Forget the Halloween Monsters, This Year's Big Fear Is Something That's Able to Lurk Inside Us

2014 will certainly be viewed as one of the most frightening Halloween seasons ever. But it is not ghastly ghosts, goblins, ghouls, and gremlins that are causing outbreaks of crazed, panic fears. Instead, it is something much more real and, in reality, potentially much more deadly.

In many parts of America, the Season of the Witch has been transformed into the Scary Season of Ebola.

Those fears do not surprise former Under Secretary of Science and Technology for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Tara O'Toole. "Epidemics always engender visceral fear," O'Toole says. "This is something that can come into your home and everybody is vulnerable to it. Face it, it's pretty freaky bleeding from your eyes."

But while O'Toole understands that fear can drive a lot of the reaction to an epidemic like Ebola, a calm, reasoned, scientifically- and medically-sound approach is what America now needs.

Dr. O'Toole was one member of a group of distinguished medical and security experts which discussed the current Ebola crisis this week at the Heritage Foundation.

The panel agreed that while the outbreaks in Africa are disconcerting, America will be able to handle problems that arise in this country.

"The rest of the medical system learned a lot from Texas (where the only victim of the disease to die in America was treated)," O'Toole said. "We were probably making a lot of mistakes in infectious diseases all along, but if you make a mistake with Ebola (care) you're going to get in big trouble. We ought to able to protect our health care workers."

For its own safety, American must help the stricken nations combat Ebola on the African continent, the panel concurred. "If we do not contain this in Africa, it will become a part of life and you will wonder every time you get a fever," O'Toole said.

But while she is optimistic about the end of this current crisis, she said the United States must do more to protect itself and others from other future outbreaks of deadly, infectious diseases.

"Our national defense is going to depend on biology is a big way," the doctor maintained. "We're going to have a lot more epidemics."

O'Toole said current world conditions make such events inevitable. For example, 70 million people are being added to the world's population every year, many of them living in mega cities where crowded conditions make it ideal for diseases to rapidly spread. Then there is the ease of modern travel. Unlike days gone by, people can now fly around the world in 24 hours.

"We are going to be more vulnerable to epidemics and we must get better at managing them," she said.

O'Toole said that while early action is crucial to halting epidemics, that is difficult to do, especially in remote areas of the world. ""It's very hard to see the beginning. It's not lights and sirens; it's not like these things explode," she said. "By the time you begin treatment, they are already bigger than you would like to see," she said.

Like the others on the panel, O'Toole believes that a vaccine for Ebola should have been ready by the time of this current outbreak since there were promising results as much as 14 years ago. But she understands the reality of why such a vaccine isn't ready yet.

"We fund heavily when the problem occurs and then the money goes away," she said.

Money also plays a huge role in the fact that an Ebola vaccine hasn't been released by private pharmaceutical companies. "We're not talking about pills you take every day for the rest of your life. This is something you might take for 2 weeks and it's over. You just don't make much money out of it," she noted.

And even though she agreed with the panel consensus that such options as travel bans and unwarranted quarantining would't work (and could actually worsen treatment conditions), she understands why such options are attractive to many people and some politicians.

"We're always looking for someone to blame," she said. "People want to know who they can lock up to make themselves safe."

Extra! Extra! Read All About It

There's More to the Story

• America's Ebola epidemic currently consists of 1 person with Ebola. (from Think Progress)
• 4 totally Ebola-free things Americans are terrified will give them Ebola. (from Think Progress)
• Why outbreaks breed hysteria. (from The Atlantic)

Porous Border Could Let Islamic Terrorists Sneak In to US, Gov. Perry Warns

Rick Perry at Heritage

When Texas Governor and former (and perhaps future) GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry agreed to come to DC to speak about immigration and lawlessness at the border of his state, he probably didn't figure that he would be talking about his own alleged lawlessness.

But that was exactly the case today when Perry appeared before an overflow crowd at the Heritage Foundation to deliver what had been billed as by the foundation and co-sponsor the National Review as a talk entitled The Border Crisis and the New Politics of Immigration."

Perry, making his 1st public appearance in Washington since his indictment on two felony counts of abuse in power, dismissed those charges as politically motivated.

"I am very confident in my case," Perry said. "[The allegations] are an attack on our system of governance. I will defend the constitution and stand up for the rule of law in Texas."

The governor was indicted by a grand jury on charges that he abused his office by trying to coerce a Democratic district attorney to resign after she was convicted of drunk driving.

Perry, who apparently is testing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, spent much of the time in his 30-minute talk calling for intensified U.S. military actions against Islamist terrorists, who this week posted a video of their beheading murder of kidnapped American photojournalist James Foley. (See The Prices Do DC Extra below to see what he said and related stories).

