Which comes first? Our children's health and safety or entertaining ourselves by throwing them into games that are proven to be dangerous and causing severe injuries? The jury is in folks. Parents are endangering their children by allowing them to play in sports known to cause serious long term injuries; specifically head trauma.
We might get away with excusing adults for their crazy-making behavior because they are free to throw themselves in harms way. But, when it comes to children both parents and the government have both a moral and legal obligation to protect them.
When parents are incapable (or too stupid) to care for their children, there are laws that require the government to step in on a child's behalf. Allowing parents to subject their children to dangerous sports known to cause sever head injuries and long term damage is nothing more than sanctioning child abuse.
Grown adults sitting in bleachers cheering their children on; encouraging them to beat each other senseless reflects a society in free fall self destruction. It's time for parents to wake up.
At House Hearing On Youth Concussions, NFL Touts Unproven ‘Heads Up’ Tackling Program
The hearing, led by subcommittee Chairman Lee Terry (R-Neb.), examined the risks of head injuries in a handful of sports to both youth and professional athletes. The subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade heard from representatives from the National Football League (NFL), National Hockey League (NHL), youth football and hockey leagues, a high school athlete and medical professionals.
Lawmakers asked questions about how coaches can be trained to spot head injuries such as concussions, and what technology advances can be expected from sports equipment to prevent these head injuries.
During the hearing, a particular focus was given to the risks of head injuries in sports like soccer and lacrosse that often get ignored because they are not considered as violent as football or hockey.
“There are other sports that have just as big of a problem with concussions,” Terry said. “We need to raise awareness.”
Terry said he has two children who play lacrosse that is he concerned about. He wants to make sure that parents of children in all sports feel comfortable enough in the level of safety to let their children play.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), ranking member of the subcommittee, expressed similar concerns for the safety of soccer players during the hearing, noting that her 16-year-old granddaughter plays the sport.
Schakowsky said soccer hasn't “grasped the importance.”
“It seems like soccer has more to do than other sports,” she said.
Schakowsky pointed out that soccer players, in contrast to football and hockey players, do not wear helmets or wear much padding, which potentially puts the players at a greater risk for injuries.
Both Schakowsky and Terry rallied around Scurry, who testified about the personal struggles she has dealt with in her life ever since she suffered her head injury. She said she has been treated for symptoms such as a lack of concentration, balance issues, memory loss, anxiety and depression because of the head injury.
Scurry said she hopes soccer leagues will take more precautions to protect their players, particularly youth soccer leagues.
“My main focus is what is done after a hit occurs to keep children and players on the bench after a hit occurs,” Scurry testified.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
ONE DOWN - THOUSANDS TO GO.
USDOJ: Swiss Banker Pleads Guilty to Conspiring with U.S. Tax Evaders, Other Swiss Bankers and Bank Management
Around 2001, Credit Suisse signed an agreement with the IRS in which it agreed to withhold taxes from accounts held by Americans and prohibit them from holding U.S. investments. Afterward, the bank's compliance department told bankers, including Mr. Bachmann and his bosses, not to talk about U.S. securities with U.S. customers, according to the statement.
But the bankers ignored it, according to the statement. After the session, Mr. Bachmann complained about the restrictions. An executive told him something to the effect of: "You know what we expect of you-don't get caught," the statement said.
A Credit Suisse spokesman declined to comment on the material disclosed in the statement.
U.S. authorities so far have only been able to identify a relatively small number of the American clients believed to have used the bank to hide undeclared money, due to Switzerland's strict bank-secrecy laws, according to Senate investigators.
This is what looks to be the first shot at the 1% starting the "war against tax-evaders."
Bachmann was charged in a one-count superseding indictment on July 21, 2011, and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison when he is sentenced on Aug. 8, 2014.
In a statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Bachmann admitted that between 1994 and 2006, while working as a relationship manager in Switzerland for a subsidiary of an international bank, he engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. customers in evading their income taxes by concealing assets and income in secret Swiss bank accounts.
As part of that conspiracy, Bachmann traveled to the United States twice each year to provide banking services and investment advice to his U.S. customers. As a matter of practice, prior to traveling to the United States, Bachmann notified his executive management, including the head of the subsidiary’s private bank in Zurich and the chief executive officer of the subsidiary, of the planned trip and its objectives.
If you were to compare this to the drug war, this is comparable to nabbing one of the mules; an underling working for higher ups in a cartels of influential and powerful well placed people in the finance industry who launder money for people addicted to money (though you couldn't convince them that).
2013 Expatriations Increase by 221%
Today the Treasury Department published the names of individuals who renounced their U.S. citizenship or terminated their long-term U.S. residency (“expatriated”) during the fourth quarter of 2013.
