Dana Liebelson

Reporter

Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She contributes regularly to The Week. Previously, she worked for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), covering defense and open government issues. Her work has also appeared on TIME's Battleland, Truthout, OtherWords and Yahoo! News. In her free time, she plays electric violin in an Indie rock band.

Get my RSS | Follow @dliebelson

Pet Fish Could Give You Freaky Antibiotic-Resistant Skin Diseases

—By Dana Liebelson

| Wed Jan. 16, 2013 9:19 AM PST

Have a freshwater fish tank at home? Stop petting Nemo and Wanda for a minute, and take a deep breath. Ornamental fish in the US, many of which come from Asia, are hosting antibiotic-resistant bacteria which could spread diseases to their human owners, a new report put out by researchers at Oregon State University reveals.

"The range of resistance is often quite disturbing," the authors wrote in their report, which was published in the January edition of the Journal of Fish Diseases. "Imported ornamental fish are commonly colonized with bacterial species of potential human and animal harm."

The researchers examined 32 freshwater fish, including common household species like neon tetras, cory catfish, and flame gouramis. They found that the fish, which came from Colombia, Florida and Singapore, had antibiotic-resistant bacteria that could potentially spread to humans, including Staphylococcus, which causes Staph infections of the skin; Aeromonas, which gives you stomach flu symptoms; and a type of Mycobacterium that causes skin lesions (not to be confused with the kind that breeds tuberculosis.)

The fish were most resistant to the antibiotics Tetracycline, which is used to treat infections like chlamydia in humans, and Bactrim, which is often used to treat women's urinary tract infections and bronchitis. The authors point out in the report that "this is not surprising considering the widespread use of these classes [of antibiotics] in the ornamental fish industry." However, the researchers also found that the fish were resistant to some antibiotics that aren't commonly used. "We don't know why that is, it could be industry testing that's going on somewhere," Tim Miller-Morgan, a veterinary aquatics specialist with Oregon State University who co-authored the report, told Mother Jones. The report notes that frequent and unregulated use of antibiotics is a growing problem in the ornamental fish industry, which is worth about $900 million.

But there is good news: Miller-Morgan says that "the overall risk to human from these infected fish is low," although he suggests that individuals who have compromised immune systems consult their doctors, and people with open wounds refrain from cleaning their fish tanks. "You just need to be aware," he says. "I wouldn't stop keeping ornamental fish."

But if, after reading this report, you're hell-bent on getting rid of Goldy and Phish, you can always copy what the scientists did: Kill them "via decapitation followed by exsanguination" and then cut out their kidneys.* "This is the quickest, most humane way to kill the fish," given that "results can be compromised when an anesthetic is used," Miller-Morgan says.

This is why I'm not a biologist.

*Please don't actually do this to your pets.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

CHARTS: Everyone Is Throwing Away Too Much Food

A new report says that our excessive food waste is "a tragedy that cannot continue."

—By Dana Liebelson

| Tue Jan. 15, 2013 4:01 AM PST

It's no secret that Americans throw away an enormous amount of food, sending day-old leftovers and slightly wilted spinach straight to the garbage. But what about the food that never even makes it to the kitchen table? A new report released by a British engineering society reveals that worldwide, billions of tons of food are squandered each year because of poor agriculture practices, which include inefficient harvesting and inadequate infrastructure and storage—and it's depleting Earth's water supply.

"This level of wastage is a tragedy that cannot continue if we are to succeed in the challenge of sustainably meeting our future food demands," writes the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. "The potential to provide 60-100% more food by simply eliminating losses, while simultaneously freeing up land, energy and water resources for other uses, is an opportunity that should not be ignored."

According to the report, developing countries, including India, China, and Vietnam, don't have the infrastructure to stop food from rotting. But that doesn't mean that Americans are off the hook: Developed societies tend to waste food on the consumer end of the chain, because it doesn't meet cosmetic standards (i.e., the tomatoes aren't pretty enough for your local supermarket) and also because consumers and supermarkets are throwing away perfectly good food, largely because of conservative "use-by" labels.

The charts below illustrate some of the stats from the report. Now, go home and revisit the Chinese food that's been in the fridge for three days. It's probably fine. (But of course, this isn't medical advice, so don't sue Mother Jones, please.)

Channeling Dead Rock Stars With Ian Svenonius

As an author, the former frontman for The Nation of Ulysses and The Make-Up tests his supernatural strategies.

