Read all about it -- the latest on Palin

Sarah Palin Beginning to Irritate Some GOP'ers

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-beginning-to-irritate-some-senate-gopers-2009-06-08.html

Oh no, say it isn't so! I hope all Republicans want Sarah to be their 2012 candidate. With Rush Limbaugh as her vice president. Or, better yet, Ann Coulter as VP. A real dream ticket.

Read More

Immigrants are becoming emigrants

from www.crooksandliars.com (thanks to Bob for sending)

Imagine Lou Dobbs's head exploding when he hears this. But seriously, this will have profound effects on our economy:

Emigration from Mexico to the U.S. dropped 13% in the first quarter of this year compared to the same period last year, with more Mexicans leaving the U.S. than coming in. Indonesian authorities expect 60,000 or more citizens to be sent home from Malaysia, South Korea and other wealthy neighbors this year, as immigrant workers lose their jobs. Tens of thousands of Indians are washing their hands of Dubai as jobs there dry up and work permits expire. And in the U.K., the number of registered workers coming from new European Union member nations like Poland and the Czech Republic dropped 55% in the first quarter of 2009 compared to the same quarter a year earlier.

A growing number of migrants are returning home to places as diverse as Nepal and Tajikistan, while many are deciding not to emigrate to begin with, says Dilip Ratha, an economist and migration expert at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., citing reports from ministries and embassies. Mr. Ratha calls this reverse migration "very new" and "unprecedented."

Such migratory shifts could have profound consequences for developed nations, especially in places where domestic populations aren't growing fast enough to fill jobs or pay for social needs. High-skill immigrants are an important source of tax revenue in some cities, and their kids fill the classrooms of universities and private schools. In the developing world, remittances sent home by migrant workers are also slowing, meaning less income -- and potentially, less growth.

Some analysts question whether the latest migration reversal will outlast the current recession, or turn out to be as big as migration experts predict. Many immigrants have worked hard to establish themselves in their adopted countries and will be unwilling to leave, even if jobs disappear. Others say the trend could be more long-lasting, especially if returning workers help give developing economies a boost or if rich-world economies take many years to recover.

Workers like Mr. González are going home voluntarily, betting that for all the problems back home, their native countries offer better options than the U.S. and Europe. Many developed economies are contracting, but some developing-world countries including China and India are still growing.

Read More

Getting the facts straight

No, Dan, America is not a Christian nation
by Mary Shaw

A letter to the editor in Friday's Chicago Tribune has got my blood boiling.

In it, Dan Schuchardt of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, wrote:

I am getting tired of President Barack Obama's pandering to Muslims.

Despite his pronouncement America is not a Christian nation, the facts say otherwise. It's about time for Americans to wake up to the fact that Obama wants to change America into a secular nation, and the media is helping him accomplish that mission.

If I'm wrong than let's see Obama proclaim his Christian faith as he did when he was running for office -- or was that just another lie?

First of all, despite the insistence of the Christian right-wing extremists, the U.S. is not a Christian nation. And, in fact, many of our most prominent Founding Fathers were not Christians. They were Deists. They did not believe in a personal god. And they did not believe in the Christian God.

Dan needs to reacquaint himself with the U.S. Constitution, which makes absolutely no mention of God or Christianity.

It was with good reason that this nation's founders wrote the "establishment clause" into the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

It was to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority (which today happens to be Christian). Our founders did not want this nation to sink into theocracy. They knew that theocracy always leads to oppression and loss of freedom.

Our founders wanted to establish a democracy in which the government serves all the people, not just the Christian ones.

But Dan in Glen Ellyn would apparently have it otherwise, and won't let the truth get in the way of his fantasy.

Oh, and by the way, Dan, Obama did indeed proclaim his Christian faith during his address to the Muslim world on Thursday. In the seventh paragraph of his speech, Obama said, "I'm a Christian."

So, Dan, next time you might want to actually research the real facts before propagating incorrect extremist talking points.

Otherwise, you might just come across as an ignorant anti-Muslim bigot.

Read More

Interesting UFO sighting in England yesterday

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/ufos/2462720/Twenty-UFOs-fly-in-formation.html

Read More

Gallup Poll: GOP dominated by white religious conservatives

No surprise there. Soon it will be mostly white conservative males. Women (even fundamentalist GOP women) are recoiling at the harsh ridiculing statements being made against Sonia Sotomayor because she is a woman. (One idiotic example: G. Gordon LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.) The GOP has already lost the few Latino votes they had left, because of derogatory comments about Sotomayor. I, for one, am glad these "spokesmen" can't keep their mouths shut and that those representing the party these days are so blatantly racist, intolerant--and stupid. Long may Rush Limbaugh reign! And we know he is NEVER going to stop spewing his hateful rhetoric out into the airwaves. Soon the only ones listening will be those white conservative males--and even their numbers are shrinking as some of the more sensitive, intelligent ones are realizing, with horror, what has happened to their party.

Of course, the GOP will always have the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. And Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Oh, and one woman who will never desert the party: Ann Coulter. That's some membership to be a part of. It's amazing to me that so many of them count themselves as "Christians," yet by their speech and actions show they have no intention of following the teachings of Christ.

My dad used to be proud of being a Republican. I think if he were alive now he would be recoiling from the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters and their ilk. He was too much of a gentleman to follow that kind of hatred-spewing "leader." And I know for sure he would not like being called a "dittohead" by the likes of Limbaugh.