The number of published expatriates for the quarter was 630, bringing the total number of published expatriates in 2013 to 2,999. The total for the year shatters the previous record high of 1,781 set in 2011 and is a 221% increase over the 2012 total of 932.
For those that decide to remain and hedge their bets that they will not be prosecuted the odds are in their favor.
Around 2001, Credit Suisse signed an agreement with the IRS in which it agreed to withhold taxes from accounts held by Americans and prohibit them from holding U.S. investments. Afterward, the bank's compliance department told bankers, including Mr. Bachmann and his bosses, not to talk about U.S. securities with U.S. customers, according to the statement.
But the bankers ignored it, according to the statement. After the session, Mr. Bachmann complained about the restrictions. An executive told him something to the effect of: "You know what we expect of you-don't get caught," the statement said.
A Credit Suisse spokesman declined to comment on the material disclosed in the statement.
U.S. authorities so far have only been able to identify a relatively small number of the American clients believed to have used the bank to hide undeclared money, due to Switzerland's strict bank-secrecy laws, according to Senate investigators.
This is what looks to be the first shot at the 1% starting the "war against tax-evaders."
Bachmann was charged in a one-count superseding indictment on July 21, 2011, and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison when he is sentenced on Aug. 8, 2014.
In a statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Bachmann admitted that between 1994 and 2006, while working as a relationship manager in Switzerland for a subsidiary of an international bank, he engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to aid and assist U.S. customers in evading their income taxes by concealing assets and income in secret Swiss bank accounts.
As part of that conspiracy, Bachmann traveled to the United States twice each year to provide banking services and investment advice to his U.S. customers. As a matter of practice, prior to traveling to the United States, Bachmann notified his executive management, including the head of the subsidiary’s private bank in Zurich and the chief executive officer of the subsidiary, of the planned trip and its objectives.
If you were to compare this to the drug war, this is comparable to nabbing one of the mules; an underling working for higher ups in a cartels of influential and powerful well placed people in the finance industry who launder money for people addicted to money (though you couldn't convince them that).
Unlike mules in the drug trade these people wear 3-piece suits, travel first class, stay in 5 star hotels and carry briefcases full money for super rich, money crazed people who will go to any lengths to hoard their stash. Some even go so far as to renounce their citizenship before ever giving up a dime of tax revenue (now that's a sure fire symptom of addiction)
2013 Expatriations Increase by 221%
Today the Treasury Department published the names of individuals who renounced their U.S. citizenship or terminated their long-term U.S. residency (“expatriated”) during the fourth quarter of 2013.
The number of published expatriates for the quarter was 630, bringing the total number of published expatriates in 2013 to 2,999. The total for the year shatters the previous record high of 1,781 set in 2011 and is a 221% increase over the 2012 total of 932.
For those that decide to remain and hedge their bets that they will not be prosecuted the odds are in their favor.
So, here's a little of what the banks that aid and abet provide these tax-evaders.
NOTE: Some of this behavior is reminiscent of drug deals and other gangster-type money laundering operations but without any repercussions to those involved.
NOTE: Some of this behavior is reminiscent of drug deals and other gangster-type money laundering operations but without any repercussions to those involved.
Mr. Bachmann effectively operated as a personal ATM for some of those clients, using one client's deposits to fulfill another's withdrawal.
It was all part of a routine that enabled Mr. Bachmann to help clients avoid U.S. taxes., according to a statement presented in a Virginia court and agreed to by Mr. Bachmann.
According to the documents released by the Senate last month, one former customer told Senate investigators that a Credit Suisse banker handed over bank statements concealed in a copy of Sports Illustrated and ushered the client to a meeting in Switzerland in a remote-controlled elevator.
Mr. Bachmann oversaw between 25 and 30 clients of the Credit Suisse subsidiary, many of whom held accounts that he knew were undeclared to the Internal Revenue Service, according to his statement.
He admitted to helping those customers avoid U.S. taxes and told them how to structure transactions so they wouldn't get reported to U.S. regulators, the statement said. On twice-yearly visits to his American customers, Mr. Bachmann showed them copies of their account statements but warned them about the risk of keeping them, since they could be seized by U.S. authorities.
The statement also describes Mr. Bachmann's travels around the U.S. with large amounts of cash for customers who wanted to withdraw money. He wouldn't leave or enter the country with hard currency, but he would sometimes take cash from a customer who wanted to make a deposit and deliver it to another who wanted to make a withdrawal.
