The bloodiest conflict in American history became the impetus for one of the country's most solemn observances. Known originally as Decoration Day, it was an occasion for festooning soldiers graves with flowers and for reciting prayers. Small flags often garnished the cemetery plots.
The tradition, begun in the 1860's, honored those who died in the American Civil War. Official estimates of that era calculated that 620,000 young men lost their lives in the struggle that sometimes pitted brother against brother. Historians today put the unofficial death toll closer to 850,000.
The casualties represented roughly two percent of the country's entire population. At the height of the war, which lasted from 1861 until April of 1865, there were more than 3.2 million Union and Confederate soldiers waging battles across 34 states (the number at the start of the war.)
It was a brutal conflict where an estimated 1.5 million people were either killed, wounded, captured or reported missing. For every three soldiers killed in battle, five more died of disease. The physical and psychological damage inflicted by the violent war was keenly felt for many decades.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the nation's first national cemeteries sprouted in cities and towns. The first official celebration of Decoration Day took place in Waterloo, New York, on May 5, 1866. The observance had its roots years earlier in 1862, thanks to the efforts of a Union general.
General John A. Logan, leader of a group called the Northern Civil War Veterans, urged a nationwide day of remembrance for those who had perished in the nation's great war. He suggested the "strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died" defending their country.
A few of the states remaining in the Union heeded Logan's clarion call. Loosely organized events were held in scattered towns and hamlets. The states of the Confederacy honored their dead separately. It wasn't until after World War I that all the states held joint nationwide remembrances on the same day.
On the first official Decoration Day in 1866, General James Garfield spoke eloquently at the Arlington National Cemetery, where more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers are buried. A crowd of 5,000 attended the service, a large gathering considering the hardships of travel of that era.
With the passage of time, the commemoration became known as Memorial Day to honor those who died in subsequent wars. In 1968, Congress passed a law establishing Memorial Day as the last Monday in May. But it wasn't until 1971, that it officially became a federal holiday.
Today the country honors the more than 1.2 million soldiers who have died in the nation's wars. While the Civil War deaths still represent the majority of those killed, not many Americans are aware of that fact. Most memorials today honor the 405,399 soldiers who died in World War II.
Often forgotten are the 116,516 Americans who lost their lives in World War I. The Vietnam War's death toll was 58,209. The Korean War terminated 36,516 American lives. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added 6,626 lives to the list of casualties.
None of those statistics tell the real story of Memorial Day. It is a day to remember with reverence each and every service man and woman who sacrificed their lives for the United States. They all deserve a grateful nation's thanks.
Take time today to visit a war memorial or a cemetery. Touch the name of a fallen soldier etched in stone or marble. Bow your head and voice a silent prayer. Remember the name of that soldier and keep that individual near to your heart.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Monday, May 18, 2015
Obama's Unprecedented Media Censorship
President Obama swept into office in 2008 on a tide of promises, including a commitment to usher in a new era of unprecedented transparency. Even before his first year in office had drawn to a close, he discarded his vow of openness and adopted a hostile policy of government censorship.
In a blink of an eye, Obama and his team clamped down on the media's access to government records. In its first year, the secretive administration denied 466,872 media requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), double the rejections in the last year under President George W. Bush.
Since that time, the administration has made few meaningful improvements, according to a recent analysis of federal data by the Associated Press (AP). The news gathering organization has documented that the rejection of FIOA requests has skyrocketed in the last few years.
In March of this year, the AP's analysis of FIOA requests lodged with 100 federal agencies found the Obama Administration responded to even fewer than in past years. The government either censored or denied access to 250,581 requests, which represented 39 percent of all applications for information.
Furthermore, the AP reported that the government's own data verified that the backlog of unanswered requests for information had swollen 55 percent. There are more than 200,000 requisitions gathering dust in agencies' files. There are another 215,584 appeals that have been lost in the bureaucracy.
By way of explanation, the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law in 1966, provides for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased documents and information under the control of the government. Although the law contains exemptions, it mandates greater access to federal records.
In its coverage of the administration's secrecy, the AP noted that Obama's government had "set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them" in 2014. Obama's reaction to the report was to dispatch his mouthpieces to deny the interpretation of his government's data.
But secrecy isn't the only weapon the president has used to shield his administration from legitimate news coverage. His minions have launched attacks on news media critical of its policies, vigorously prosecuted journalists who attempted to expose wrongdoing and criminalized federal whistle blowers.
