Home » Posts tagged with » america (Page 102)

An estimated 240,000 people in America have HIV without knowing it, but that figure is dropping after three years of targeted testing among high-risk populations, the Washington Post reports. The $111 million program, carried out in ERs, venereal disease clinics, and drug-treatment centers around the US found 18,000…

Continue reading …

A nationwide debate about circumcisions for newborn boys, combined with cash-strapped public health budgets, has Colorado taking sides with 17 other states that no longer fund Medicaid coverage of the once widely accepted procedure. For years, Colorado lawmakers considered doing away with funding for circumcisions under Medicaid—a move that…

Continue reading …

Barack Obama's confusing one living American war hero with a fallen one he honored in 2009, has been completely ignored by the Big Three Networks shows, including the same NBC Nightly News that threw a fit over Sarah Palin's recent recounting of an event over 200 years ago, Paul Revere's ride. On Thursday, at Fort Drum, New York, as reported by the Military Times , Obama told the 10 th Mountain Division he had the privilege of meeting “a comrade of yours, Jared Monti” adding it was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously.” Turns out Monti did receive it posthumously, as Obama presented the award to his parents at a White House ceremony in 2009. After

Continue reading …

I’m taking a risk by writing this post but I think it’s worth it to consider all aspects of our involvement in Afghanistan. The video above is from Assignment Earth, a PBS series. It details some of the alternative energy solutions being deployed by our military in Afghanistan. Solar panels, not guns. Wouldn’t it be great if more of this were happening here? But it’s not, largely thanks to the Koch/TeaBircher cabal. Here’s something else about Afghanistan. They are in the midst of a growing food crisis , brought on by drought and poppy profiteers. USAID has been instrumental in working with Afghans to secure their crops and with the assistance of US foreign aid, has begun to establish what could possibly be a stable agricultural economy one day. These are not acts of war. It can be argued that the money would be better spent here in the US, but I would counter-argue that investments in humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan wouldn’t happen without the assistance of the US military, and if that money were not spent, it would not find its way into the hands of those in this country who need it most. At least, not with our current House of Representatives. Afghanistan is, and will remain, a country that fascinates me, frustrates me and rips my heart out, all at once. I have followed events in Afghanistan since 1975, when a relative of mine was posted there. I have pictures of family there over the years, and have met some wonderful Afghan people. It is complex, difficult, and worth more consideration than to simply write it off as hopeless. In 2009, I wrote this : Here is my dilemma. Leaving Afghanistan means leaving a country with a weak government which will likely topple just as it has in the past. Only this time, a government overthrow could easily place the Taliban back in power like a bacteria that has mutated from abortive antibiotic treatment. It comes back stronger and harder to eradicate the second time around, with the possibility of a more lethal result. Leaving Afghanistan means sanctioning a thriving illegal opium market as the primary economic driver in their country. Leaving Afghanistan means leaving men, women and children in extreme poverty with no real defense against those who exploit them. Leaving Afghanistan means abandoning all hope of the possibility of helping to build a nation that can actually survive the regional and internal conflicts that have torn it apart in the past. Leaving Afghanistan means breaking promises we made when we sent our troops there. I’m sure my fellow progressives and Democrats will demand my card at the door for the conflict I’m feeling over this. From everything I read, their answer is to get out and stay out, that it’s a losing proposition and we’re better off cutting our losses and moving on. The problem I have? Accepting the idea that while it’s fine to pay verbal service to the poverty and genocide in the world, we’re unwilling to make a sacrifice to actually help end it. Our fight in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be a fight for domination of their country, but for stabilization and a pathway to a self-sufficient, self-governing Afghan state. Whether we withdraw 33,000 by the end of 2012 or 73,000, the dilemma remains the same. So I don’t really know whether to shake my fist over the whole damn thing or not. Pakistan still has nukes, leaving that region vulnerable to extremists. Afghans still suffer from corruption, food shortages and need. George W. Bush still made the initial decision to deploy thousands of troops in Afghanistan and then leave them and the country to languish while pursuing their Iraq conquest. Perhaps the most important part of President Obama’s speech last night was this: We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force — but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we are doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their destiny. In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power — it is the principles upon which our union was founded. We are a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law, and respecting the rights of all our citizens. We protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others. We stand not for empire but for self-determination. That is why we have a stake in the democratic aspirations that are now washing across the Arab World. We will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity. Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource — our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep and no horizon is beyond our reach. America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. That last point is one upon which I think we can all agree. History will decide whether the president made the right decision or not. I reiterate what I said in 2009: I’m glad I’m not the one who had to decide when and how many troops to bring home, and I’m sure the weight of it is soul-crushing.