GALLUP POLL SHOWS GOP DOMINATED BY WHITE CONSERVATIVES

As the GOP struggles to define itself in the face of its own considerable image problems, a new poll indicates that the Republican party's base fundamentally lacks diversity.

The poll, released today by Gallup, shows that a staggering 89% of the GOP is white, and that 63% identify as conservatives. It is, in the words of the poll's author, "first and foremost a political entity dominated by white Americans."

In contrast, the poll found that around 36% of Democrats are non-white. Of the 64% of Democrats who are white, the poll found that about half lean toward a moderate or liberal ideological position.

The poll also suggests that Republicans are more religious than either Democrats or Independents, with about half of those polled identifying as "strongly religious."

The poll is particularly significant given the increasingly weak position of the GOP itself. As the author writes:

A great deal of attention has been paid to the plight of Republicans who at this juncture in history find themselves not controlling the presidency, the House, or the Senate....

The data reviewed here highlight an essential dilemma the Republicans face as they ponder their future. The Republican Party's constituency is overwhelmingly white -- and the significant majority of those whites are ideologically conservative, while a majority are highly religious, as defined by church attendance...

Does the Republican Party in essence "stick to the knitting" and cling to its core conservative principles? Or should the Republicans make an effort to expand their base -- among whites who are moderate or less religious, and/or the various nonwhite groups who to this point are largely ignoring the Republican Party in favor of the Democrats? The decision the party makes in response to this question could be pivotal in helping determine its future.

Republican Pat Buchanan acknowledged recently that there is a "real demographic problem with the Republican Party. It is a heavily white party."

Read More

Very interesting video: Mancow is being told he's a liar--by his own party

Seems the right wing is pretty upset that Eric "Mancow" Muller was waterboarded and then declared "It Is Torture!" He is one of their own and has deserted the party line. He is getting quite an education from what he thought would be a fun stunt. As he says now, "Whatever happened to the TRUTH?" A very good question, especially coming from a far right winger. Watch this interview and see what you think... (An extra added attraction is his wife and little daughter wanting to be on national TV and walking back and forth behind him as he is interviewed.) Some things just can't be made up. (~.~)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/30/mancow-addresses-accusati_n_209352.html

Read More

Cookies work, torture doesn't

This is one of the best reasons to try Christ's teaching first. I hope self-proclaimed Christians like Cheney and Bush are listening...

May 28, 2009

No Torture Needed -- Cookies Did the Job

Fascinating piece coming in tomorrow's TIME magazine. Reporter Bobby Ghosh writes, “The most successful interrogation of an al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or ‘walling’ and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.”

Former interrogator/member of the FBI Ali Soufan, who testified to Congress last month, tells TIME: “He was a diabetic ... We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him .... So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures.” Ghosh points out, “Defenders of the Bush program, most notably Cheney, say the use of waterboarding produced actionable intelligence that helped the U.S. disrupt terrorist plots. But the experiences of officials like Soufan suggest that the utility of torture is limited at best and counterproductive at worst.”

Read More

Interesting Interview

Sean Hannity says waterboarding isn't torture, even after this. One wonders, then, why he doesn't fulfill his promise to undergo waterboarding himself? He said he'd do it for charity -- Keith Olbermann offered $1,000 for each second Hannity lasted under the "it's not torture" enhanced interrogation procedure (so-called). But Hannity refuses to honor his commitment. In the meantime, he continues to claim "it's not torture." How can anyone take seriously anything this guy says? What a poor excuse for a human being....

Here's the interview. Judge for yourself which one you believe: Hannity or Mancow? Note, also, that Olbermann followed through with his commitment to donate $1,000 per second -- for Mancow rather than Hannity. He gave $10,000 to Mancow's favorite charity...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/olbermann-mancow-intervie_n_207963.html

Read More

An Essay, Beautifully Put!!!

Religious fanatics of all types who put themselves in superior positions to judge others as "sinners" are going to be in for a big surprise at their time of exiting this brief span of life, I think. Fundamentalist Christians, no matter their church affiliation, take pride that they are living their lives in a Christlike manner, asking themselves "What would Jesus do?" in different situations. Yet, in many cases they don't do what Jesus did. It boggles the mind.

The people of Jesus' time hated Samaritans, so Jesus told them the parable of the Good Samaritan and asked them not to judge others by their prejudices. The people of his time also stoned prostitutes to death, but Jesus showed mercy to the prostitute brought before him and told the people, "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone." He told people to "judge not your brother." (Matthew 7:4) "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye." He pointed out to them the hypocrisy of taking pride in one's own "goodness" while judging others, when he told them the story of the Pharisee and the publican praying in the temple. (LUKE 18:9-14)

Religious people who practice their religions according to their own narrow beliefs have given a bad name to religions over the centuries. Think of all the wars that have been fought in the name of God, but were actually fought on the made-up "rules" of men's own minds. It's staggering to contemplate. When I see people wanting to deny equal rights to gays, and doing it in the name of their own distorted ideas about their religion, I want to say to them, "What would Jesus do?" But I know from sad experience that their minds are set, and they wouldn't be able to hear me.

Excerpt from essay below: If his religion teaches prejudice toward certain people, and if he chooses to accept those dictated prejudices, that's ok with me, right up to the point where he decides those religious prejudices need to be codified into laws that extend the power of his religious beliefs to people who don't share them. Once my former friend decided that gay people should be denied rights, he threw in with a long history of oppression, a history that, ironically, once defined members of his own religion as weird, undesirable, and deserving of scorn from "normal" people, or "real" Christians. Like those who once persecuted members of his own faith, my former friend allied himself with those who would oppress other people out of a misguided sense of moral and personal superiority.