It's absolutely amazing to me that in a country supposedly governed by the "rule of law" that a group of elite and wealthy individuals are given free reign to flaunt laws and have little or no concern of ever being caught and/or punished for these crimes. They; we are told are just too powerful and the government is unable to muster the resources to take them down. That folks is something we should all be concerned about.
It was all part of a routine that enabled Mr. Bachmann to help clients avoid U.S. taxes., according to a statement presented in a Virginia court and agreed to by Mr. Bachmann.
According to the documents released by the Senate last month, one former customer told Senate investigators that a Credit Suisse banker handed over bank statements concealed in a copy of Sports Illustrated and ushered the client to a meeting in Switzerland in a remote-controlled elevator.
Mr. Bachmann oversaw between 25 and 30 clients of the Credit Suisse subsidiary, many of whom held accounts that he knew were undeclared to the Internal Revenue Service, according to his statement.
He admitted to helping those customers avoid U.S. taxes and told them how to structure transactions so they wouldn't get reported to U.S. regulators, the statement said. On twice-yearly visits to his American customers, Mr. Bachmann showed them copies of their account statements but warned them about the risk of keeping them, since they could be seized by U.S. authorities.
The statement also describes Mr. Bachmann's travels around the U.S. with large amounts of cash for customers who wanted to withdraw money. He wouldn't leave or enter the country with hard currency, but he would sometimes take cash from a customer who wanted to make a deposit and deliver it to another who wanted to make a withdrawal.
It's absolutely amazing to me that in a country supposedly governed by the "rule of law" that a group of elite and wealthy individuals are given free reign to flaunt laws and have little or no concern of ever being caught and/or punished for these crimes. They; we are told are just too powerful and the government is unable to muster the resources to take them down. That folks is something we should all be concerned about.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER
Looks like so-called Christians are in a dilemma. The choice(s) they have to make is, do they drop the long held facade of claiming to be Christians; followers of Jesus, while at the same time ignoring His teachings.
Or, as Francis has eloquently demonstrated by his own behavior become "true" Christians and walk the talk.
John Vennari, noted Catholic observer and editor of “The Catholic Family News,” has been pounding a steady drumbeat on the danger of Francis’s widespread populist appeal since his election a year ago. “He seems to have a good heart and some good Catholic instincts, but theologically he is a train wreck—remarkably sloppy,”
Vennari wrote in a recent blog post. “Though this might shock some readers, I must say that I would never allow Pope Francis to teach religion to my children.”
In an NBC news piece titled “Not Everyone Loves Francis,” Boston College theology professor Thomas Groome pondered whether or not true Catholic conservatives would be able to keep supporting the Pope’s new approach towards acceptance and mercy and still keep their faith. “I think it will be a real test for conservative Catholics,” he told NBC. “They have always pointed the finger, quoting the Pope for the last 35 years. Suddenly, will they stop quoting the Pope? It’ll be a good test of whether or not they’re really Catholics.”
In an NBC news piece titled “Not Everyone Loves Francis,” Boston College theology professor Thomas Groome pondered whether or not true Catholic conservatives would be able to keep supporting the Pope’s new approach towards acceptance and mercy and still keep their faith. “I think it will be a real test for conservative Catholics,” he told NBC. “They have always pointed the finger, quoting the Pope for the last 35 years. Suddenly, will they stop quoting the Pope? It’ll be a good test of whether or not they’re really Catholics.”
BUSH/CHENEY/CIA TARGETS CONGRESS.
Bush/Cheney Water-boarding is not torture; CIA hacking Congress is not unconstitutional
WASHINGTON - A top senator Tuesday leveled explosive allegations that the CIA spied on her committee's investigation of alleged CIA torture under President George W. Bush.
Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) charged that the CIA searched a "walled-off" computer the agency provided to her staff at a secure, remote site to examine documents, and also quietly withdrew relevant files it had provided the committee.
"I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution," Feinstein said during lengthy remarks on the Senate floor, revealing that CIA Director John Brennan reported the search to her earlier this year
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cia-hacked-congress-computer-network-senator-article-1.1717644#ixzz2viBF0xsC
Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) charged that the CIA searched a "walled-off" computer the agency provided to her staff at a secure, remote site to examine documents, and also quietly withdrew relevant files it had provided the committee.
"I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution," Feinstein said during lengthy remarks on the Senate floor, revealing that CIA Director John Brennan reported the search to her earlier this year
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cia-hacked-congress-computer-network-senator-article-1.1717644#ixzz2viBF0xsC
Monday, March 10, 2014
ARE YOU ON THE LEFT OR ON THE RIGHT?
Wealthy Christians might have cause to be concerned when you look as how the way the behave compares to the Bible's teachings.