Instead of transparency, President Obama's record for accessibility, openness and honest communications has been the worst since President Richard Nixon. That analysis is not a Republican talking-point. It is the conclusion of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The prestigious committee, an independent, non-profit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, has taken the Obama Administration to task for its heavy-handed treatment of the media's efforts to uncover government information and its lack of transparency.
In a scathing report issued in 2013 that was covered up by the mainstream media, the committee had this to say about the administration's dealings with the media: 'the war on leaks and other efforts to control the information are the most aggressive since the Nixon administration.'
James Goodlae, the former general counsel of The New York Times, chastised the president for attempting to "criminalize the reporting of national security information." Under Obama, the Department of Justice has pursued journalists who have relied on government leaks for stories.
Last year, thirty eight leading media organizations scolded the administration for its increased reticence. These influential media groups, including the Society of Professional Journalists, called on the administration to end "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."
As one example of the administration's overzealous persecution, the Justice Department has relentlessly dogged James Risen, The New York Times reporter who is accused of using information from a Central Intelligence Agency source to write an article about an attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
This is the same administration that clandestinely subpoenaed and seized the telephone records of more than 100 Associated Press reporters in its Washington Bureau and elsewhere to determine the source of leaks to the wire service. That Nixonian action had a chilling impact on Washington news sources.
Like many promises Obama made before his election, he has thumbed his nose at his pledge of running the "most transparent administration in history." His record is shameful. Journalists who cover the administration should have the last word on the subject.
The New York Times David Sanger recently assessed the Obama government as the "most closed, control-freak administration" he has ever covered. Listen and you will be able to hear a loud chorus of "Amens" echoing in newsrooms across America.
In a blink of an eye, Obama and his team clamped down on the media's access to government records. In its first year, the secretive administration denied 466,872 media requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), double the rejections in the last year under President George W. Bush.
Since that time, the administration has made few meaningful improvements, according to a recent analysis of federal data by the Associated Press (AP). The news gathering organization has documented that the rejection of FIOA requests has skyrocketed in the last few years.
In March of this year, the AP's analysis of FIOA requests lodged with 100 federal agencies found the Obama Administration responded to even fewer than in past years. The government either censored or denied access to 250,581 requests, which represented 39 percent of all applications for information.
Furthermore, the AP reported that the government's own data verified that the backlog of unanswered requests for information had swollen 55 percent. There are more than 200,000 requisitions gathering dust in agencies' files. There are another 215,584 appeals that have been lost in the bureaucracy.
By way of explanation, the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law in 1966, provides for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased documents and information under the control of the government. Although the law contains exemptions, it mandates greater access to federal records.
In its coverage of the administration's secrecy, the AP noted that Obama's government had "set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them" in 2014. Obama's reaction to the report was to dispatch his mouthpieces to deny the interpretation of his government's data.
But secrecy isn't the only weapon the president has used to shield his administration from legitimate news coverage. His minions have launched attacks on news media critical of its policies, vigorously prosecuted journalists who attempted to expose wrongdoing and criminalized federal whistle blowers.
Instead of transparency, President Obama's record for accessibility, openness and honest communications has been the worst since President Richard Nixon. That analysis is not a Republican talking-point. It is the conclusion of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
The prestigious committee, an independent, non-profit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, has taken the Obama Administration to task for its heavy-handed treatment of the media's efforts to uncover government information and its lack of transparency.
In a scathing report issued in 2013 that was covered up by the mainstream media, the committee had this to say about the administration's dealings with the media: 'the war on leaks and other efforts to control the information are the most aggressive since the Nixon administration.'
James Goodlae, the former general counsel of The New York Times, chastised the president for attempting to "criminalize the reporting of national security information." Under Obama, the Department of Justice has pursued journalists who have relied on government leaks for stories.
Last year, thirty eight leading media organizations scolded the administration for its increased reticence. These influential media groups, including the Society of Professional Journalists, called on the administration to end "politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies."
As one example of the administration's overzealous persecution, the Justice Department has relentlessly dogged James Risen, The New York Times reporter who is accused of using information from a Central Intelligence Agency source to write an article about an attempt to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
This is the same administration that clandestinely subpoenaed and seized the telephone records of more than 100 Associated Press reporters in its Washington Bureau and elsewhere to determine the source of leaks to the wire service. That Nixonian action had a chilling impact on Washington news sources.
Like many promises Obama made before his election, he has thumbed his nose at his pledge of running the "most transparent administration in history." His record is shameful. Journalists who cover the administration should have the last word on the subject.