An Episode in the Culture Wars
by Jaime O'Neill

— from the Paradise Post

A few months back, I lost a friend over the issue of gay rights. During nearly two decades of working together, we had differed on a number of issues, none of them threatening to our friendship. He is more conservative than I am, and that seldom bothered me much. He was and is a man who stands by what he believes, and I admire that in people, even when I think they're wrong. He's also a pretty good writer, and I admire that, too. He's been dedicated to education, a teacher devoted to serving students.

He has a real doctorate in English, paper from a real school with real standards, unlike some of my former colleagues who merely racked up a bunch of often bogus units in order to propel themselves up the salary schedule once they'd gotten the degrees that made them eligible to be hired in the first place.

He's a Mormon, and he's been on the receiving end of some prejudice on that front, or had his religion flung in his face when people who disagreed with him ran out of other arguments against one or another position he'd taken. So, during the years I counted him as a distant friend, I did so with both affection and esteem.

All that changed, irrevocably, during the debate over Proposition 8. Prior to that split, I'd known his conservative views on marriage, and I respected those views, and the tradition that sustained them. If he wanted to believe that the Mormon Church shouldn't perform marriages between people of the same gender, then I had no problem with that. But when he moved from that position to advocating that NO ONE of any faith or belief should be allowed to perform such marriages, and that his personal sanction against such marriages should be enforced by laws that govern all, and that gay and lesbian couples would not be allowed the legal rights or respect granted to people like himself even outside of his church, I parted company with him, and lost the respect I'd once held for him.

If his religion teaches prejudice toward certain people, and if he chooses to accept those dictated prejudices, that's ok with me, right up to the point where he decides those religious prejudices need to be codified into laws that extend the power of his religious beliefs to people who don't share them. Once my former friend decided that gay people should be denied rights, he threw in with a long history of oppression, a history that, ironically, once defined members of his own religion as weird, undesirable, and deserving of scorn from "normal" people, or "real" Christians. Like those who once persecuted members of his own faith, my former friend allied himself with those who would oppress other people out of a misguided sense of moral and personal superiority.

I don't even want to deny my former friend and his fellow religionists the right to their sense of superiority. As far as I'm concerned, they can preach against damn near anything they can think to call "sin," and that falls under the heading of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But when those teachings lead to hate crimes, or when that preaching encourages discriminatory laws, then his freedoms are in conflict with the freedoms of others and, since his freedom to believe and worship as he pleases is not jeopardized by giving others the right to wed, then fair and reasonable people must take sides with those people whose freedoms ARE being denied.

Those old analogies apply here: Your freedom to swing your arms stops at my nose, and your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. In other words, when your rights are in conflict with the rights of others, then those rights must be exercised with responsibility, and must cease at the point harm to others has been demonstrated. As bad as prejudice is, and as much as I hate the sanctimoniousness that paints prejudice in stained-glass colors, what really tore it for me was the dishonesty of the Prop. 8 campaign, the fear mongering that prompted my former friend to stand up at a school board meeting and deliver a grandstanding speech to an audience packed with his co-religionists. In that speech, he promised the audience that if gay marriage became legal, then teachers would begin to school little kids in the legitimacy of the homosexuality. "If you don't believe that will happen," he said, "then I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you up in Alaska."

It was that little rhetorical flourish that made me decide I no longer needed to count this man among my circle of friends. He knew he was throwing red meat to those who shared his position, knew he was playing to their fears, knew he'd appear to be a stalwart defender of the faith to those who shared his prejudices - including those Mormons on the local school Board who had decided to vote their personal religious beliefs even before that meeting started. But, unlike many who supported Prop. 8, my former friend was smart enough to know that Proposition 8 was not about teachers, not about schools, and most certainly not about indoctrinating young people on the merits of homosexuality in our taxpayer-supported public classrooms.

Or, if he wasn't smart enough to know that, then he surely should have been. And, as a teacher himself, he should have known that schools are public institutions, supported by people of all manner of belief, and attended by children who come from homes that span a range of lifestyles. In view of all that, the loss of this particular friend hardly seems like much of a loss at all.

Read More

California: State of Paralysis

By Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

EXCERPT: Who would have thought that America’s largest state, a state whose economy is larger than that of all but a few nations, could so easily become a banana republic?On the other hand, the problems that plague California politics apply at the national level too.

Read More

Not a surprise that Cheney was the real president all those years

COL. WILKERSON: CHENEY KEPT SOME THINGS FROM BUSH
by Cenk Uygur

We interviewed Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, on The Young Turks and he had some very interesting things to say. Including:

"Cheney was co-president. I'd go further than that and say that for national security issues and other critical issues Cheney was the President."

"I found the incredible arrogance and lack of humility of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to be stunning almost right off the bat."

Referring to the decision to abuse detainees:

"I don't think there's any question it goes to Cheney. I'm increasingly of a mind that a lot of it goes to Cheney and stops there. Not just because of the president's disinclination to do detail, but I also think that Cheney kept some things from the president.

Lawrence Wilkerson: They should have what I would call reference authority. In other words, they should be able to turn it over to the appropriate authorities for prosecution, and a recommendation should be rendered with that if they believe laws were broken and they believe the proper authorities ought to take action.

Cenk Uygur: Dick Cheney seems to have an equivocal answer on Face the Nation when asked, "Did the president know about this abuse?" and he said, "Well I think he should have known" or something along those lines. Is there some chance that Dick Cheney just flat out gave the orders and didn't tell the president?