The bad news? That represents an increase of just 4 percent from 2012, at a time when the mega-rich are witnessing huge gains in their net worths. Total wealth for Forbes' 2013 billionaires' list jumped 17 percent from the previous year, reaching $5.4 trillion.
How the super-rich are skimping on charitable gifts
Mt 25: 31-46
Daily Scripture
March 10, 2014
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.
Then the king will say to those at his right hand,
Mt 25: 31-46
Daily Scripture
March 10, 2014
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.
Then the king will say to those at his right hand,
‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’
Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Warren Buffett and several others in the top 1% appear to be taking the Bible's message seriously and have actually put it into practice with the creation of the "Giving Pledge."
WHAT IS THE GIVING PLEDGE?
The Giving Pledge is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to commit to giving more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or in their will.
WHO CAN PLEDGE?
The Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires or those who would be billionaires if not for their giving.
The idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and at present that encourage and recognize givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of people who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.
Initially, the focus was on the wealthiest families and individuals in the United States. Since there have been enthusiastic responses to the Giving Pledge around the world, the pledge now includes people from a mix of countries around the world.
WHY A PLEDGE?
We hope that a group coming forward to be explicit about their intentions for giving the majority of their wealth away will help:
Inspire conversations, discussions, and action, not just about how much but also for what purposes / to what end and
Bring together those committed to this kind of giving to exchange knowledge on how to do this in the best possible way.
We live in an exciting time for philanthropy where innovative approaches and advances in technology have redefined what’s possible. Grassroots movements are proving every day how a single individual, regardless of wealth, can make a lasting impact on the lives of others.
WHY GO PUBLIC WITH A PLEDGE?
The goal is to talk about giving in an open way and create an atmosphere that can draw more people into philanthropy.
HOW DOES THE GIVING PLEDGE WORK?
Each family or individual who chooses to pledge will make this statement publicly, along with a statement explaining their decision to pledge.
At an annual event, those who take the pledge will come together to share ideas and learn from each other.
Throughout the year, there are opportunities for conversations that go deeper on the specific topics of interest to the group.
WHAT WILL PEOPLE PLEDGE TO?
The pledge does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations. The pledge asks only that the individual give the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes or charitable organizations either during their lifetime or in their will.
The pledge does not solicit support for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or any other specific cause or organization. The pledge encourages signatories to find their own unique ways to give that inspire them personally and benefit society.
WILL THE GIVING PLEDGE GRANT MONEY TO ORGANIZATIONS?
Not directly. Each person who pledges makes an individual decision about which particular causes or organizations they wish to support.
HOW MUCH SHOULD PEOPLE GIVE?
Each family will decide that for themselves. The pledge asks for a commitment of a majority of their wealth. Many have and will continue to exceed it.
ONCE SOMEONE PLEDGES, HOW WILL YOU MAKE SURE THEY FOLLOW THROUGH?
The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract.
HOW DID THE IDEA COME ABOUT?
The idea of the Giving Pledge came from the ideas and input generated in many great conversations that Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett had with other philanthropists in the U.S. and abroad.
HOW LONG WILL THE PLEDGE LAST?
Our hope is that the effort will continue for generations to come.
Sadly the number of those who pledge is much lower than those who hoard, evade taxes, and simply flaunt their excesses with little concern or regard for others; very much as those described on the left of their maker.
What puzzles me is why. What is it these people think they are accomplishing by hoarding their wealth rather than putting it to good use for the "greater" good?
People like Gates, Buffett, Zuckerburg, and a few others seem to be getting along just fine living up to this pledge.
I'd really like to hear from those who think this is a bad idea, along with the reasons why. The man upstairs might also be interested in hearing from them.
WHAT IS THE GIVING PLEDGE?
The Giving Pledge is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to commit to giving more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or in their will.
WHO CAN PLEDGE?
The Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires or those who would be billionaires if not for their giving.
The idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and at present that encourage and recognize givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of people who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.
Initially, the focus was on the wealthiest families and individuals in the United States. Since there have been enthusiastic responses to the Giving Pledge around the world, the pledge now includes people from a mix of countries around the world.
WHY A PLEDGE?
We hope that a group coming forward to be explicit about their intentions for giving the majority of their wealth away will help:
Inspire conversations, discussions, and action, not just about how much but also for what purposes / to what end and
Bring together those committed to this kind of giving to exchange knowledge on how to do this in the best possible way.
We live in an exciting time for philanthropy where innovative approaches and advances in technology have redefined what’s possible. Grassroots movements are proving every day how a single individual, regardless of wealth, can make a lasting impact on the lives of others.