Continue reading …
Jose Vargas, the Left’s Illegal-Alien Hero

Reid Epstein at Politico rounded up the blogosphere reaction to former Washington Post reporter Jose Antonio Vargas proclaiming he's an illegal alien (including Billy Hallowell , Meredith Jessup , and NewsBusters yesterday). On the left, he found, Vargas “has become the embodiment of the American dream.” His examples: At Daily Kos, Laura Clawson lectured that Vargas winning a Pulitzer prize was “exceptional,” and the lying wasn't his fault, it was ours: “He shouldn’t have had to break so many laws and tell so many lies to get where he is. This is the kind of ability and drive our immigration laws stifle and deny us, and it’s one more reason those laws need to be reformed.” The Huffington Post, which for 10 months employed Vargas as an editor, ran a story headlined “Jose Antonio Vargas Is an American Hero.” Rory O'Connor, a documentary filmmaker for PBS and other “mainstream” outlets, argued: Jose Antonio Vargas is incredibly brave to risk everything he has accomplished in this country in order to tell the truth and to shine, yet another but still much-needed, light on the pressing need for comprehensive immigration reform in this country. He, and millions like him, have much to contribute to America — and without people like them, our country will be far poorer. If there isn't room in the United States for people like Jose Antonio — the precise type of people who made this country great — I despair for our collective future. And Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress compared Vargas to people demonstrating for freedom in dictatorships: When we look at photos of poverty-stricken people in poor countries, we feel sympathy. When we look at photos of people demonstrating for political freedom in dictatorships, we feel sympathy. And when we look at photos of people sneaking across the border or preventing fake papers, what we ought to feel is sympathy. Sympathy for poor people in poor and misgoverned countries who are trying to take control of their lives and do something about it. The vast majority of people alive in the United States today are descended from people who decided at some point to get out of a bad situation by moving. The fact that we’ve managed to become a society that feels only fear in the face of people wanting to do the same thing our ancestors did — go someplace better to build a better life — is extremely sad. # # #

Continue reading …
Government seeks appeal in Sharon Shoesmith case

Department for Education contests ruling that former Haringey children’s boss was unfairly sacked over death of Baby P The Department for Education has confirmed that it is seeking an appeal at the supreme court against the court of appeal ruling that Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly sacked following the death of Baby P. The court of appeal ruled in May that Shoesmith was unfairly sacked . A leading employment lawyer said she could receive as much as £1m if the decision was not overturned. A DfE spokesman said: “The government thinks that it was right in principle for Sharon Shoesmith to be removed from her post as director of children’s services. “Our initial application to appeal has been turned down by the court of appeal. We have now filed an application for permission to appeal to the supreme court.” The DfE’s statement said: “There are questions of constitutional importance involved in this case, beyond the specific question about whether Ed Balls should have had a further meeting with Sharon Shoesmith before removing her. “Our initial application to appeal has been turned down by the court of appeal. We have now filed an application for permission to appeal to the supreme court.” Shoesmith was removed from her post in December 2008 by Ed Balls, who was education secretary. She was then sacked by Haringey, which said it had lost trust in her. The axe fell after regulator Ofsted published a damning report after the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly exposing failings in her department. Lawyers argued that Shoesmith, 58, had been the victim of “a flagrant breach of natural justice” and that she had been driven from her £133,000-a-year post by a media witch-hunt and political pressure. They asked Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, sitting in London with Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton to rule that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void, and that she still remained entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey up to the present day. Allowing her challenge, the judges ruled that Balls and Haringey had acted too hastily and in a way that was procedurally unfair because Shoesmith had not been given a proper chance to put her case. Peter Connelly died in August 2007 at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and their lodger, Barker’s brother Jason Owen. The little boy had suffered 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over the final eight months of his life. A series of reviews identified missed opportunities when officials could have saved his life if they had acted properly on the warning signs. Baby P Child protection Ofsted Employment tribunals Local government guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Government seeks appeal in Sharon Shoesmith case