The New York Times David Sanger recently assessed the Obama government as the "most closed, control-freak administration" he has ever covered. Listen and you will be able to hear a loud chorus of "Amens" echoing in newsrooms across America.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Genome: Emergence of Precision Medicine
Twelve years ago the Human Genome Project, an international collaborative research effort, made headlines with the mapping of every gene that exists in human beings. It remains one of the most stunning scientific achievements in world history, comparable to America's moon landing.
Studies performed at 20 universities and research centers in six countries, including the U.S., produced complex details about the structure, organization and function of an estimated 20,500 human genes. Each human has a unique set of more than three billion pairs of these genes.
Once the intricate mapping was completed, scientists had a blueprint of the order or sequence of genomes in the body. For the first time, researchers were able to generate linkage maps, which allowed them to track inherited genetic diseases over generations.
With massive amounts of data in hand, the real work of science began. How to use this voluminous amount of data to treat, prevent and cure disease? Within a few years, the first fruits of the Human Genome Project were harvested when scientists used the information to improve the treatment of cancer.
Today many patients with cancer are having their own genes mapped, which helps researchers predict how these individuals will respond to chemotherapy drugs. Doctors can also ascertain which drugs might produce the least side effects for patients.
Gene data allows oncological specialists to target the specific molecular mechanism of a cancer tumor with drug treatments. Their goal is to be able to identify the right drug for the right patient at the right time. Before the Human Genome Project, this would have been all but impossible.
Some genes have already been identified as predictive of certain diseases. For example, researchers have pinpointed the mutated genes that often are found in women with breast cancer. With this information, doctors can screen women for the genes and recommend a proactive treatment and a health regiment.
Cancer isn't the only disease where genome sequencing has proved beneficial to patients. Tests can be used as a tool to detect, identify and quantify viruses. Increased data obtained from next-generation sequencing is providing insights into genomic components that underlie cardiac diseases.
Armed with genome data, doctors can prescribe individual approaches for disease treatment and prevention which take into account the genes, environment and lifestyle of each person. This is the antithesis of medicine's one size fits all approach.
Testing might not help every person, especially healthy individuals with no family history of disease. Nonetheless, if gene mutations were identified in only two or three percent of the population, that would mean 10 million Americans would have advance warning about the potential for disease.
The good news is that the costs for individual genome sequencing is plummeting. Twelve years ago the price tag was $1 billion. In the intervening years, the expense has nosedived to about $5,000. However, new advancements in technology are driving the costs closer to $1,000.
One American company, Illumina, has been on the cutting edge of developing tools and systems for large-scale analysis of genetic variations and functions. The firm's extensive line of sequencing systems are advancing the understanding of genetics and health.
Illumina, headquartered in San Diego, has rolled out a fleet of new products that feature the next generation sequencing (NGS). The systems offer more speed and scalability which enables researchers to study genomes at a level never before possible.
Employing the sophisticated technology, specialists are able to figure out the order of DNA nucleotides, or bases, in a genome order. Even with the data, scientists must still decode the genome sequence to understand the relationship and interaction of genes.
Less costly technology is making genome sequencing more accessible and practical for more researchers. That means more studies, experiments, trials and research will be launched as the data becomes more affordable and ubiquitous.
Human genome sequencing offers great promise for the treatment and prevention of disease. In the future, an annual physical at the doctor's office may include a whole genome sequencing for the patient. Just twelve years ago that would have seemed like a preposterous idea.
Studies performed at 20 universities and research centers in six countries, including the U.S., produced complex details about the structure, organization and function of an estimated 20,500 human genes. Each human has a unique set of more than three billion pairs of these genes.
Once the intricate mapping was completed, scientists had a blueprint of the order or sequence of genomes in the body. For the first time, researchers were able to generate linkage maps, which allowed them to track inherited genetic diseases over generations.
With massive amounts of data in hand, the real work of science began. How to use this voluminous amount of data to treat, prevent and cure disease? Within a few years, the first fruits of the Human Genome Project were harvested when scientists used the information to improve the treatment of cancer.
Today many patients with cancer are having their own genes mapped, which helps researchers predict how these individuals will respond to chemotherapy drugs. Doctors can also ascertain which drugs might produce the least side effects for patients.
Gene data allows oncological specialists to target the specific molecular mechanism of a cancer tumor with drug treatments. Their goal is to be able to identify the right drug for the right patient at the right time. Before the Human Genome Project, this would have been all but impossible.
Some genes have already been identified as predictive of certain diseases. For example, researchers have pinpointed the mutated genes that often are found in women with breast cancer. With this information, doctors can screen women for the genes and recommend a proactive treatment and a health regiment.