He did tie the events in the Middle East into the Mexican border situation. He said ISIS terrorists could slip across the border to threaten American safety.

"We have a crisis on our Southern border," Perry said. "There are assailants and murderers who should never have been in [our] country in the first place," Perry contended.

The Texas governor criticized President Barack Obama for his handling of the border situation and his immigration policies. The crisis has heightened in recent weeks as thousands of unaccompanied minors fleeing deadly violence in Central America have been surging into Texas from Mexico.

Perry was especially critical of Obama's refusal to visit the area. "To this day, the president has refused to see the facts at our Southern border. No briefing from far away can capture the scenes at our border," he said.

Securing the border should be the first priority, Perry said, advocating more "boots on the grounds, fencing for metropolitan areas" and the use of drones for 24-hour surveillance.

"Until the border is secure there can be no real talk of immigration reform," Perry maintained.

Extra! Extra! Read All About It
More on Perry's Views on Islamic Terrorists, Related Stories

Perry calls for more air strikes against Islamic State. (from USA Today)

Could Islamic State fighters threaten US citizens in their own homeland? (from USA Today)

Are Islamic terrorists crossing the U.S. border (from Think Progress)

Raise the Mininum Wage, Demonstrators Urge

Carrying signs and shouting slogans such as "Can't survive on 7.25," a group of about 40 AFL-CIO workers demonstrated outside of the Heritage Foundation today, calling attention to their campaign to raise the federal minimum wage for American workers.

Amaya Smith, a media spokesperson for the AFL-CIO, said the group chose its protest site because Jim DeMint, head of the Heritage Foundation and a tea party chieftain, has refused to engage AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka in a debate about the idea of raising the minimum wage for workers to $10.10 an hour.

DeMint was selected because the labor group believes a high profile debate outside of Congress would display the broader ideological contrast at the heart of the issue to the country and the Heritage head, who is one of the country's most prominent tea partiers,  has indicated he is in favor of doing away with any federal minimum wage entirely.

"We have challenged Mr. DeMint to a public debate on the minimum wage and he hasn't answered," Smith said.

A demonstrator lets his sign speak for him

The labor spokesperson said that current polls indicate that more than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of raising the wage to the proposed amount. "It's not going to take care of everything about poverty, but it is a good first step," Smith explained said.

While some shouted protest cadences - "Hey, hey, ho, ho, puny wages have got to go" - and answered call-and-response chants from leaders with megaphones, others handed message sheets to passersby, urging them to contact their Senators to support Senate Bill 460, the Fair Minimum Wage Act.

"People who work full time should get paid enough to support their families," the handout read. "But full-time workers making the current wage of $7.25 an hour bring in just $15,080 a year before taxes. That's not nearly enough to live on."

"Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will lift up working families and improve their standard of living," the handout added. "And with the extra income, minimum wage workers can spend more, boosting our economy."

The US, Russia, and the Ukraine: What's Next?

A protester holds a sign reading "Yesterday Stalin, Today Putin" at a Turkish protest of Russian actions in Crimea

The current explosive situation created in the Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most serious European crisis since the end of the Cold War. That was the consensus displayed by a distinguished 6-person panel at the Heritage Foundation, a group which included the Estonian ambassador to the U.S., the former ambassador to NATO, a Ukrainean political commentator and TV anchor, and 3 Russian scholars.

The panel agreed that Putin's decision to place special troops in Crimea as a prelude to a vote for that territory to secede from the Ukraine and join Russia, (a move that was approved Sunday) was a blatant power grab orchestrated by Putin and Russian officials and must be met with the strongest actions possible short of all-out war.

Russian troops are tightening their Crimean grip

"This is a violation of international law and those that violate international law should pay for that," said Estonian ambassador H.E. Marina Kaljurand. "Putin's pretense of protecting Russian nationalists is ridiculous. We have to keep the pressure on Russia."

"It may sound like a slogan, but after what is happening today in the Ukraine, the world is not the same place anymore," Kaljurand added. "Other countries are wondering - who is next?"

The Americans on the panel agreed that other countries  - friends and foes alike - will be closely watching actions that the United States, along with the European Union and NATO, takes to reign in Putin.

"What we are seeing is big," said Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO. "Putin will see how far he can go. It is easy for people to say 'this is bad,' but Putin has taken Crimea and that is a fact. We must be prepared to take actions if we want our words to mean anything."

"I think we are looking at a new kind of warfare that is unheard of in the modern world," said Ukrainean TV commentator Evgeny Kiselev. "These (Russian) soldiers appeared from nowhere and very possibly will disappear back into nowhere. This (the Crimean takeover) was a covert operation by elite Russian troops. They were very polite, but they were very insistent and determined.