WHY GO PUBLIC WITH A PLEDGE?
The goal is to talk about giving in an open way and create an atmosphere that can draw more people into philanthropy.
HOW DOES THE GIVING PLEDGE WORK?
Each family or individual who chooses to pledge will make this statement publicly, along with a statement explaining their decision to pledge.
At an annual event, those who take the pledge will come together to share ideas and learn from each other.
Throughout the year, there are opportunities for conversations that go deeper on the specific topics of interest to the group.
WHAT WILL PEOPLE PLEDGE TO?
The pledge does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations. The pledge asks only that the individual give the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes or charitable organizations either during their lifetime or in their will.
The pledge does not solicit support for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or any other specific cause or organization. The pledge encourages signatories to find their own unique ways to give that inspire them personally and benefit society.
WILL THE GIVING PLEDGE GRANT MONEY TO ORGANIZATIONS?
Not directly. Each person who pledges makes an individual decision about which particular causes or organizations they wish to support.
HOW MUCH SHOULD PEOPLE GIVE?
Each family will decide that for themselves. The pledge asks for a commitment of a majority of their wealth. Many have and will continue to exceed it.
ONCE SOMEONE PLEDGES, HOW WILL YOU MAKE SURE THEY FOLLOW THROUGH?
The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract.
HOW DID THE IDEA COME ABOUT?
The idea of the Giving Pledge came from the ideas and input generated in many great conversations that Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett had with other philanthropists in the U.S. and abroad.
HOW LONG WILL THE PLEDGE LAST?
Our hope is that the effort will continue for generations to come.
Sadly the number of those who pledge is much lower than those who hoard, evade taxes, and simply flaunt their excesses with little concern or regard for others; very much as those described on the left of their maker.
What puzzles me is why. What is it these people think they are accomplishing by hoarding their wealth rather than putting it to good use for the "greater" good?
People like Gates, Buffett, Zuckerburg, and a few others seem to be getting along just fine living up to this pledge.
I'd really like to hear from those who think this is a bad idea, along with the reasons why. The man upstairs might also be interested in hearing from them.
Friday, March 7, 2014
(BLANK) invades (BLANK) to protect it citizens.
Here's a classic demonstration of the old saying; " The pot calling the kettle black."
The hysterical vitriolic rhetoric has been flooding the 24/7 news cycle for weeks now.
One question. Who are they talking about? The following 4 historical events have one thing in common; protection of it's "nationals", and "restoring order." Somehow only 1 of the 4 has been singled out as being
OUTRAGEOUS! VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW! ILLEGITIMATE! ILLEGAL!
Can you guess which one?
A) Oct 25, 1983: United States invades Grenada
President Ronald Reagan, citing the threat posed to American nationals on the Caribbean nation of Grenada by that nation's Marxist regime, orders the Marines to invade and secure their safety. There were nearly 1,000 Americans in Grenada at the time, many of them students at the island's medical school. In little more than a week, Grenada's government was overthrown.
B) Apr 28, 1965: U.S. troops land in the Dominican Republic
In an effort to forestall what he claims will be a "communist dictatorship" in the Dominican Republic, President Lyndon B. Johnson sends more than 22,000 U.S.troops to restore order on the island nation. Johnson's action provoked loud protests in Latin America and skepticism among many in the United States.
C) Dec 20, 1989: The U.S. invades Panama
The United States invades Panama in an attempt to overthrow military dictator Manuel Noriega, who had been indicted in the United States on drug trafficking charges and was accused of suppressing democracy in Panama and endangering U.S. nationals. Noriega's Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) were promptly crushed, forcing the dictator to seek asylum with the Vatican anuncio in Panama City, where he surrendered on January 3, 1990.
D) Russia Approves Use of Military as Ukraine Slams Invasion
Russia’s parliament approved the use of its military in Ukraine after Russian troops seized facilities in that country’s Crimea region, prompting the government in Kiev to say it was being invaded.
Heeding a request by President Vladimir Putin to protect ethnic Russians, lawmakers in Moscow voted unanimously to send troops to its neighbor, according to a vote today broadcast by Rossiya 24. The upper chamber was also preparing a request for Putin to recall Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Speaker Valentina Matviyenko said. In Kiev, governing politician Vitali Klitschko called for Ukraine to mobilize its army and consider ousting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from its Crimean base.
“Parliament should order the commander-in-chief to call for general mobilization because of the aggression against Ukraine,” Klitschko, a former world heavyweight-boxing champion who is preparing to run for president, said in a statement on his website today. “Parliament should also consider scrapping the agreement on the Black Sea Fleet lease.”