Department for Education contests ruling that former Haringey children’s boss was unfairly sacked over death of Baby P The Department for Education has confirmed that it is seeking an appeal at the supreme court against the court of appeal ruling that Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly sacked following the death of Baby P. The court of appeal ruled in May that Shoesmith was unfairly sacked . A leading employment lawyer said she could receive as much as £1m if the decision was not overturned. A DfE spokesman said: “The government thinks that it was right in principle for Sharon Shoesmith to be removed from her post as director of children’s services. “Our initial application to appeal has been turned down by the court of appeal. We have now filed an application for permission to appeal to the supreme court.” The DfE’s statement said: “There are questions of constitutional importance involved in this case, beyond the specific question about whether Ed Balls should have had a further meeting with Sharon Shoesmith before removing her. “Our initial application to appeal has been turned down by the court of appeal. We have now filed an application for permission to appeal to the supreme court.” Shoesmith was removed from her post in December 2008 by Ed Balls, who was education secretary. She was then sacked by Haringey, which said it had lost trust in her. The axe fell after regulator Ofsted published a damning report after the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly exposing failings in her department. Lawyers argued that Shoesmith, 58, had been the victim of “a flagrant breach of natural justice” and that she had been driven from her £133,000-a-year post by a media witch-hunt and political pressure. They asked Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, sitting in London with Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton to rule that her sacking without compensation was so legally flawed as to be null and void, and that she still remained entitled to her full salary and pension from Haringey up to the present day. Allowing her challenge, the judges ruled that Balls and Haringey had acted too hastily and in a way that was procedurally unfair because Shoesmith had not been given a proper chance to put her case. Peter Connelly died in August 2007 at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and their lodger, Barker’s brother Jason Owen. The little boy had suffered 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over the final eight months of his life. A series of reviews identified missed opportunities when officials could have saved his life if they had acted properly on the warning signs. Baby P Child protection Ofsted Employment tribunals Local government guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Bin Laden wanted to change al-Qaida’s bloodied name

