Homeless in Arizona

BioWatch - another huge waste of government money

And from the point of being a fantastic government welfare program that gives billions of dollars in corporate welfare to companies in the military industrial complex the BioWatch program is a huge success.

Source

Troubled BioWatch program at a crossroads

By David Willman, Los Angeles Times

December 21, 2012, 4:14 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Year after year, health officials meeting at invitation-only government conferences leveled with one another about Biowatch, the nation's system for detecting deadly pathogens that might be unleashed into the air by terrorists.

They shared stories of repeated false alarms — mistaken warnings of germ attacks from Los Angeles to New York City. Some questioned whether BioWatch worked at all.

They did not publicize their misgivings. Indeed, the sponsor of the conferences, the U.S. Homeland Security Department, insists that BioWatch's operations, in more than 30 cities, be kept mostly secret.

Now, congressional investigators want Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to open the books on the 9-year-old program and explain why $3.1 billion in additional spending is warranted.

The move by the House Energy and Commerce Committee — spurred by reports in the Los Angeles Times about BioWatch's deficiencies — puts the program at a crossroads.

On one side is mounting evidence that the technology does not work. On the other are companies eager to tap federal contracts, politicians fearful of voting against any program created to fight terrorism, and a top Homeland Security official who says the program is functioning properly.

Government records show that BioWatch signaled attacks more than 100 times when none had occurred. Nor is the system sensitive enough to reliably detect low yet infectious concentrations of such pathogens as anthrax, smallpox or plague, according to specialists familiar with test results and computer modeling. Another defect is BioWatch's inability to distinguish between particular pathogens that are genetically similar, but benign.

Lab and field tests found similar problems in the latest technology intended for BioWatch, "Generation 3." The congressional investigators are seeking internal documents illuminating BioWatch's performance, plus the private comments of Napolitano's top science and technology advisor, Dr. Tara O'Toole, who recommended killing Generation 3.

O'Toole's skepticism is shared by Dr. Donald A. Henderson, a renowned epidemiologist who led the global eradication of smallpox. Henderson, a federal anti-terrorism advisor when BioWatch was launched in 2003, says he has yet to see a "scientific justification" for it.

"It has never stood the test of rationality," Henderson said. "This whole concept is just preposterous."

Political ties

But as Napolitano weighs whether to deploy Generation 3 — at the cost of $3.1 billion over its first five years — the program will not be easy to scale back.

The company in line to install Generation 3, Northrop Grumman Corp., is a major donor to federal campaigns with a broad presence in Washington.

From 2004 to 2012, the company's political action committee gave more than $6 million to congressional candidates, campaign finance records show. Northrop Grumman, a top defense contractor, ranked No. 10 this year among all PAC donors to congressional campaigns.

Northrop Grumman also hired the former head of BioWatch, Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, as an advisor to assist its pursuit of the Generation 3 contract.

On Sept. 27, Runge told invitees to the Harvard Faculty Club that a survey he designed for what he called "homeland security related professionals" had found support for deploying the new technology, regardless of potential shortcomings.

Rather than wait for more research to refine Generation 3, Runge told the gathering, "the respondents seem to be saying … 'Deploy the detectors, even if they can't pick up every intentional pathogen or genetic variation, and deal with the problems later.'"

Runge, who provided his prepared remarks to The Times, said Northrop Grumman solicited his advice a few months after he left the government in 2008 and paid him an hourly rate. The consulting arrangement ended in summer 2009, he said.

Runge said the company paid him to explain how the Homeland Security Department "is thinking, how Congress is thinking, about the future of biodetection." Among those he briefed, Runge said, was Northrop Grumman's project manager for Generation 3.

In 2010 and 2011, Northrop Grumman donated a total of $100,000 to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, which, beginning in July, circulated three commentaries supporting federal funding for BioWatch and Generation 3. The donations were disclosed in the group's annual reports.

Steven P. Bucci, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, wrote on July 11, "BioWatch is far from an 'unnecessary expenditure.' Congress should thus continue to fund the program."

The third Heritage essay, issued Dec. 12 and also written by Bucci, said that although BioWatch was "only marginally effective," Napolitano and President Obama should stay the course. "Cutting funding to this project," he wrote, "leaves us vulnerable in a way that will cripple our future security." Bucci said his writings were his own.

Asked for comment, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman, Brandon R. Belote III, said the company "recognizes the importance of participating in the democratic process."