Cancer isn't the only disease where genome sequencing has proved beneficial to patients. Tests can be used as a tool to detect, identify and quantify viruses. Increased data obtained from next-generation sequencing is providing insights into genomic components that underlie cardiac diseases.
Armed with genome data, doctors can prescribe individual approaches for disease treatment and prevention which take into account the genes, environment and lifestyle of each person. This is the antithesis of medicine's one size fits all approach.
Testing might not help every person, especially healthy individuals with no family history of disease. Nonetheless, if gene mutations were identified in only two or three percent of the population, that would mean 10 million Americans would have advance warning about the potential for disease.
The good news is that the costs for individual genome sequencing is plummeting. Twelve years ago the price tag was $1 billion. In the intervening years, the expense has nosedived to about $5,000. However, new advancements in technology are driving the costs closer to $1,000.
One American company, Illumina, has been on the cutting edge of developing tools and systems for large-scale analysis of genetic variations and functions. The firm's extensive line of sequencing systems are advancing the understanding of genetics and health.
Illumina, headquartered in San Diego, has rolled out a fleet of new products that feature the next generation sequencing (NGS). The systems offer more speed and scalability which enables researchers to study genomes at a level never before possible.
Employing the sophisticated technology, specialists are able to figure out the order of DNA nucleotides, or bases, in a genome order. Even with the data, scientists must still decode the genome sequence to understand the relationship and interaction of genes.
Less costly technology is making genome sequencing more accessible and practical for more researchers. That means more studies, experiments, trials and research will be launched as the data becomes more affordable and ubiquitous.
Human genome sequencing offers great promise for the treatment and prevention of disease. In the future, an annual physical at the doctor's office may include a whole genome sequencing for the patient. Just twelve years ago that would have seemed like a preposterous idea.
Monday, May 4, 2015
"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" and Other Lies
As images of smoldering police cars and rock-throwing punks in Baltimore went viral, many Americans were reminded of the race riots that metastasized across the country during the Civil Rights era. Those were dark days for the nation, marked by toxic rhetoric and overzealous police.
Since that era, the United States has enjoyed a period of relative racial calm. There have been occasional incidents, but cities have not erupted in violence. That now appears to be changing as race relations have deteriorated after a handful of high-profile police shootings.
In the wake of these episodes, the media, race-baiters such as Al Sharpton, the Justice Department and President Obama have helped fan the flames of discord instead of calling for peace, justice and patience. They all share in the blame for the angry outbursts that have scarred American cities.
The most notorious case was the shooting of African-American Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August of last year. Immediately, the media and those with racial agendas declared the officer guilty of murder, although the facts remained in dispute.
In the aftermath, a media portrayed Brown as a "gentle" giant who raised his hands and pleaded with the officer, "I don't have a gun." Protestors took to the streets of Ferguson chanting, "Hands Up. Don't Shoot." That slogan became a rallying cry for those with axes to grind against police.
The president, Attorney General Holder and Al Sharpton all weighed in on the incident even before all the facts were known. Their words often were critical of police and demanded justice for the victim. This fueled more anger and protests, which eventually spiraled out of control in Ferguson.
When a grand jury refused to indict the white police officer Darren Wilson, the media was incredulous. Indignation turned to hatred and unruly crowds burned and looted the city. Their hopes of a conviction had been raised by those who spread the falsehood about "Hands up. Don't Shoot."
Turns out eyewitnesses who started the "Hands Up. Don't Shoot" narrative were thoroughly discredited by police. In fact, on March 4 of this year, even Holder's Department of Justice issued a report saying there was no credible evidence of those words ever being uttered by Michael Brown.
Yet today there are still those who use the slogan to tar police as killers of black suspects. Just like there are race hustlers whose con includes the claim police shooting victims are mainly black. That is patently untrue.
According to a nationwide study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research showed that 44 percent of police homicide victims are white, 32 percent black and 20 percent Hispanic. In a three-year period, there were 2,002 police homicides out of almost 40 million arrests.
Ferguson should have been a lesson for those responsible for stirring up passions before the facts are vetted. But politically-motivated partisans could not resist beating the drums of animosity in the death of African-American Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police.
While the investigation into Gray's death was underway, the mob mentality ruled in the streets of Baltimore. Guilt was presumed and thugs went on a rampage in Baltimore, hurling rocks at police, breaking windows, setting cars on fire and storming the streets. Neighborhoods were destroyed.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake exacerbated the incendiary circumstances by ordering police to stand down and allow the unruly mob to run amok. Although she tried to walk back her statement, police sources confirmed her orders were to give space to those who "wished to destroy."