"The question is - who is going to defend us?" Kiselev asked.

Earlier, during the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Ukraine had agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. Russia kept theirs, creating a complete imbalance in power in the region. Several panel members indicated that nuclear bans may be in jeopardy if countries decide that the Ukraine give-up leaves them defenseless against Russian onslaught.

"He (Putin) is being like a small child. He is trying to establish when he's really going to be punished," Kiselev said. "But he is a small child with nuclear weapons," Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies, at the Heritage Foundation responded. All voices on any Russian responses concur that decisions must take into account that nuclear threat.

Stephen Blank, a senior fellow for the American Foreign Policy, believes that if Putin is not stopped in the Crimea, he will authorize other takeovers. "This is a logical culmination of Russian policy," Blank said. "This is the beginning, not the end. And passivity only encourages other actions. Liberal democracy is a great threat to Russia and this action no longer makes European war unthinkable. Any appeasement is wholly misplaced and dangerous."

Luke Coffey, a Margaret Thatcher political fellow at Heritage, believes the Ukraine situation is consistent with Putin's world view. "Some things never change," Coffey said. "They are coming in to take what they believe is already theirs. This is imperial Russia, not Cold War Russia."

Coffey said he is concerned that European nations won't be able to stave off Russian action without strong American help. "New York City spends more on policing than 13 of the 28 NATO nations spend on defense," he noted.

'It is important to remember that any actions we take is a not a provocation; it is a response. We need to defend our alliances and send a strong signal," he added. "If I were to sum up this whole thing in a tweet right now, it would be: Russia is playing chess, the E.U. is playing checkers, and the U.S. is playing golf."

Libertarianism vs. Conservatism

What is the difference between a young libertarian and a young conservative? And, if you believe you are a champion of individual freedom and limited government, which approach makes for a better political philosophy?

These were 2 of the big questions examined last night in a lively debate held at The Cato Institute, sponsored by that libertarian organization and the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation. Yaniv Nahon, a graduate from American University who will be entering George Washington Law School, and Grace Pyo, a junior at Wheaton College, represented the conservative viewpoint while Regan Opel, a junior at the University of Texas, and Caleb Gonzalez, a senior at Harvard University, presented the libertarian point of view.

Prior to the debate, the panelists were given 8 topics to prepare. Four were then chosen for the debate. They were:

• The U.S. should use military force to stand for liberty in other countries
• The state should have a role in defining marriage
• Individuals should be free to move across the US border
• The government has a role in promoting virtue

During the 30-minute long exchange, clear differences between the 2 philosophies appeared. With the conservatives contending that the libertarians were naive in their beliefs that absolute individual freedoms could be afforded without ensuing anarchy, the libertarians countered that conservative curbing measures actually were counter to their supposed calls for limited government and personal liberty..

"We're not anarchists, well not most of us are anarchists," Gonzalez said in a laugh-inducing response. He was supported by Opel who said laws should be designed solely "to protect from other people, not form ourselves."

Hahon called Opel's beliefs naive. "If men were angels, there would be no need for government," he said.

On the question of military intervention, Pyo maintained that the United States has a responsibility to defend its allies. "Without a strong military, they are no freedoms," she said. Gonzalez countered by saying "I don't believe we should run the world by military agendas. If Afghanistan is a success story, I would hate to see what they would point to as a failure."

On the issue of marriage, Pyo said laws are needed to define marriage as that between a woman and a man "for the sake of children and future generations," adding "good laws establish norms and norms effect culture." Gonzalez countered that same-sex marriage would be a benefit to society. "It is not competing with heterosexual marriage. It is competing with no marriage at all," he maintained.

On opening the borders, Opel said such a move would "fill gaps in our workforce, not take jobs away."

Pyo said that while the immigration system should not be abolished, it should be reformed. ""I think we need to control who comes into our country to protect our liberty.," she said.

On the idea of government promoting virtue, Yanov contended that any law "is establishing a moral code." He added that the government could, and indeed should, promote such values as work by "requiring work to receive government assistance." However, Opel countered that government "is not the proper place to promote virtue. Virtue is highly arbitrary. There is a danger that one's own virtues are those to be promoted."

Tales, Tidbits, and Tips

As a far, far left-leaning liberal humanist, I found last night's debate engaging and enlightening. Of course, I believe both philosophies lacking, but I think the broader libertarian social ideas are better than those more limiting ones espoused by the conservatives. Due to time constraints, it couldn't happen, but I would have liked to have heard the articulate young people offer their views on the other  4 issues initially proposed. They were:

• Religion should be restricted to the private sqaure
• All drugs should be legalized
• The defense budget should be cut
• Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be privatized