Putin is trying to assert his power over parts of Ukraine with large ethnic Russian populations after last week’s overthrow of former President Viktor Yanukovych. The military movements risk destabilizing the country as its new government looks to the U.S. and Europe for a bailout to avoid default. U.S. President Barack Obama said yesterday he’s “deeply concerned” by reports of Russian troops in Crimea.
The hysterical vitriolic rhetoric has been flooding the 24/7 news cycle for weeks now.
One question. Who are they talking about? The following 4 historical events have one thing in common; protection of it's "nationals", and "restoring order." Somehow only 1 of the 4 has been singled out as being
OUTRAGEOUS! VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW! ILLEGITIMATE! ILLEGAL!
Can you guess which one?
A) Oct 25, 1983: United States invades Grenada
President Ronald Reagan, citing the threat posed to American nationals on the Caribbean nation of Grenada by that nation's Marxist regime, orders the Marines to invade and secure their safety. There were nearly 1,000 Americans in Grenada at the time, many of them students at the island's medical school. In little more than a week, Grenada's government was overthrown.
B) Apr 28, 1965: U.S. troops land in the Dominican Republic
In an effort to forestall what he claims will be a "communist dictatorship" in the Dominican Republic, President Lyndon B. Johnson sends more than 22,000 U.S.troops to restore order on the island nation. Johnson's action provoked loud protests in Latin America and skepticism among many in the United States.
C) Dec 20, 1989: The U.S. invades Panama
The United States invades Panama in an attempt to overthrow military dictator Manuel Noriega, who had been indicted in the United States on drug trafficking charges and was accused of suppressing democracy in Panama and endangering U.S. nationals. Noriega's Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) were promptly crushed, forcing the dictator to seek asylum with the Vatican anuncio in Panama City, where he surrendered on January 3, 1990.
D) Russia Approves Use of Military as Ukraine Slams Invasion
Russia’s parliament approved the use of its military in Ukraine after Russian troops seized facilities in that country’s Crimea region, prompting the government in Kiev to say it was being invaded.
Heeding a request by President Vladimir Putin to protect ethnic Russians, lawmakers in Moscow voted unanimously to send troops to its neighbor, according to a vote today broadcast by Rossiya 24. The upper chamber was also preparing a request for Putin to recall Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Speaker Valentina Matviyenko said. In Kiev, governing politician Vitali Klitschko called for Ukraine to mobilize its army and consider ousting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from its Crimean base.
“Parliament should order the commander-in-chief to call for general mobilization because of the aggression against Ukraine,” Klitschko, a former world heavyweight-boxing champion who is preparing to run for president, said in a statement on his website today. “Parliament should also consider scrapping the agreement on the Black Sea Fleet lease.”
Putin is trying to assert his power over parts of Ukraine with large ethnic Russian populations after last week’s overthrow of former President Viktor Yanukovych. The military movements risk destabilizing the country as its new government looks to the U.S. and Europe for a bailout to avoid default. U.S. President Barack Obama said yesterday he’s “deeply concerned” by reports of Russian troops in Crimea.
VIOLENCE IN THE MILITARY?
How silly to even have the question asked. Especially in today's military made up primarily of people with little or no options in today's America and who are bored out of their skulls after being raised on junk food, home alone glued to joysticks wiping up anything that moves in their lonely virtual worlds of "Call to Duty" or "Grand Theft Auto' where raping and killing is constantly recycled into an on-going flood of blood soaked carnage.
It's all harmless fun, they say. Especially those who produce, market, and sell this "virtual" version of Dante's Inferno.
No one wants to look at or talk about the potential damage to the psyche this causes, much like making believe head trauma in football is not real. Just imaginary.
Today's military is desperate and hard pressed to find recruits that they can convince to enlist for any other reason than to have a shot at playing out those computer games for real. It's difficult to convince them they are doing this to defend their country from the enemy when the only place they seem to find them are in caves in some far off land who's name they can't even pronounce.
Patriotism? Or spreading democracy around the world? Both hard sells given the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. 10 years and counting and still no "Mission Accomplished" banner to wave and no signs of freedom and democracy; American style popping up anywhere.
What that leaves the military with is a bunch of very bored youngsters with a lot of pent up anxiety, anger, and paranoia with no where to dump it. Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto are not standard issue gear.
Neo-cons, those who make lot's of money from war have little concern for the state of the military. They solved that problem long ago by creating the "private contracting industry" that for a whole lot more of tax payer dolllars are given all the cushy jobs once offered to the military rank and file.
Top this off with the latest revelation that there's a large number of our guys and gals in uniform who enlisted that were carrying large loads of mental garbage and not too stable to begin with and the results are not surprising.