Instead of taking its time to conduct a thorough investigation, State Attorney Marylyn Mosby announced criminal charges against six cops in rapid fashion, claiming they were responsible for Gray's fatal spine injury while in police custody.
After the charges were announced, renowned civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz was critical of the due process exercised by the state attorney. "Today had nothing to do with justice. Today was crowd control. Everything was motivated by a threat of riots and a desire to prevent riots," he said.
Dershowitz also lambasted Baltimore's mayor. "The mayor outrageously said we're going to get justice for the victim, the family and people of Baltimore, never mentioning the defendants. Under our Constitution, the only people who are entitled to justice are the defendants."
The famed lawyer is right. Of course, that matters not one wit to the president, his Justice Department, the Al Sharpton's of the world or a media invested in promoting racial divisions. They have shown no interest in the Constitution or justice. They want the police punished, regardless of the facts.
It is time to hold the media and others accountable. Instead of pointing fingers and leaping to conclusions, the so-called leaders should be out front pleading for calm and reason. It would also help matters if everyone told the truth for a change.
Since that era, the United States has enjoyed a period of relative racial calm. There have been occasional incidents, but cities have not erupted in violence. That now appears to be changing as race relations have deteriorated after a handful of high-profile police shootings.
In the wake of these episodes, the media, race-baiters such as Al Sharpton, the Justice Department and President Obama have helped fan the flames of discord instead of calling for peace, justice and patience. They all share in the blame for the angry outbursts that have scarred American cities.
The most notorious case was the shooting of African-American Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August of last year. Immediately, the media and those with racial agendas declared the officer guilty of murder, although the facts remained in dispute.
In the aftermath, a media portrayed Brown as a "gentle" giant who raised his hands and pleaded with the officer, "I don't have a gun." Protestors took to the streets of Ferguson chanting, "Hands Up. Don't Shoot." That slogan became a rallying cry for those with axes to grind against police.
The president, Attorney General Holder and Al Sharpton all weighed in on the incident even before all the facts were known. Their words often were critical of police and demanded justice for the victim. This fueled more anger and protests, which eventually spiraled out of control in Ferguson.
When a grand jury refused to indict the white police officer Darren Wilson, the media was incredulous. Indignation turned to hatred and unruly crowds burned and looted the city. Their hopes of a conviction had been raised by those who spread the falsehood about "Hands up. Don't Shoot."
Turns out eyewitnesses who started the "Hands Up. Don't Shoot" narrative were thoroughly discredited by police. In fact, on March 4 of this year, even Holder's Department of Justice issued a report saying there was no credible evidence of those words ever being uttered by Michael Brown.
Yet today there are still those who use the slogan to tar police as killers of black suspects. Just like there are race hustlers whose con includes the claim police shooting victims are mainly black. That is patently untrue.
According to a nationwide study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research showed that 44 percent of police homicide victims are white, 32 percent black and 20 percent Hispanic. In a three-year period, there were 2,002 police homicides out of almost 40 million arrests.
Ferguson should have been a lesson for those responsible for stirring up passions before the facts are vetted. But politically-motivated partisans could not resist beating the drums of animosity in the death of African-American Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police.
While the investigation into Gray's death was underway, the mob mentality ruled in the streets of Baltimore. Guilt was presumed and thugs went on a rampage in Baltimore, hurling rocks at police, breaking windows, setting cars on fire and storming the streets. Neighborhoods were destroyed.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake exacerbated the incendiary circumstances by ordering police to stand down and allow the unruly mob to run amok. Although she tried to walk back her statement, police sources confirmed her orders were to give space to those who "wished to destroy."
Instead of taking its time to conduct a thorough investigation, State Attorney Marylyn Mosby announced criminal charges against six cops in rapid fashion, claiming they were responsible for Gray's fatal spine injury while in police custody.
After the charges were announced, renowned civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz was critical of the due process exercised by the state attorney. "Today had nothing to do with justice. Today was crowd control. Everything was motivated by a threat of riots and a desire to prevent riots," he said.
Dershowitz also lambasted Baltimore's mayor. "The mayor outrageously said we're going to get justice for the victim, the family and people of Baltimore, never mentioning the defendants. Under our Constitution, the only people who are entitled to justice are the defendants."
The famed lawyer is right. Of course, that matters not one wit to the president, his Justice Department, the Al Sharpton's of the world or a media invested in promoting racial divisions. They have shown no interest in the Constitution or justice. They want the police punished, regardless of the facts.
It is time to hold the media and others accountable. Instead of pointing fingers and leaping to conclusions, the so-called leaders should be out front pleading for calm and reason. It would also help matters if everyone told the truth for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)