Documents obtained in US assassination reveal frustrations of al-Qaida leader and desire to win over world’s Muslims Osama bin Laden was considering changing al-Qaida’s name to improve its image among Muslims, according to documents obtained by US special forces from the compound where he was killed. A letter apparently written in the months before he died indicates that Bin Laden felt al-Qaida, which means “the base”, was not sufficiently religious and did not reinforce the message that the group considered itself to be engaged in a holy war against the enemies of Islam. A name change would allow al-Qaida to distance itself from growing criticism within the Islamic world that it was responsible for killing large numbers of Muslims, Bin Laden wrote. The letter, described to the Associated Press news agency by US officials, provides further evidence that Bin Laden was considering increasingly desperate measures to retain support for his campaign of violence and to maintain the relevance of his group. One project considered by Bin Laden, reported in the Guardian last month, was the creation of a grand alliance of militant groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the umbrella of al-Qaida . Security sources and analysts dismissed such an idea as unfeasible. However, Bin Laden may have been helped in Pakistan by members of a separate local militant group that has close connections to the Pakistani security establishment. The New York Times reported that records of the mobile phone belonging to the courier who helped conceal Bin Laden – and eventually inadvertently led the CIA to him – revealed frequent calls to the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) group. Founded in the 1980s, HUM sent members to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban and against Indian security forces in the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir in the 1990s. Since 2001 the group has survived successive crackdowns announced by Pakistani authorities. It retains close ties to Pakistani security services. The New York Times reported that individuals called from the seized phone had contacted the ISI, the main Pakistani military intelligence agency. However, an official told the newspaper that there was no “smoking gun” indicating that the ISI had known about Bin Laden’s location . The question of the name of the group led by Bin Laden has often posed problems. Minutes of the meeting at which it was founded in 1988 reveal that “al-Qaida” was chosen in some haste. One suggestion has been that the name referred to a database of contact details for international militants who had fought in Afghanistan against Soviet occupiers. Another is that it refers to the “al-Qaida al-Sulbah” or vanguard of the strong, which militant ideologues were calling for at the time to continue the extremist campaign beyond south-west Asia. One former militant on trial in the US referred to al-Qaida (which in Arabic can also mean a maxim or method), as “a formula system”, denying that it was the name of a group. When Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s then deputy and now successor, formally fused his own group Egyptian Islamic Jihad with al-Qaida the full name of the group was “al-Qaida al-Jihad” or “the base for the jihad”. In the leaked letter Bin Laden is reported to have complained that the last part was often omitted. This, he wrote, allowed the west to “claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam”. Instead, the letter reveals, Bin Laden pondered alternatives including Taifat al-Tawheed Wal-Jihad (Monotheism and Jihad Group), or Jama’at I’Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida (Restoration of the Caliphate Group). In his last speech, released posthumously, Bin Laden gave no hint of any such thoughts. However, his statements on the Arab Spring did not include the calls to violence that had previously marked his rhetoric , indicating at least a shift in tone. On Wednesday Barack Obama, in his speech to the nation on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, said that information recovered from Bin Laden’s compound showed that al-Qaida was “under enormous strain”. “Bin Laden expressed concern that al-Qaida had been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that had been killed and that al-Qaida has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam, thereby draining more widespread support,” Obama said. The recipient of the letter has not been identified. US investigators believe that Bin Laden only communicated with his most senior commanders, including Zawahiri and Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, a senior militant who ran external operations for the group as well as fundraising and liason with the Afghan Taliban. Al-Yazid was killed in a US air strike last year. Because of the courier system used by Bin Laden it is unclear to US intelligence whether the letter was actually sent. In one letter sent to Zawahiri within the past year or so, Bin Laden said al-Qaida’s image was suffering because of attacks that had killed Muslims, particularly in Iraq, officials said. Bin Laden also wrote that he found the suggestion of one militant in Yemen that blades be attached to a tractor or other farm machine to create a “killing machine” in the US “unacceptable”. Al-Qaida was not about “indiscriminate killing”, he said . Bin Laden and his senior associates have long struggled to make sure the disparate elements of the group and its various affiliated networks only attack targets they consider as legitimate. A series of letters and envoys were sent to Iraq in a bid to moderate – or at least better focus – the brutality of international extremists there. In a question and answer internet session four years ago, Zawahiri was bombarded by aggressive demands that he justify the number of deaths of Muslims resulting from al-Qaida attacks. Successive polls in the Muslim world have shown decreasing support for radical Islam and Bin Laden since around 2005. Yesterday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where Bin Laden was born, few expressed any support for the dead extremist. “He was a freedom fighter against the Russians but then took the wrong path. Violence like that is never justified whatever the provocation,” said Abdulillah, a 42-year-old shopkeeper. In other journal entries and letters, US officials said, Bin Laden wrote that he was frustrated many of his trusted longtime comrades, whom he had fought alongside in Afghanistan, had been killed or captured. Using his courier system Bin Laden could still exercise an element of operational control over al-Qaida, but increasingly the men he was directing were younger and inexperienced, the fugitive leader complained. With the senior militants who had vouched for new recruits dead or in prison, Bin Laden, confined to his walled compound and cut off from the phone or internet for security reasons, was without any means of verifying new recruits’ competence or loyalty, he wrote. The US has now essentially completed the review of documents taken from Bin Laden’s compound, though intelligence analysts will continue to mine the data for a long time, officials have said. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Ayman al-Zawahiri Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Pakistan Islam Religion Afghanistan Jason Burke guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Bin Laden wanted to change al-Qaida’s bloodied name