For politicians determined to appear resolute against terrorism, fully funding BioWatch might carry less risk than scaling it back.

"If somebody cancels the program, and a week later there's a release, they'll never, ever recover from making that decision," said George Mason University microbiologist Stephen Prior, who co-wrote a 2004 National Defense University study of BioWatch. "If they don't make that decision, they can't be wrong."

Meanwhile, the Homeland Security Department's chief medical officer, Dr. Alexander Garza, has assured Congress that BioWatch is performing effectively. In March, Garza told a House subcommittee that the Generation 3 system was "right where it needs to be," but he did not cite the deficiencies found by the tests of prototype sensors.

On Sept. 13, Garza told another congressional hearing that, in his view, none of the existing system's mistaken detections of benign organisms as lethal pathogens were false alarms. Though each of the laboratory-confirmed results signaled potential terrorist attacks, Garza asserted that they were not false alarms because authorities never ordered evacuations or other emergency measures.

The panel members voiced concerns about BioWatch. None, however, pressed Garza to explain his basis for defending BioWatch's misidentifications of the harmless organisms. Nor did they question Garza about the system's poor sensitivity.

Eroded confidence

When he announced the program in his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said BioWatch would "protect our people and our homeland." He called it "the nation's first early-warning network of sensors to detect biological attack."

BioWatch units placed in public places suck air through composite filters all day and night. Once every 24 hours, the filters are delivered to public health laboratories, where technicians search for the DNA of the targeted pathogens. Under Generation 3, BioWatch would be converted to automated sensors, each a "lab in a box," designed to both capture and test samples of air.

The first false alarms occurred soon after BioWatch's deployment, demonstrating that it could not distinguish between the most commonly signaled pathogen, tularemia, and "near-neighbor" organisms that pose no life-threatening harm.

Previously unpublicized Homeland Security materials show that the Houston area alone racked up more than 30 false alarms as of mid-2008, nearly all for the germ that causes tularemia, also known as rabbit fever.

The many false alarms nationwide — including results that caused tense deliberations among health officials at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and at championship sporting events — have eroded confidence in the system.

Local, state and federal officials faced with a BioWatch alarm have not once evacuated an area or dispensed antibiotics or other emergency medicines. They have instead monitored hospitals for days or weeks in search of potential victims before deciding to disregard the alarms, a wait-and-see approach counter to the rationale for BioWatch.

The Homeland Security Department's emphasis on keeping the details quiet is reinforced at the annual BioWatch conferences, according to attendees and government documents. The 2008 conference included such workshops as "Loose Lips Sink Collectors! Managing Media Inquiries about BioWatch," and "Psychology of Press Releases."

Last month, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said Homeland Security had withheld key documents that the panel had asked for in July. In a letter to Napolitano, the committee said the episode raised "serious questions about the department's willingness to cooperate."

The department has pledged cooperation, and Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona, has delegated the public defense of BioWatch to Garza, also a presidential appointee. Garza has said that scientists are working "to improve BioWatch to keep the nation safe from any potential biological threats."

In recent interviews, more than a dozen specialists who have worked with or examined BioWatch said it should be independently assessed, and scaled back or dismantled.

Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, a physician and public health researcher at Rand Corp. who studied BioWatch from 2007 to 2009 as a member of a National Academy of Sciences committee, said it "has generated nothing but false alarms."

Kellermann and other specialists said the money spent on BioWatch could have paid for training and equipment to help medical professionals more quickly diagnose a patient exposed to an attack. The many false alarms, they said, invite complacency.

"After you hear a certain amount of car alarms in your neighborhood, you stop worrying about them," Kellermann said.

david.willman@latimes.com

Phoenix City Council member Sal DiCiccio - Phoney baloney Libertarian

In this article Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio defends his vote to give Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos a 33 percent raise of $78,000 bumping his salary from $237,000 to $315,000 a year.

Here are some articles about that $78,000 pay raise the members of the Phoenix City Council voted to give to Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos.

Source

Into the mind of ... Sal DiCiccio

Dec. 22, 2012 12:00 AM

The Republic | azcentral.com

The Phoenix City Council member [Sal DiCiccio] explains why City Manager David Cavazos deserved a large raise.

Your vote for City Manager David Cavazos' 33 percent raise was a surprise. How much flak are you getting?