—By Dana Liebelson

| Mon Jan. 14, 2013 4:06 AM PST

The Nations of Ulysses, way back when. By Don Lewis

At some book readings, authors serve gluten-free cookies and talk about their kids. Ian Svenonius, former frontman of the iconic DC-based bands The Nation of Ulysses and The Make-Up, channels the ghosts of dead rock stars. Here at Politics & Prose, an indie bookstore in the nation's capital, he's donned a Wiccan-esque robe that still doesn't manage to contain his signature unruly black locks. Technically, Svenonius is here to talk about his new book, "Supernatural Strategies for Making a Rock 'n' Roll Group," but I can't remember attending a reading where the author held a séance and then told me to burn his book in an back alley bonfire after purchasing a copy. (Although one could imagine Chuck Palahniuk doing something like that.)

[Read the full article]

Why Is Obama Bashing a Whistleblower Law He Already Signed?

In a signing statement, the president criticized—and perhaps undermined—a law intended to protect whistleblowers.

—By Dana Liebelson

| Thu Jan. 10, 2013 4:06 AM PST

Remember that scene in Mean Girls where Regina George, the blonde queen bee, tells a classmate, "I love your skirt, where did you get it?" but then says, "That is the ugliest f-ing skirt I've ever seen," behind the other teen's back? President Barack Obama might have just pulled a similar stunt with the whistleblower community.

Obama signed a new law expanding whistleblower protections for some government employees in November, and on January 2, he signed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which extends similar protections to defense contractors who expose waste and corruption. But the NDAA signing came with a caveat that blindsided the bill's backers and has some in the whistleblower community up in arms: In a signing statement, Obama wrote that the bill's whistleblowing protections "could be interpreted in a manner that would interfere with my authority to manage and direct executive branch officials," and he promised to ignore them if they conflicted with his power to "supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."

"12 million contractors are going to be out in the cold because of this," warns Jesselyn Radack, the national security and human rights director for the Government Accountability Project and a former whistleblower. "Asking employees to go to their boss before going to Congress defeats the purpose of blowing the whistle." Radack adds that presidents "use signing statements to direct their subordinates on how to interpret and administer a law, and it can have substantial legal impact." She points to George W. Bush's signing statements on torture and the USA PATRIOT Act as examples, both of which allowed the former president to dodge parts of those laws.

"The language Obama used wasn't defined, it's completely ambiguous, and it's already led to confusion," says Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight. "I can imagine contractors claiming that disclosures made by whistleblowers are 'confidential,' and I think it could likely have a chilling effect."

Peter Van Buren, a former foreign service officer who wrote a book exposing contracting waste in Iraq (and was hassled by the State Department as a result) tells Mother Jones the signing statement "is merely another expression of [the Obama] administration's hostile policy toward all whistleblowers…It disappoints me, and devalues my own efforts to bring transparency to the government."

Obama didn't alert either Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who backed the protections, nor Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), one of the bill's sponsors, that the signing statement was coming, according to reports in the Huffington Post and the Washington Post. In a press release, Speier called Obama's signing statement "deeply disturbing," and warned it could potentially undo the language meant to protect contractor whistleblowers.

Obama has been accused of treating lawful whistleblowers like illegal leakers. His administration has wielded the World War I-era Espionage Act against more federal workers than all other presidents combined. Targets of Obama's crackdown have ranged from Thomas Drake, a former senior executive at the National Security Administration who helped expose hundreds of millions of dollars in waste on a government contract, and John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who spoke out publicly about waterboarding and is facing prison time.

Other whistleblowers and whistleblower advocates are more optimistic—they're unhappy with the signing statement, but say they're glad they got new legal protections. "Obama's signing statement was rhetorical fluff," argues Tom Devine, the legal director of the Government Accountability Project (GAP). "Obama made no reference to restricting the law, or any type of enforcement against whistleblowers."

"It seems he is saying exactly what a good politician and president should say," argues Kathryn Bolkovac, who exposed human trafficking in Bosnia while serving on the UN Police Task Force (and inspired the movie The Whistleblower). "I am sure it will at times limit his authority, as it should when a conflict of interest may arise regarding executive officials who could potentially be involved, but I see that as a positive."

The new law could help whistleblowers like Bolkovac, who was fired for her disclosures, by creating safe channels for police officers stationed in United Nations peacekeeping areas who report on illegal activity. (Bolkvoac does acknowledge, however, that "private corporations like the one who employed me still have ways of intimidating their employees.") According to GAP, the law will affect about 12 million contractors and will work to protect the $1.9 trillion spent every year on outsourcing. Nonfederal workers can already file lawsuits on behalf of the government, but this law would permanently extend protections to all employees of defense contractors and subcontractors (and temporarily for other contractors, as part of a pilot program).

One thing the law doesn't do, however, is extend those same rights to contractors in the intelligence community, an exclusion that Devine calls "inexcusable."

Radack says that the continued exclusion of the intelligence community from whistleblower protections, in addition to the president's signing statement, demonstrates that "Obama is still giving whistleblowers baby pats on the head while screwing us on the other side."