Lawrence Wilkerson: Absolutely! In my mind I have no problem believing that. I have no problem at all believing that.

You can watch the whole interview and read the transcript here:

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2009/5/21/9482/37294/Enough/Lawrence-Wilkerson-Denounces-Bush-Administration

Read More

LIZ CHENEY REVEALS REAL REASON CHENEY IS RUNNING SCARED

The real reason Cheney is out there, with his daughter Liz, defending himself and his legacy (proving he was really the president those 8 long years), has now been revealed by Liz. He is afraid of being held responsible for his crimes (as well he should be!). He doesn't want to be prosecuted for lying to start a war and for increasing terrorism during his 8-year reign as puller of the puppet strings.  He and Liz are out there on the circuit, desperately trying to save his neck and what is obviously more his legacy than the idiot Bush's. 

If Liz is trying to become a front-running candidate for president in 2012, that is a heart-warming thought to all of us nasty lib'ruls out here. How juicy it will be to watch her and Sarah vie with each other for the top slot on the ticket. And if Sarah gets top place and Liz gets 2nd place, we could have a rerun of the Bush/Cheney administration: an idiot president whose strings are being pulled by a Cheney.  I wonder how many Americans would vote for such a ticket? (~.~)

THE CHENEYS HAVE THEIR REASONS
from www.crooksandliars.com

Liz Cheney, perhaps inadvertently, admitted that part of the reason we've seen Dick Cheney more in the last two months than we did in the eight years of the Bush administration is that he is very nervous that there will be investigations and prosecutions in his future:

(M)any in the media have asked why Cheney — someone who had avoided the media at all costs during his eight years as vice president — would be airing his opinions in such a forceful and public way. Indeed, Cheney himself has answered this question, claiming he is speaking out because he believes that torture and other Bush administration anti-terror policies — many of which Obama is abandoning — were “exactly the right thing to do” and that “there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth.”

In turn, media figures have answered the question in much the same way. “I think he genuinely believes we are threatened now more because of what Obama is doing,” MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan has said. CNN’s David Gergen said, “I think Dick Cheney almost has a Churchillian view of this, and that is somebody has got to stand up and be the voice in the wilderness.” But while the narrative of Cheney’s motives focuses mainly on the righteous, it has all but ignored the selfish — that Cheney is trying to muddle the public debate with the goal of reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized.

Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:

L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.

Sad that this "Get Daddy Out Of Jail Free" ploy seems to have all the news outlets lapping it up with nary a word on what the motives might be for a former Vice President to break with protocol and criticize a sitting President (and by doing so, implicitly admitting that Cheney--not Bush--was in charge). Can you imagine how the right wing noise machine would have gone into overdrive if Clinton had started criticizing Bush for not taking the al Qaeda threat seriously at the beginning of his presidency? By all reports, that's what happened. Richard Clarke was demoted, his reports ignored, and then 9/11 happened on their watch. And now terrorism has increased worldwide four-fold. However, even with this miserable track record (kept from the public by these media outlets eager for a Cheney appearance), Cheney thinks his opinion has any value to the discussion?

You can see the larger Anderson Cooper interview at VideoCafe.

Some speculate there may be a more pecuniary motive to Cheney's sudden appearances (twelve in nine and a half days over four networks). Of course, Liz Cheney may also be trying to establish herself as a credible candidate in 2012 too:

The hottest Republican property out there isn't former Vice President Dick Cheney but his daughter Liz, who has taken to the airwaves to defend her dad and the whole Bush administration on national security and Guantánamo Bay issues. Liz Cheney, who followed the former veep's hard-hitting speech criticizing President Obama's policies with a CNN appearance, is becoming so popular in conservative circles that some want her to run for office. "She's awesome. Everyone wants her to run," said a close friend.

Read More

Rational voices are trying to be heard in the GOP

Tom Ridge and Colin Powell are trying to save their party from extinction.  Lots of luck, fellows!  The far right wingers have battened down the hatches on their brains and don't want to hear anything reasonable. Rove and Limbaugh and Beck and Coulter are their leaders...and they just love that "dear" old guy Cheney. And Sarah Palin is right up there on their list of candidates to run for president in 2012. My own opinion: let them alone. They are doing exactly what they should be doing: making themselves relics of the past.  They have already destroyed what the Republican party used to be. Their only support now is in the south, and only 22% of the population now define themselves as Republicans. The destruction of the neocon abomination their party has become cannot come soon enough!

DIVISION OF THE GOP:  ROVE SIDES WITH LIMBAUGH, RIDGE SIDES WITH POWELL
By Sam Stein

Asked to choose Sunday between Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell as a Republican he could support, former Bush confidant and conservative firebrand Karl Rove sided with the brash talk radio host.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Rove was posed the same question asked of former Vice President Dick Cheney: What type of Republican best represents the party?

"[Cheney] sided with Limbaugh. Do you?" asked host Chris Wallace.

"Yes, if I had to pick between the two," replied Rove, who earlier acknowledged that Powell was -- despite what his conservative critics say -- a Republican. "But, you know what? Neither one of those are candidates," he continued. "Neither one of those are going to be people who are offering themselves for office."

The remarks reflect what is a continuing and in some ways growing divide within the GOP. As Rove appeared on Fox, an interview of Powell defending his brand of Republicanism was set to air on CBS' "Face the Nation." Meanwhile, on CNN, former Homeland Security Chair and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was being asked about his prescription for GOP resurgence. Ridge made two points rather unorthodox to contemporary conservative thought. He disputed Cheney's assertion that the country was less safe under Obama. And he made it clear that Limbaugh was more hindrance than help, calling the conservative talk radio host "shrill."