Some. David has been an outstanding manager. The council knew this would be a tough decision, but it was correct. Citizens have every right to seek answers; it's their money.

Look what we accomplished last year, the plan for the future, and then decide if it was right. The pay increase was partially based on his accomplishments, but more importantly we created specific performance measures ensuring structural change and reforms.

It is no secret government reform is my No. 1 priority. For Phoenix to compete in a global economy, a new structure is required. We need the right quarterback who can move the ball. David is Phoenix's franchise player.

You made your mark looking for every possible cut. Why did you think the pay increase was justified?

Significant government waste has been cut, and we are going to do more. Here are specific reforms and savings passed this year alone: We created a best-in-the-country 24-hour model -- businesses big and small can get permits and begin operations within 24 hours. Other cities take 6 to 8 months. We had no property-tax or rate increase, no water/sewer increase, while other governments raised them.

Phoenix was the first government to adopt zero-based budgeting, guaranteeing transparency. We have the largest-ever "rainy-day fund" ($41 million) and cut $59 million per year, including significant red tape.

Those were great accomplishments, but the future demands more, and performance measures for David will ensure long-term structural changes:

1. Save: $100 million per year. 2. Job creation: Cut more red tape by expanding the 24-hour model. 3. Customer service: All departments move to 24/7 operations and be known for it nationally. 4. Personnel reform: Move from entitlement structure to pay for performance. 5. Continue increasing the rainy-day fund.

What do you say to people who note the median household income in Phoenix is barely more than half the additional pay Cavazos will receive?

With $41 million in the rainy-day fund, $59 million saved through innovations and efficiencies and $277 million deficit erased, we have seen a $377 million shift since David took over.

You've pushed to reduce red tape at City Hall. How is it going?

We're winning big! Big and small businesses can now start operations in Phoenix in 24 hours, in what took 6-8 months, making Phoenix the best place nationally for business.

This summer, we will move to electronic and instantaneous permitting.

What else is on your plate?

Council members Thelda Williams, Michael Nowakowski and I are working together to make domestic violence a top priority for Phoenix, as it was when I was on the council in the 1990s. We want to make Phoenix the best nationally.

Nowakowski and I have been working on a plan to improve trade with Mexico, our biggest and underexplored partner.

Cavazos, Councilman Jim Waring and I are working to change Phoenix's culture to be customer-focused and be the first nationally to adopt a 24/7 model for our departments.

I have been working hard with Valley cities promoting the 24-hour job-creation model. Imagine if our entire region was known for this.

Washington Post articles on guns & gun control

I am too lazy to cut and past all the text so here are some links to the articles:

Tiny URLs:

• http://tinyurl.com/c5yqlek
• http://tinyurl.com/bpcjcb9
• http://tinyurl.com/cvqku75

• History of gun control is cautionary tale for those seeking regulations after Conn. shooting
• A bunch of gun & gun control articles
• Five myths about gun control

Corrupt lab techs guarantee you won't get a fair trial

Review of FBI forensics does not extend to federally trained state, local examiners

It's not about a fair trial, it's about making cops look like heroes!!!!

Source

Review of FBI forensics does not extend to federally trained state, local examiners

By Spencer S. Hsu, Published: December 22

Thousands of criminal cases at the state and local level may have relied on exaggerated testimony or false forensic evidence to convict defendants of murder, rape and other felonies.

The forensic experts in these cases were trained by the same elite FBI team whose members gave misleading court testimony about hair matches and later taught the local examiners to follow the same suspect practices, according to interviews and documents.

In July, the Justice Department announced a nationwide review of all cases handled by the FBI Laboratory’s hair and fibers unit before 2000 — at least 21,000 cases — to determine whether improper lab reports or testimony might have contributed to wrongful convictions.

But about three dozen FBI agents trained 600 to 1,000 state and local examiners to apply the same standards that have proved problematic.

None of the local cases is included in the federal review. As a result, legal experts say, although the federal inquiry is laudable, the number of flawed cases at the state and local levels could be even higher, and those are going uncorrected.

The FBI review was prompted by a series of articles in The Washington Post about errors at the bureau’s renowned crime lab involving microscopic hair comparisons. The articles highlighted the cases of two District men who each spent more than 20 years in prison based on false hair matches by FBI experts. Since The Post’s articles, the men have been declared innocent by D.C. Superior Court judges.

Two high-profile local-level cases illustrate how far the FBI training problems spread.

