Are the Tornadoes God’s Judgment Against Conservative States?

Are the Tornadoes God’s Judgment Against Conservative States?
By: Blue Texan Thursday April 28, 2011 10:30 am

Tweet6

by matt.o'hara

After Haiti was hit with by a devastating earthquake in 2010, killing over 200,000 innocent people, Pat Robertson claimed it was God punishing that country for its “pact with the devil.” The Texas-based Republican activist Pastor John Hagee famously blamed New Orleans’ devastation by Katrina on “homosexuals.” Jerry Falwell, in the wake of 9/11, said the attack that killed over 3,000 Americans was God’s way of punishing us for harboring abortionists, feminists, and the ACLU.

And just recently, Glenn Beck said that the earthquakes and tsunami in Japan was God’s rebuke of that country’s behavior.

I’ll tell you this — whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus, there’s a message being sent. And that is, ‘Hey you know that stuff we’re doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.’

Elizabeth Hasselbeck helpfully served as an Amen Chorus to Beck, adding,

I believe God speaks to all of us in ways.

OK.

Well, the states hit the hardest by the tornadoes are all Republican strongholds: Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia. Surely, that can’t be a coincidence.

So is God punishing these conservative states because they’re not taking care of the poor, the elderly and the sick, as Jesus commanded?

Somehow, I doubt we’re going to hear Glenn Beck or John Hagee speculate about this today.

that was not intended to be a factual statement

The Road to Hell is Also Paved With Bad Intentions
Posted: 04/13/11 10:27 AM ET
React
Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Read more
Politics News
SHARE THIS STORY

76
24
8
4
Get Politics Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story
As a young man, Jon Kyl, the Republican junior senator from Arizona, was convicted of selling heroin, and he spent eight months in federal prison.

This remark was not intended to be a factual statement. Rather, it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl, a Republican senator, is from Arizona.

Yes, that was unfair. But just because Jon Kyl wasn't actually convicted of drug crimes doesn't mean he hasn't committed any legal abuses. Make no mistake, in his early days in Arizona state politics, he was reprimanded for 12 ethics violations, though avoided expulsion on a technicality, changing the spelling of his name which originally was "John Kyle."

This remark was not intended to be a factual statement, either, rather it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl doesn't have the letter "H" in his name.

Joking aside, there is something I do admire Sen. Kyl for. It is his deft skill manipulating the English language to avoid responsibility for making a gross smear on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Addressing his senate colleagues, Mr. Kyl had said that abortions accounted for "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does" -- though the actual, truthful number is 3 percent. When later confronted over these shamefully inaccurate remarks now in the official Congressional Record, he hid behind his staff, which commented that "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions."

Forgetting for a moment that this isn't even an attempt at an apology, there only two options here: either Jon Kyl takes you for an idiot, or himself.

To be fair to Jon Kyl and sympathetic, he has unfortunately been painfully distracted lately, due to a bitter divorce he's going through, brought about by the exposure of a 12-year, secret affair with his secretary.

Just to clarify, this remark is not intended to be a factual statement, rather it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl has a secretary.

A case could be made that Jon Kyl knew his senate statement was a lie when he gave it, or at least that he didn't care whether it was false or not. But even if one chooses to graciously accept that it was just a horrific mistake -- we all know what a proper reply should have been. We all know how we ourselves would have apologized. We would have said --

"I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I relied on information given to me, and I should have checked it myself. I apologize to Planned Parenthood, to my Senate colleagues, and to the American public. I will immediately correct the Congressional Record. And will strive to make sure such a horrible error doesn't occur again."

We wouldn't have had a lackey say for us -- "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement."

Jon Kyl's lie and lying response reminds me of an election several years back for the Writers Guild Board of Directors. An unsigned letter was mailed that smeared each candidate on an opposition slate. Later, one of the non-attacked candidates was asked for his reaction to the anonymous smear of his opponents. Not wanting to defend his opponents, he said with a thoughtful, sad expression, "The fact that it got all the names and some of the ages right is what made the letter so hurtful."

All I could think was, "No! The fact that it got all the names right is what made the letter -- a smear."

It was the same attitude weaving through Jon Kyl's own smearing statement and smarmy, staff reply. It's as if the truth doesn't matter. That anything can be said if it helps you. And if you're forced to address the lie, dismiss it as not being intended to be the truth.

Of course it's not intended to be the truth. It was intended to smear!

This is an attitude that permeates the conservative movement these days. Democrats can lie, too, and when they do, it's just as wrong. But these days, the "say whatever you want," "truth be damned" weight has been falling more heavily on the Republican and conservative side. Perhaps because they're the ones in attack mode. Perhaps because the truth that Social Security, Medicare, universal healthcare, and public education all actually help people causes Republicans political trouble.

Whatever the reason, when the truth hurts you, and you choose to say anything to win, the truth doesn't matter.

To make a point attacking President Obama, Bill O'Reilly describes U.S. troops massacring Germans at Malmedy during WWII -- when the truth is the exact opposite. To prove a rally was popular, Glenn Beck shows a photograph of the crowd -- when the truth is that the photo was taken years before. To terrify the GOP base, Sarah Palin and others lie that Democrats want to kill old people. And on and on the spiral downward goes.

