentee mail.Coffman said he supports using paper ballots in a mostly mail-in election. Most county clerks favor a mail-in election as well, but others disagree, including Denver's."Given the constraints of the decertifications, this is the best solution we can craft," said Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, one of the sponsors of the legislation that will have to be approved by the full Legislature."Sometimes, the old-fashioned way is the best way," said Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder. "And since my kids tell me that retro style is in again, I think we're being very trendy. Let us not forget that our forefathers and foremothers fought for the right to vote. We should always be grateful for that right and exercise that right."The proposal will most likely pass through the Legislature, given the bipartisan support, but it will need to be fast-tracked. It will likely be approved within two weeks to allow county clerks the time to prepare for the August primary, 7NEWS reported."The 2008 elections are among the most important of our lifetime. While the outcome of these elections is still in doubt, the rules should not be," said Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff. "Democrats and Republicans may duke it out on the campaign trail, but we don't need to fight about the fairness of our elections.""It's not often that we are faced with such a significant problem, and yet we are able to solve that problem -- quickly, with agreement from across the aisle, in both chambers, from two branches of government, and with input from the county clerks and many, many others. This solution may not please everyone, but I strongly believe that we have done the best job possible in remedying the problem, and in averting a potential disaster in democracy," Madden said.Previously introduced legislation should enable the Secretary of State to recertify optical scanning equipment to count ballots on election night as well as electronic voting machines for the limited purpose of providing polling-place access to voters with disabilities.
Copyright 2008 by TheDenverChannel.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
20/01/08 "New York Times" I think of the people running this country as the mad-dashers, a largely confused and inconsistent group lurching ineffectively from one enormous problem to another.
They've made a hash of a war that never should have been launched. They can't find bin Laden. They've been shocked by the subprime debacle. They're lost in a maze on health care.
Now, like children who have eaten too much sugar, they are frantically trying to figure out how to put a few dollars into the hands of working people to stimulate an enfeebled economy.
They should stop, take a deep breath and acknowledge the obvious: the way to put money into the hands of working people is to make sure they have access to good jobs at good wages. That has long been known, but it hasn't been the policy in this country for many years.
Big business and the federal government have worked hand in hand to squeeze the daylights out of working people, stripping them (in an era of downsizing and globalization) of much of their bargaining power while ferociously pursuing fiscal policies that radically favored the privileged few.
My colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, took a look at income patterns in the U.S. over the past few decades in his new book, "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill)."
From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.
The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.
It's incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period.
Mr. Johnston does not mince words: "The pattern here is clear. The rich are getting fabulously richer, the vast majority are somewhat worse off, and the bottom half — for all practical purposes, the poor — are being savaged by our current economic policies."
His words are echoed in a proposed stimulus plan currently offered by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. (The plan is available on its Web site, epi.org.) Stressing that any stimulus package should be "fair," the authors of the institute's proposal wrote:
"The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country."
Economic alarm bells have been ringing in the U.S. for some time. There was no sense of urgency as long as those in the lower ranks were sinking in the mortgage muck and the middle class was raiding the piggy bank otherwise known as home equity.
But now that the privileged few are threatened (Merrill Lynch took a $9.8 billion fourth-quarter hit, and the stock market has spent the first part of the year behaving like an Olympic diving champion), it's suddenly time to take action.
There is no question that some kind of stimulus package geared to the needs of ordinary Americans is in order. But that won't begin to solve the fundamental problem.
Good jobs at good wages — lots of them, growing like spring flowers in an endlessly fertile field — is the absolutely essential basis for a thriving American economy and a broad-based rise in standards of living.
Forget all the CNBC chatter about Fed policy and bargain stocks. For ordinary Americans, jobs are the be-all and end-all. And an America awash in new jobs will require a political environment that respects and rewards work and aggressively pursues creative policies designed to radically expand employment.
I'd start with a broad program to rebuild the American infrastructure. This would have the dual benefit of putting large numbers of people to work and answering a crying need. The infrastructure is in sorry shape. New Orleans comes to mind, and the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
The country that gave us the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe ought to be able, 60 years later, to reconstitute its own sagging infrastructure.
There are also untold numbers of jobs and myriad societal benefits to be reaped from a sustained, good-faith effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Think Manhattan Project.
The possibilities are limitless. We could create an entire generation of new jobs and build a bigger and fairer economy for the 21st century. If only we were serious.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