RIDGE: I think a lot of our commentators are being shrill. I mean, I don't disagree --

JOHN KING: Rush?

RIDGE: Yes, Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important.

KING: I want to be clear, though. You think Rush is among those being too judgmental, too shrill?

RIDGE: Well, I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many. It's a matter of language and a matter of how you use words. It does get the base all fired up and he's got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourselves but let's respect others opinions and let's not be divisive.

Let's lead our party based on some principles that have been very much a part of who we are for decades. And let's be less shrill in terms of -- and particularly, let's not attack other individuals. Let's attack their ideas. Let's explain in a rational, thoughtful, responsible and reasonable way why our ideas and our approach are more acceptable and why they should be more acceptable to the average citizen.

Read More

George Carlin: A man of wisdom speaks about war

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/628.html

Read More

Suicides of Soldiers Are Mounting

THANK YOU, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFELD, and PUPPET BUSH for the lies you contrived and the unnecessary war you started, into which you sent these young soldiers.  Their deaths and the deaths of more than 4,000 others, plus the maiming of thousands of others, are all on your heads.

Yesterday, a young AWOL soldier took his life on West Cliff Drive here in Santa Cruz.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12429649?source=most_viewed

GENERALS FIND SUICIDE A FRUSTRATING ENEMY

By Ann Scott Tyson and Greg Jaffe

Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 23, 2009

It was just past midnight in Afghanistan when Brig. Gen. Mark Milley appeared on the video screen in the Pentagon conference room to brief some of the Army's top generals on a sobering development: his unit's most recent confirmed suicide.

A 19-year-old private, working a night shift at his base, had shot himself a few weeks earlier. "There was no indication that he would harm himself, he had not been seen by the chaplain, no intimate relationships," Milley said, running through warning signs.

In the Pentagon, Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff, homed in on one detail. The soldier worked a job that often entailed long, solitary hours. In scouring the Army's suicide statistics, Chiarelli had noticed a slight suicide increase among those who worked such positions. Milley said that going forward none of the 20,000 soldiers under his command would routinely work by themselves.

For more than two hours, Chiarelli, Army personnel chief Lt. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle and a roomful of other generals combed through the facts surrounding a dozen of the Army's latest suicides, with commanders from Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and bases throughout the United States participating in a video teleconference.

Such meetings are one piece of a broader effort to arrest the Army's rising suicide rate, which has surged to record levels in the past year. In 2008, 140 soldiers on active duty took their own lives, continuing a trend in which the number of suicides has increased more than 60 percent since 2003, surpassing the rate for the general U.S. population.

To deal with the problem, the Army has added to the ranks of mental health and substance abuse counselors. The service also required all units to cease operations for two to four hours to talk about suicide prevention in February and March.

Chiarelli's monthly meetings are the Army's way of sleuthing out patterns and identifying new policies to deal with the trend. In the most recent meeting, conducted last week, commanders were brutally candid about what went wrong -- a mental health screener who missed signs of distress; the failure to take notice when a normally reliable infantryman with three combat tours didn't show up for an Army school; the dangerous interactions of drugs, dispensed to help soldiers deal with combat stress, with caffeine and alcohol.

"It's the most gut-wrenching meeting I go to," Chiarelli said.

After the Afghanistan commander gave his briefing, it was Iraq's turn. Maj. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger described the case of a young soldier who shot himself this year. One aberration in the case: The soldier had received a waiver so that he could take a prescription drug to treat his attention-deficit problem. The drug "when added to caffeine, could cause sleep disorders, and a lack of sleep could lead to impulsive actions," the Iraq commander noted.

"There are a lot of those high-energy drinks being used over there," said Chiarelli, who spent two years in Iraq. "What is that stuff that people drink in Iraq?"

"Rip It," came the chorus around the room, referring to the energy drink that has 100 milligrams of caffeine per eight-ounce can (25 percent more than a can of Red Bull and roughly three times as much as an equivalent amount of Diet Coke). Chiarelli asked an Army doctor attending the meeting to work with his staff to create a simple chart listing the most common drugs that soldiers take for combat stress and explaining how the drugs interact with other substances. "I want it to be something an average platoon sergeant can use," Chiarelli said.

At times Army leaders were frustrated by cases that defied simple explanation. In other instances soldiers simply fell through the cracks. One senior sergeant who had deployed multiple times to Iraq confessed to a fellow soldier that he had frequent nightmares from his first tour. He was binge-drinking. The friend took away his personal gun but never mentioned the sergeant's struggles to commanders. A couple of days later, the sergeant didn't show up for his slot in an Army school.

The normally reliable sergeant's absence should have triggered a red flag, said the senior commander where the soldier was based. It was the second suicide the command had when a soldier was between jobs, and the commander promised that his unit will now maintain contact with troops as they are moving.

As the meeting stretched into its second hour, commanders identified other problems that needed to be fixed. In one case, a U.S.-based soldier who was taking antidepressants returned from his second Iraq tour and checked a box on his post-deployment health survey that he was feeling depressed. The screener who reviewed the form didn't refer the young soldier to the base's mental health counselors for help. A few months later, he took his own life.