Documents obtained in US assassination reveal frustrations of al-Qaida leader and desire to win over world’s Muslims Osama bin Laden was considering changing al-Qaida’s name to improve its image among Muslims, according to documents obtained by US special forces from the compound where he was killed. A letter apparently written in the months before he died indicates that Bin Laden felt al-Qaida, which means “the base”, was not sufficiently religious and did not reinforce the message that the group considered itself to be engaged in a holy war against the enemies of Islam. A name change would allow al-Qaida to distance itself from growing criticism within the Islamic world that it was responsible for killing large numbers of Muslims, Bin Laden wrote. The letter, described to the Associated Press news agency by US officials, provides further evidence that Bin Laden was considering increasingly desperate measures to retain support for his campaign of violence and to maintain the relevance of his group. One project considered by Bin Laden, reported in the Guardian last month, was the creation of a grand alliance of militant groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the umbrella of al-Qaida . Security sources and analysts dismissed such an idea as unfeasible. However, Bin Laden may have been helped in Pakistan by members of a separate local militant group that has close connections to the Pakistani security establishment. The New York Times reported that records of the mobile phone belonging to the courier who helped conceal Bin Laden – and eventually inadvertently led the CIA to him – revealed frequent calls to the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) group. Founded in the 1980s, HUM sent members to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban and against Indian security forces in the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir in the 1990s. Since 2001 the group has survived successive crackdowns announced by Pakistani authorities. It retains close ties to Pakistani security services. The New York Times reported that individuals called from the seized phone had contacted the ISI, the main Pakistani military intelligence agency. However, an official told the newspaper that there was no “smoking gun” indicating that the ISI had known about Bin Laden’s location . The question of the name of the group led by Bin Laden has often posed problems. Minutes of the meeting at which it was founded in 1988 reveal that “al-Qaida” was chosen in some haste. One suggestion has been that the name referred to a database of contact details for international militants who had fought in Afghanistan against Soviet occupiers. Another is that it refers to the “al-Qaida al-Sulbah” or vanguard of the strong, which militant ideologues were calling for at the time to continue the extremist campaign beyond south-west Asia. One former militant on trial in the US referred to al-Qaida (which in Arabic can also mean a maxim or method), as “a formula system”, denying that it was the name of a group. When Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s then deputy and now successor, formally fused his own group Egyptian Islamic Jihad with al-Qaida the full name of the group was “al-Qaida al-Jihad” or “the base for the jihad”. In the leaked letter Bin Laden is reported to have complained that the last part was often omitted. This, he wrote, allowed the west to “claim deceptively that they are not at war with Islam”. Instead, the letter reveals, Bin Laden pondered alternatives including Taifat al-Tawheed Wal-Jihad (Monotheism and Jihad Group), or Jama’at I’Adat al-Khilafat al-Rashida (Restoration of the Caliphate Group). In his last speech, released posthumously, Bin Laden gave no hint of any such thoughts. However, his statements on the Arab Spring did not include the calls to violence that had previously marked his rhetoric , indicating at least a shift in tone. On Wednesday Barack Obama, in his speech to the nation on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, said that information recovered from Bin Laden’s compound showed that al-Qaida was “under enormous strain”. “Bin Laden expressed concern that al-Qaida had been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that had been killed and that al-Qaida has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam, thereby draining more widespread support,” Obama said. The recipient of the letter has not been identified. US investigators believe that Bin Laden only communicated with his most senior commanders, including Zawahiri and Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, a senior militant who ran external operations for the group as well as fundraising and liason with the Afghan Taliban. Al-Yazid was killed in a US air strike last year. Because of the courier system used by Bin Laden it is unclear to US intelligence whether the letter was actually sent. In one letter sent to Zawahiri within the past year or so, Bin Laden said al-Qaida’s image was suffering because of attacks that had killed Muslims, particularly in Iraq, officials said. Bin Laden also wrote that he found the suggestion of one militant in Yemen that blades be attached to a tractor or other farm machine to create a “killing machine” in the US “unacceptable”. Al-Qaida was not about “indiscriminate killing”, he said . Bin Laden and his senior associates have long struggled to make sure the disparate elements of the group and its various affiliated networks only attack targets they consider as legitimate. A series of letters and envoys were sent to Iraq in a bid to moderate – or at least better focus – the brutality of international extremists there. In a question and answer internet session four years ago, Zawahiri was bombarded by aggressive demands that he justify the number of deaths of Muslims resulting from al-Qaida attacks. Successive polls in the Muslim world have shown decreasing support for radical Islam and Bin Laden since around 2005. Yesterday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where Bin Laden was born, few expressed any support for the dead extremist. “He was a freedom fighter against the Russians but then took the wrong path. Violence like that is never justified whatever the provocation,” said Abdulillah, a 42-year-old shopkeeper. In other journal entries and letters, US officials said, Bin Laden wrote that he was frustrated many of his trusted longtime comrades, whom he had fought alongside in Afghanistan, had been killed or captured. Using his courier system Bin Laden could still exercise an element of operational control over al-Qaida, but increasingly the men he was directing were younger and inexperienced, the fugitive leader complained. With the senior militants who had vouched for new recruits dead or in prison, Bin Laden, confined to his walled compound and cut off from the phone or internet for security reasons, was without any means of verifying new recruits’ competence or loyalty, he wrote. The US has now essentially completed the review of documents taken from Bin Laden’s compound, though intelligence analysts will continue to mine the data for a long time, officials have said. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Ayman al-Zawahiri Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Pakistan Islam Religion Afghanistan Jason Burke guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

By now, you’ve probably already heard of Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who came out as undocumented in the New York Times Magazine . Memeorandum and Mediagazer , sites which aggregate political and media news, are exploding with his story. Matthew Yglesias even dropped his academic pretensions for a bit to shed a tear or two for Vargas .

Continue reading …