But Canterbury says it's still "not definitively clear" yet what the impact of Obama's signing statement will be. "It's going to be incredibly important for Congress to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure the law is not weakened," she says.

Why Is the Pentagon Blocking LGBT and Progressive Websites?

—By Dana Liebelson

| Tue Jan. 8, 2013 4:01 AM PST

Rush Limbaugh's website is not banned by the Pentagon. John Aravosis, AMERICAblog

Gay and lesbian Americans have been able to serve openly in the military ever since President Obama repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in September 2011. But online, some Pentagon computers appear to force the LGBT military community behind closed doors, blocking military users' access to LGBT advocates' and other progressives' websites, while conservative sites remain fully accessible, according to John Aravosis of AMERICAblog. The military now blames faulty computer software for the de facto censorship, but gay activists say the Department of Defense has known about the problem for over a year—and still hasn't fixed it.

Aravosis—a journalist and activist who defended a US Navy sailor for challenging DADT in 1998—learned from a military contact that his website was blocked on the Pentagon's official computer system. He then had several other contacts take screenshots of websites that were blocked on Pentagon computers. Aravosis discovered that LGBT websites like the Human Rights Campaign blog and OutServe-SLDN, a website co-founded by Air Force officer Josh Seefried that supports gay members of the military, were blocked. Progressive sites like Daily Kos made the blocked list as well. But the conservative websites of Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, as well as anti-gay rights groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, were accessible:

Zeke Stokes, a spokesman for OutServe, told Mother Jones that the organization and its 6,000 affiliated LGBT service members have been notifying the Pentagon and local commanders of this issue since the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2011, but the Pentagon failed to adequately respond until this past weekend, when Aravosis pointed out the problem.

The Department of Defense issued a statement on Facebook on Friday that said it "does not block LGBT websites" deliberately. Rather, the pages "were denied access based on web filters blocking the Blog/Personal Pages" category. (Military officials have long blocked workers' access to websites they consider non-secure, personal timewasters, or otherwise unfit for consumption in office hours.) Aravosis tells Mother Jones he found this initial statement "disturbing," because websites like Ann Coulter's blog and Red State, a conservative news blog, both appear to fall in this category, but were not blocked. "They didn't seem to recognize the possibility of a problem, and appeared to have no intent to investigate," he says.

But Aravosis was sent what he calls "a much better statement" from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little on Saturday, saying that "[t]he Department of Defense strongly supports the rights of gay and lesbian men and women in uniform" and "in certain instances, access may [be] limited to content not directly related to carrying out mission or professional duties." Little added that "some sites may have been unnecessarily blocked" and promised that the matter would be looked into.

John Aravosis, AMERICAblog

Jeremy Hooper, activist and author of the pro-gay paean If It's a Choice, My Zygote Chose Balls, says his site, Good As You, was unnecessarily blocked. "[There is no valid reason] for a nine-year-old news site that features daily updated news, commentary, and yes, irreverence, geared towards the fight for equality to be filtered," he tells Mother Jones.

One reason the Pentagon may be blocking these sites (at least on some computers) is because it uses many different kinds of filtering software across the department, and one "information assurance" office may not have access to all the security settings. According to Aravosis, one of the DOD's site-blocking programs was developed by Blue Coat Systems, an American company whose wares have also been used by the repressive regime in Syria. On Blue Coat's website, the LGBT category is defined, not as housing sexually explicit content, but as containing "websites that provide reference materials, news, legal information, anti-bullying and suicide-prevention information, and other resources for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT") people."

Richard Bejtlich, the chief security officer at the Arlington, Virginia-based info security firm Mandiant and an expert on Pentagon cybersecurity software, told Mother Jones that "it's possible that all LGBT sites are blocked by default and the military didn't know," or even that "the settings came from the whim of a single person, as these systems are typically not very well-controlled."

Bejtlich also points out that "blocks are generally not a censorship issue, but instead, DoD has found that the Russians or the Chinese are tunneling information and they shut everything down until they figure out what's going on. DoD could be falling back on that excuse."

Both Hooper and Stokes are willing to accept the Pentagon's explanation that the censorship is most likely a software mistake. "[A]ssuming this is an error that is corrected quickly, it shouldn't reflect badly," Stokes tells us, but he also points out that "appropriate attention has not been paid to fixing it until now, despite numerous requests."

Pam Spaulding, founder of the LGBT blog Pam's House Blend, says that even if the censorship is unintentional, her site doesn't pose much of a security risk. "What is so subversive about anything I write here that the tender souls at the Pentagon need their eyes protected from?" she writes. "Do they think the content will give service members the vapors or make them catch THE GAY?"