The screener erred in not referring the soldier for treatment, said the Army general who briefed the case. But he also complained that the form that the military uses to assess soldiers returning from deployments is outdated and that its questions are overly broad. The questionnaire was developed in the wake of the Persian Gulf war. Chiarelli said he had been promised that a new form would be issued later this summer. "You'd think we would have done it already after seven years of war," he said.

The Army's biggest challenge is that its volunteer force is in uncharted territory. Many soldiers are now in the midst of their third or fourth combat tour, and Army surveys show that mental health deteriorates with each one. Senior Army officials said they are focusing more resources, including extra mental health counselors, where troops are returning from multiple deployments. This year, Fort Campbell, Ky., which is home to the frequently deployed 101st Airborne Division, has had 14 suicides.

"We probably don't know how many mental health care providers we need after eight years of war and three and four deployments," Chiarelli said.

Some of the best information the Army has comes from the individual case studies discussed at the monthly Pentagon conference. Before the meeting ended, Chiarelli pressed his field commanders and fellow Pentagon generals to make sure that the lessons from the 12 cases they had studied that day made their way out into the force.

"We can't just be players in a game of Clue here," he said. "We have to find a formalized way to get these lessons out."

Read More

It's not torture -- it's not torture--glub, glub -- IT'S TORTURE!!!

For sure FOX's cowardly Sean Hannity will never do it now -- even though he promised he would undergo it for charity to prove it wasn't torture (and Keith Olbermann has offered to pay $1,000 a second for each second Hannity lasts).  I think all rightwingers who protest this is not torture (including CHENEY) should have to undergo it to see for themselves.  Dr. Evil, would you please stop your talking crusade to save your legacy for just a minute -- and step up here to be first in line?

For video of the conservative Muller being waterboarded and afterwards, see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/mancow-waterboarded-video_n_206906.html

One Less Torture Advocate

By Jonathan Chait

Conservative radio shock jock Eric "Mancow" Muller (sample quote: "Obama can keep his "hope", the rest of us would like to keep our money, guns, and God!") decided to prove that waterboarding isn't torture by subjecting himself to it on the air. Of course, as my colleague Chris Orr has pointed out, getting waterboarded for a limited duration under circumstances you control is nothing like being waterboarded as a prisoner. Still, the experiment was interesting:

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand,  Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.  

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop.  He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child.  "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said.

I think the torture debate would be mighty different if more of the conservatives who scoff at waterboarding would try the same thing.

Read More

Global Temperatures to rise by 9 degrees by 2100

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

Pulling from a variety of data sources back in 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projected temperature increases anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by the end of the century. Now due to this new data, it looks like the higher range of that projection may be closer to the truth.

The new study was done using 400 applications of a computer model, which included looking at complicated factors such as atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems data, as well as global economic activity. A similar 2003 study had predicted a mere- but still significant- 4 degree increase in global temperatures by 2100, but those models weren't nearly as comprehensive, and they didn't take into consideration economic factors.

The most impactful way to lower the projections would be to significantly reduce human-produced greenhouse gas emissions, according to the researchers.

While complex factors such as human economic activity can be difficult to quantify exactly in a computer model, it's increasingly clear that those kinds of factors have a significant impact on global climate. As this study portrays, the more comprehensive and sophisticated our computer models get, the grimmer the news.

In other words, as our models become increasingly more accurate compared to previous models, global warming reveals itself as more acute rather than less. And it becomes much more apparent just how large of an impact human-induced factors can have on climate change.

Read More

Who is Dick Cheney? Q & A

By Steven Weber

Who is Dick Cheney? Really?

What is the man doing?

Is he a patriot?

Does he love America?

Does he fear for the safety of its citizens?

Is he a statesman who values what America stands for?

Does he value its history?

Here are some answers:

He is exercising his right to express himself. But given the responsibility inherent in having served high profile terms in government and given the content of his recent pronouncements set against the current instability of the economy at home and abroad he is, in the exercise of that right, practicing nothing less than sedition.

This is a man who arranged to be deferred from military service five times yet has stood behind the crucifying of actual war heroes like Max Cleland and John Kerry and behind the devaluing of all those American soldiers who went into engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan underfunded, under-supplied and under-protected, as well as their care after they had so nobly served.

He has been behind the unprecedented manipulation and gutting of the Constitution of the United States, taking power from The People and placing it squarely in the Oval Office.

He has presided over the spreading of paranoia and fear across the psychological expanse of this country in order to execute his personal agenda of profit.

He has determined that America take a unilateral course of aggressive action in order to secure its position as the world's only super power.

He values his country's history the way Machiavelli valued his. To him, American history is not the story of a people struggling with the responsibility of freedom for all men and women, a concept that is not instinctive in the human animal but one which must be fought for and nurtured with precision and care. For Dick Cheney, rather, his behavior both private and public points clearly to a man who has disdain for his country and the people who live in it, who views America as a business which has turned only a paltry profit, hasn't flexed its muscles with sufficient cruelty, has employed too little civil restraint, has given too much freedom to a people who neither deserve nor have the intelligence to understand it.

And even though he clothes himself in the trappings of the patriot, he is in fact the traitor in our midst. His recent media tour, again while within his right, is every bit as disturbing and incendiary as the vitriol that issues forth from the froth-flecked mouths of religious zealots who cry for holy war. His pronouncements about the various dangers to our country -- dangers he and his cadre of neo-con co-conspirators have helped create and/or exacerbate -- are not well-meant warnings but attempts to extend his nefarious influence over the national landscape, to keep people jittery and vulnerable enough to preserve his own relentless agenda of personal profit and perpetual power.