About one in five US soldiers have been found to have a common mental illness such as depression or panic disorder upon enlisting in the Army, according to a new study.
A second study showed that over eight percent of soldiers had contemplated suicide and 1.1 percent had attempted suicide, researchers found via confidential surveys and interviews with 5,428 soldiers at Army bases across the US.
The studies’ results were published on Monday in JAMA Psychiatry. Experts say the findings show a weakness in recruiting processes. Army applicants are asked about their psychiatric pasts in evaluations, while those with certain disorders or a history of suicide attempts are often kept from entering the service.
In 2011, a representative sample of soldiers was assessed for eight common psychiatric disorders.
Researchers found that soldiers interviewed had joined the Army with higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than the general population.
"The question becomes, 'How did these guys get in the Army?'" Ronald Kessler, a Harvard University sociologist and leader of one of the studies, said to the Los Angeles Times.
The studies found that over eight percent of soldiers came into the Army with intermittent explosive disorder, marked by unrestrained anger attacks. It was the most common disorder found, as pre-enlistment levels were six times the civilian rate.
Pre-enlistment rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse were found to be close to civilian rates. Suicidal ideation, planning, and attempt rates fell under the general population rate, though still significant.
Though during military service, the surveyed soldiers’ rates of psychiatric disorders climbed well beyond civilian levels and far beyond the normal rate for some disorders.
A quarter of soldiers were found to be suffering from a mental illness: around five percent with depression, around six percent with anxiety disorder, and almost nine percent with PTSD.
The amount of soldiers who had attempted suicide went up from 1.1 percent to 2.4 percent, though the study did not explain a possible cause.
The report from the Center for American Progress — titled “Twice Betrayed: Bringing Justice to the U.S. Military’s Sexual Assault Problem” — was first commissioned in the aftermath ofseveral high-profile cases involving rape and assault in the military earlier this year. In the most damaging to the armed forces’ image, the then-head of the Air Force’s sexual assault response program was charged with sexual battery in Arlington, VA.
After laying out the history of the problem, the report pushes back on myths about sexual assault that occurs within the military, including statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault against men as well as women. In 2012, of the 26,000 military personnel estimated to have experienced sexual assault, 14,000 were men and 12,000 were women,” the report notes. The opening of new positions to women within the armed services is also dismissed as a reason for an increase in estimated sexual assaults.
Rather than seeing a trend towards improved reporting, CAP’s analysts worry that instead of being over-exaggerated, as some have claimed, that the numbers may in fact still be too low. “A significant percentage of cases, for example, are counted each year as a single ‘incident’ but involve multiple perpetrators and/or multiple victims,” the report explains, also noting that it doesn’t include information from the service academies.
Among the recommendations the report lays out, the most controversial is likely to be the support thrown behind a proposal to remove military sexual assault cases from the chain of command, stripping commanding officers of their ability to try cases in their units. The idea is a cornerstone of Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand’s (D-NY) legislation, titled the Military Justice Improvement Act, which has gained bipartisan support since it was first introduced.
It's all harmless fun, they say. Especially those who produce, market, and sell this "virtual" version of Dante's Inferno.
No one wants to look at or talk about the potential damage to the psyche this causes, much like making believe head trauma in football is not real. Just imaginary.
Today's military is desperate and hard pressed to find recruits that they can convince to enlist for any other reason than to have a shot at playing out those computer games for real. It's difficult to convince them they are doing this to defend their country from the enemy when the only place they seem to find them are in caves in some far off land who's name they can't even pronounce.
Patriotism? Or spreading democracy around the world? Both hard sells given the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. 10 years and counting and still no "Mission Accomplished" banner to wave and no signs of freedom and democracy; American style popping up anywhere.
What that leaves the military with is a bunch of very bored youngsters with a lot of pent up anxiety, anger, and paranoia with no where to dump it. Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto are not standard issue gear.
Neo-cons, those who make lot's of money from war have little concern for the state of the military. They solved that problem long ago by creating the "private contracting industry" that for a whole lot more of tax payer dolllars are given all the cushy jobs once offered to the military rank and file.
Top this off with the latest revelation that there's a large number of our guys and gals in uniform who enlisted that were carrying large loads of mental garbage and not too stable to begin with and the results are not surprising.
A second study showed that over eight percent of soldiers had contemplated suicide and 1.1 percent had attempted suicide, researchers found via confidential surveys and interviews with 5,428 soldiers at Army bases across the US.
The studies’ results were published on Monday in JAMA Psychiatry. Experts say the findings show a weakness in recruiting processes. Army applicants are asked about their psychiatric pasts in evaluations, while those with certain disorders or a history of suicide attempts are often kept from entering the service.