In 2004, former Montana crime lab director Arnold Melnikoff was fired and more than 700 cases questioned because of what reviewers called egregious scientific errors involving the accuracy of hair matches dating to the 1970s. His defense was that he was taught by the FBI and that many FBI-trained colleagues testified in similar ways, according to previously undisclosed court records.

In 2001, Oklahoma City police crime lab supervisor Joyce Gilchrist lost her job and more than 1,400 of her cases were questioned after an FBI reviewer found that she made claims about her matches that were “beyond the acceptable limits of science.” Court filings show that Gilchrist received her only in-depth instruction in hair comparison from the FBI in 1981 and that she, like many practitioners, went largely unsupervised.

Federal officials, asked about state and local problems, said the FBI has committed significant resources to speed the federal review but that state and local police and prosecutors would have to decide whether to undertake comparable efforts.

FBI spokeswoman Ann Todd defended the training of local examiners as “continuing education” intended to supplement formal training provided by other labs. The FBI did not qualify examiners, a responsibility shared by individual labs and certification bodies, she said.

Michael Wright, president of the National District Attorneys Association, said local prosecutors cannot simply order labs to audit all or even a sample of cases handled by FBI-trained examiners, because such an undertaking might be time- and cost-prohibitive for smaller agencies.

-------------

Here are some more articles on how corrupt or incompetent forensic technicians help cops make themselves look like heroes by framing almost everybody the cops accuse of a crime.

washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods

Judge: Stapley must explain deals in his lawsuit against Sheriff Joe

Judge: Stapley must explain deals in his lawsuit

By Michael Kiefer The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:11 AM

Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley will have to answer more questions about property deals and criminal charges than he wants to, according to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over his lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

And current County Attorney Bill Montgomery will have to return to the federal Court of Appeals in an attempt to get himself dismissed from one of the remaining lawsuits that came out of Thomas’ and Arpaio’s investigations of judges and county officials from 2008 to 2010.

Seven of the cases have been settled for amounts ranging from $75,000 to $975,000. (Payment of the latter to Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox is under dispute.)

Three remain involving retired Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, because of criminal charges and a racketeering lawsuit filed against him, ostensibly as retaliation for court rulings and to prevent him from holding a court hearing over Thomas’ objections; Stapley, who was indicted twice alleging campaign-fund and disclosure crimes; and businessman Conley Wolfswinkel, whose offices were raided in a failed search for evidence against Stapley.

Stapley’s attorney, Michael Manning, had sought to limit evidence against Stapley to what was known at the time the indictments were filed. The intent is to keep defendants Thomas and Arpaio and their former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon and David Henderschott, from using this trial to try to prove the allegations they could not prove because the indictments were dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake granted Manning’s motion but cautioned that certain evidence pertaining to Stapley’s reputation will be allowed at trial.

Among Stapley’s claims are that he was forced to sell certain property to pay his legal bills and that the criminal indictments tarnished his reputation.

But when Stapley faced the defendants’ attorneys in deposition earlier this month, Manning advised him not to answer questions about the property in question, which figured into the criminal charges against him, or about an analysis of the criminal charges done by Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office had asked Flores to re-evaluate the evidence against Stapley. Flores wrote that there was indeed probable cause to charge Stapley with multiple felonies but that the case had been so badly botched as to make it impossible to try.

Manning and his associates argued that Flores’ evaluation came well after the time when probable cause was initially found. Private attorneys retained by the county disagreed, saying that it went to the original finding of probable cause and had been highly publicized. They asked Wake to clarify his ruling.

Late Friday, Wake ruled that the property was central to the case and that Stapley would have to answer questions.

Wake also ruled that even if Stapley didn’t want to answer questions about Flores’ opinion during the deposition, he would not be able to deny their content at trial. And if Stapley wanted to deny the allegations, he would have to explain why.

Meanwhile, Montgomery has asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss him from the Wolfswinkel lawsuit.

Montgomery argued that the lawsuit had nothing to do with him because the events occurred before he became county attorney. At first Wake agreed. But then, when Montgomery refused to turn over pertinent documents held by his office to Wolfswinkel, Wake ruled that he could still be sued in his official capacity.

Previous Articles about Sheriff Joe

And here are even some more articles on Sheriff Joe and this thugs in Phoenix, Arizona and Maricopa County, Arizona.