With the help of his ministry of propaganda Fox News and the autonomous bilge pump Limbaugh, Dick Cheney broadcasts his fear mongering messages, fomenting a shadow illegitimate movement more potentially virulent than any media-fanned terror of Swine Flu and exploiting the very fear he helped to create. If not dealt with, if his actions are left unchallenged and unchecked, the potential for civil division and instability is greater than it has been since the days leading up to the Civil War.

The stark contrast between Dick Cheney and President Obama bespeaks the contrast in devotion to this country and its citizens.

President Obama respects and values America and all for which and for whom it stands. Dick Cheney on the other hand, simply does not. That's who Dick Cheney really is.

Read More

Irish Catholic priests and nuns abused children in their institutions

An excellent movie was made about this kind of abuse years ago called The Magdalene Sisters.  It is horrific to think of how the Catholic Church kept its trusting members under so much control for centuries -- telling them they would go to hell if they even ate meat on a Friday, and their babies would go to Limbo if they weren't baptized from "original sin."  And, all the while, abuse like this was going on within its "hallowed" walls.  Another documentary that should be a must-see for everyone is: Deliver Us From Evil. You can rent it and The Magdalene Sisters from Netflix. Information does provide freedom.

It is interesting to contemplate how people are kept captive within various institutions, political and religious, and are ruled by FEAR.  The powerful elite of all big institutions have mastered the way to control the naive masses.  Make them fearful and paranoid, and they will do the bidding of the masters. Think about it: Corporations do rule the world -- and they are not only in the business world. They permeate our entire earthly tribal culture.  Some of the worst abusers of people are the ones who proclaim themselves to be the holy protectors of the naive and innocent. It is in their best interest to keep people ignorant and afraid--and to make them believe they have to trust the leaders who then say, "Don't worry. We will protect you. We will save you."  Dick Cheney is a perfect example of this kind of leader. Take a good look at him and listen to his words. He rules by instilling fear and dread in the population.  He himself is ruled by fear: fear that he will lose his power, his money, and his "legacy."  He was afraid to serve in the Vietnam War, yet has no compunction about sending other people's children into the present war he created out of lies.  He is still out there on the circuit, even though he is no longer in Washington, trying desperately to save his name and legacy by telling yet more lies.

Look carefully and follow this thread through politics, religion, big business, the pharmaceutical industry, the A.M.A., the military, the N.R.A., etc., etc.  Scare tactics are their herding tools -- keeping the people frightened is their business because it leads to BIG profits!!! Very few people break free of these controlling entities and see through their tactics. Yet, it is essential that we do so, in order to bring a new kind of energy to our planet--one that will end wars and lead to true peace and brotherhood. Dennis Kucinich is about the only politician I know who has seen this clearly and who speaks out about it.  The rest of them go along to keep the power and the money flowing to them.  That's the way the world is structured now. But if the people wake up and decide to change it, it can be changed.  A shift in consciousness is necessary, and perhaps the children who are being born onto this planet now will provide that shift. As more crimes are revealed and the old rigid thinkers and naysayers die out, perhaps a new and brighter energy will take their place, and Earth will see a new day. I certainly hope so!

Children in Irish Catholic-run institutions suffered horrific abuse: report

• May 21, 2009 - 12:52PM

Thousands of children living in Catholic-run institutions in Ireland were subjected to decades of horrific abuse while authorities stood by and did nothing, a damning report has revealed.

The long-awaited report, released in Dublin on Wednesday, outlined the terror of rampant sexual abuse, rapes and beatings inflicted on thousands of children over a 60-year period by priests, nuns and lay staff.

It said that, while complaints were made, government and church officials did nothing to stop the abuse, choosing instead to punish children who complained or transfer pedophiles and other perpetrators to new institutions.

The findings were based on a nine-year inquiry by the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse which heard evidence from 2500 men and women who used to live at Catholic reform schools, workhouses, orphanages and other children's homes.

Some victims said that, while the 2500-page report vindicates their claims about the widespread abuse they suffered, they were disappointed at the report's failure to name perpetrators or recommended any charges.  (Reminds one of the Obama administration giving a "slide-by" to Cheney and Bush and their evil neocon cohorts who dismantled our Constitution, removed our rights, and authorized torture. Oh no, let's not hold anyone in the hierarchy responsible for these crimes against humanity. Let's just "look forward" and pay no attention to what happened in the past. Because of this attitude of those in power, the same kinds of abuse will continue in the future. There are no consequences to the actions of the "elite" who perpetrate the crimes -- so they will continue to occur. Sadly, this is the way it is on planet Earth at the present time. Power and greed rule, and the little people suffer.)

"It didn't go far enough, it didn't give us justice," spokesman John Kelly, who spent two years in care, told reporters.

"We need to see those who committed the abuse, who are alive, prosecuted.

"This inquiry is deeply flawed, it's incomplete and many might call it a whitewash."

Several of the 100 institutions investigated by the commission were run by the Sisters of Mercy and Christian Brothers.

Many abuse victims fled Ireland as soon as they were old enough to start a new life in Britain, Australia and the United States.

One of the report's shocking findings was that sexual abuse was "endemic in boys' institutions", where children were subjected to improper touching, fondling and violent rapes.

"The management did not listen or believe children when they complained ... At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child.

"At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely."

Girls were also preyed on by male employees and visitors, but they were more likely to suffer "pervasive, severe, arbitrary and unpredictable" corporal punishment.

The report said the Department of Education knew "violence and beatings were endemic" within the institutions.

"Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from," it said, adding they were regularly belittled, ridiculed, criticised and humiliated.

Girls and boys also endured poor standards of care, often going hungry while wearing threadbare or wet clothes.

The report made 21 recommendations for the Irish government, including building a permanent memorial to victims as well as providing them with counselling and improving Ireland's child protection services.

The head of the Catholic church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, said he was "profoundly sorry and deeply ashamed that children suffered in such awful ways in these institutions".

Christian Brothers spokesman the Reverend Edmund Garvey said the religious congregation was "deeply sorry" for the hurt caused to so many children.

"In advance, the Christian Brothers apologize openly and unreservedly to all those who have been hurt either directly or indirectly as a result of the deplorable actions of some Brothers, or by the inaction or inappropriate action of the congregation as a whole," he said.

The Sisters of Mercy also apologized, saying: "We accept that many who spent their childhoods in our orphanages or industrial schools were hurt and damaged while in our care."

Read More

Unfortunately, this is all too true!

Politicians and their Corporate Masters
By Jon Faulkner

The presidency is a chance, for a man or woman, to join the elite - the upper echelon of society. That is its chief attraction. The trick to getting elected, and to make it look like there was an election, is to promise things the candidate knows he can’t deliver. The candidate knows perfectly well that a large percentage of the electorate know he can’t deliver, but will rationalize their votes with, “I chose the lesser of two evils.” The candidates always uses the same theme. It’s all about change even though the candidate realizes a large percentage of the electorate know that any change will be only incremental tokenism - a sop to the voters. Universal health care comes to mind.

All of the privileges corporations enjoy did not come about over night. Corporate lobbyists spent many years, and many billions, bribing politicians to engineer the current climate of corporate privilege. Obama is only one in a long line of presidents who owe his office to corporate king makers. It is extraordinary that so many Americans seem to be taken by surprise, or are entirely unaware that corporations, and not government, are in charge. Dick Durbin is the Democratic Senator from Illinois. Said he, “The banks are the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. Frankly, they own the place." There’s a refreshing bit of honesty, and from a career politician.

During Clinton’s first term, Welfare was replaced with the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” Congress, by design, had forgotten to ad the addendum, “Corporations Excused.” According to the Census Bureau, of 14 million Americans receiving welfare, less than five million were adults, and 90% of that number were woman. Welfare costs were about one percent of the annual federal budget. The government had begun its retreat from compassionate consideration for those Americans who are less fortunate. If however, the banks and other corporations break themselves by their egregious acts of irresponsibility, they will be showered with taxpayer cash.

Many corporate welfare cases establish addresses overseas in various tax havens, and end up paying less taxes than a married couple earning $50,000 to $70,000 a year. Dick Cheney was the CEO of the poster child of corporate welfare, Halliburton. Faced with criminal indictments for fraud, bid rigging, bribery and gross profiteering in a war zone, Halliburton fled the U.S. for the United Arab Emirates. In May of 2007 Cheney attended Halliburton’s going away bash with other shareholders. The revelers were given sticks with which to beat a paella stuffed with cash. Taxpayer cash. Cheney walked away from the Vice Presidency at least $35 million richer, not including his annual salary from Halliburton of $1,000000. Dick saw no conflict of interest.

While Cheney was Vice President, Halliburton established a slush fund to bribe Nigerian officials. This was at a time when the federal law against “bribery of foreign public officials in commercial negotiations” was in effect. While serving as CEO, Cheney would have been responsible for Halliburton’s books which show clear evidence of violating the “U.S. Corrupt Foreign Practices Act.” Cheney is a thief, and worse, he’s a war criminal. He and Bush collaborated to commit more criminal acts than any previous administration since George Washington’s.

After eight years of Bush the ruling class knew it was time to give the democrats a turn. Obama is the perfect messenger of change. McCain had too much baggage, but Obama is not only black - a sea change in itself, but he is also articulate and convincing. Obama’s abandonment of his campaign promises were quickly lost in media smoke. Emerging from the smoke were the usual assortment of republican doomsayers who predictably condemned Obama as they always condemn democrats - as tax and spend liberals. The democrats rejoined with, “the Bush Administration skyrocketed the nation’s debt to $11 trillion!" The all important ritual of reinforcing the myth of two political parties was underway.

In 2000, 51.3% of total eligible voters turned up at the polls. Junior was “elected” by about one quarter of all eligible voters. In 2008, 56.8% of all eligible voters turned out. That election marked the highest voter turnout in 40 years. A little better than a quarter of all eligible voters put Obama in office. This is hardly representative democracy, and the politicians, with their corporate masters know it. Americans, it seems, have their heads firmly stuck in the sand. They have been easy pickings for the corporate thieves, with their political accomplices, who have been robbing them of their money, and their freedoms, for decades. Somehow, millions of Americans remain fast asleep, and even support known thieves such as Bush and Cheney.

Any first year law student knows that professionals, doctors, lawyers, corporate CEO’s and politicians are held to a higher degree of accountability. Because the public has invested its trust in, for instance doctors, who perform surgeries or prescribe medications doctors must be held to a higher standard of behavior. Corporations violate the public trust at every turn because there‘s not much profit in trustworthiness.

Elected officials are in positions that can bring harm to those who elect them to public office. Bush and Cheney have set a clear precedence that future administrations are above the law. Congress, whose sworn duty it is to investigate and prosecute such outrages as Bush and Cheney are guilty of, only postures and blusters and fools no one. No democracy can long remain inviolable if its leaders need not conform to the same laws its citizens must obey.

Read More