In 2011, a representative sample of soldiers was assessed for eight common psychiatric disorders.
Researchers found that soldiers interviewed had joined the Army with higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic disorder, and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than the general population.
"The question becomes, 'How did these guys get in the Army?'" Ronald Kessler, a Harvard University sociologist and leader of one of the studies, said to the Los Angeles Times.
The studies found that over eight percent of soldiers came into the Army with intermittent explosive disorder, marked by unrestrained anger attacks. It was the most common disorder found, as pre-enlistment levels were six times the civilian rate.
Pre-enlistment rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse were found to be close to civilian rates. Suicidal ideation, planning, and attempt rates fell under the general population rate, though still significant.
Though during military service, the surveyed soldiers’ rates of psychiatric disorders climbed well beyond civilian levels and far beyond the normal rate for some disorders.
A quarter of soldiers were found to be suffering from a mental illness: around five percent with depression, around six percent with anxiety disorder, and almost nine percent with PTSD.
The amount of soldiers who had attempted suicide went up from 1.1 percent to 2.4 percent, though the study did not explain a possible cause.
So, now comes the question; why are we so shocked and surprised that sexual assault (violence) is running rampant in the military?
I'm tempted to just writing it off to being just plain dumb or uninformed but I believe there's something much more sinister at play here. Let's just simply start with the lack of bodies willing to join the military. Not enough males? Then, let's go for females. Putting females in combat positions was almost unheard of even in the time of Hannibal and the Barbarians who had more respect for the sexes than anything we see today in our so-called civilized world. Other than a handful of suicide bombers females have usually served in jobs that are now held by those "private contractors" the neo-cons hired on.
So let's take a bunch of not-too-stable males and throw them into tents with a bunch of not too bright females and what you see is what you get folks.
The report from the Center for American Progress — titled “Twice Betrayed: Bringing Justice to the U.S. Military’s Sexual Assault Problem” — was first commissioned in the aftermath ofseveral high-profile cases involving rape and assault in the military earlier this year. In the most damaging to the armed forces’ image, the then-head of the Air Force’s sexual assault response program was charged with sexual battery in Arlington, VA.
After laying out the history of the problem, the report pushes back on myths about sexual assault that occurs within the military, including statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault against men as well as women. In 2012, of the 26,000 military personnel estimated to have experienced sexual assault, 14,000 were men and 12,000 were women,” the report notes. The opening of new positions to women within the armed services is also dismissed as a reason for an increase in estimated sexual assaults.
Rather than seeing a trend towards improved reporting, CAP’s analysts worry that instead of being over-exaggerated, as some have claimed, that the numbers may in fact still be too low. “A significant percentage of cases, for example, are counted each year as a single ‘incident’ but involve multiple perpetrators and/or multiple victims,” the report explains, also noting that it doesn’t include information from the service academies.
Among the recommendations the report lays out, the most controversial is likely to be the support thrown behind a proposal to remove military sexual assault cases from the chain of command, stripping commanding officers of their ability to try cases in their units. The idea is a cornerstone of Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand’s (D-NY) legislation, titled the Military Justice Improvement Act, which has gained bipartisan support since it was first introduced.
In conducting research to critique the proposal, Larry Korb — a CAP Senior Fellow and one of the co-authors of the report — told reporters that other countries who have carried out such reforms and the results.
Kirsten Gillibrand’s sexual assault bill derailed
When it comes to taking care of it's people the United States continues to lag behind the rest of the civilized "developed" countries; Gun Control, Health Care, and now protecting women in the Military all focused on "social" issues that concern the welfare of Americans.
When the United Kingdom, France, and Israel removed sexual assault cases from the chain of command, Korb said, there was actually no impact on military readiness. Should such a step not prove successful in reducing the amount of sexual assault in the military, Korb went on, the cases should then be moved to civilian courts as seen in France and Germany.
Americans need to be asking; why is that? Are the lives and well being of Americans not the first order of business in a country that likes to wear their flag on their sleeves and boast about equality, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness? America Strong?
Kirsten Gillibrand’s sexual assault bill derailed
When it comes to taking care of it's people the United States continues to lag behind the rest of the civilized "developed" countries; Gun Control, Health Care, and now protecting women in the Military all focused on "social" issues that concern the welfare of Americans.
When the United Kingdom, France, and Israel removed sexual assault cases from the chain of command, Korb said, there was actually no impact on military readiness. Should such a step not prove successful in reducing the amount of sexual assault in the military, Korb went on, the cases should then be moved to civilian courts as seen in France and Germany.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)