But of course, truth actually does matter. And we should not only expect it of our children, but also our politicians and social voices. Yes, I know that's a lot to expect. So, let's make it easy and start small --

Let's expect it of Jon Kyl.

That remark is intended to be a factual statement.

stretching out Chompsky

On Libya and the Unfolding Crises
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Stephen Shalom and Michael Albert
ZNet, March 30, 2011
1. What are US motives in international relations most broadly? That is, what are the over arching motives and themes one can pretty much always find informing US policy choices, no matter where in the world we are discussing? What are the somewhat more specific but still over arching motives and themes for US policy in Middle East and the Arab world? Finally, what do you think are the more proximate aims of US policy in the current situation in Libya?
A useful way to approach the question is to ask what US motives are not. There are some good ways to find out. One is to read the professional literature on international relations: quite commonly, its account of policy is what policy is not, an interesting topic that I won't pursue.

Another method, quite relevant now, is to listen to political leaders and commentators. Suppose they say that the motive for a military action is humanitarian. In itself, that carries no information: virtually every resort to force is justified in those terms, even by the worst monsters -- who may, irrelevantly, even convince themselves of the truth of what they are saying. Hitler, for example, may have believed that he was taking over parts of Czechoslovakia to end ethnic conflict and bring its people the benefits of an advanced civilization, and that he invaded Poland to end the "wild terror" of the Poles. Japanese fascists rampaging in China probably did believe that they were selflessly laboring to create an "earthly paradise" and to protect the suffering population from "Chinese bandits." Even Obama may have believed what he said in his presidential address on March 28 about the humanitarian motives for the Libyan intervention. Same holds of commentators.

There is, however, a very simple test to determine whether the professions of noble intent can be taken seriously: do the authors call for humanitarian intervention and "responsibility to protect" to defend the victims of their own crimes, or those of their clients? Did Obama, for example, call for a no-fly zone during the murderous and destructive US-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, with no credible pretext? Or did he, rather, boast proudly during his presidential campaign that he had co-sponsored a Senate resolution supporting the invasion and calling for punishment of Iran and Syria for impeding it? End of discussion. In fact, virtually the entire literature of humanitarian intervention and right to protect, written and spoken, disappears under this simple and appropriate test.

In contrast, what motives actually are is rarely discussed, and one has to look at the documentary and historical record to unearth them, in the case of any state.

What then are US motives? At a very general level, the evidence seems to me to show that they have not changed much since the high-level planning studies undertaken during World War II. Wartime planners took for granted that the US would emerge from the war in a position of overwhelming dominance, and called for the establishment of a Grand Area in which the US would maintain "unquestioned power," with "military and economic supremacy," while ensuring the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. The Grand Area was to include the Western hemisphere, the Far East, the British empire (which included the Middle East energy reserves), and as much of Eurasia as possible, at least its industrial and commercial center in Western Europe. It is quite clear from the documentary record that "President Roosevelt was aiming at United States hegemony in the postwar world," to quote the accurate assessment of the (justly) respected British diplomatic historian Geoffrey Warner. And more significant, the careful wartime plans were soon implemented, as we read in declassified documents of the following years, and observe in practice. Circumstances of course have changed, and tactics adjusted accordingly, but basic principles are quite stable, to the present.

With regard to the Middle East -- the "most strategically important region of the world," in Eisenhower's phrase -- the primary concern has been, and remains, its incomparable energy reserves. Control of these would yield "substantial control of the world," as observed early on by the influential liberal adviser A. A. Berle. These concerns are rarely far in the background in affairs concerning this region.

In Iraq, for example, as the dimensions of the US defeat could no longer be concealed, pretty rhetoric was displaced by honest announcement of policy goals. In November 2007 the White House issued a Declaration of Principles insisting that Iraq must grant US military forces indefinite access and must privilege American investors. Two months later the president informed Congress that he would ignore legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of US Armed Forces in Iraq or "United States control of the oil resources of Iraq" -- demands that the US had to abandon shortly after in the face of Iraqi resistance, just as it had to abandon earlier goals.

While control over oil is not the sole factor in Middle East policy, it provides fairly good guidelines, right now as well. In an oil-rich country, a reliable dictator is granted virtual free rein. In recent weeks, for example, there was no reaction when the Saudi dictatorship used massive force to prevent any sign of protest. Same in Kuwait, when small demonstrations were instantly crushed. And in Bahrain, when Saudi-led forces intervened to protect the minority Sunni monarch from calls for reform on the part of the repressed Shiite population. Government forces not only smashed the tent city in Pearl Square -- Bahrain's Tahrir Square -- but even demolished the Pearl statue that was Bahrain's symbol, and had been appropriated by the protestors. Bahrain is a particularly sensitive case because it hosts the US Fifth fleet, by far the most powerful military force in the region, and because eastern Saudi Arabia, right across the causeway, is also largely Shiite, and has most of the Kingdom's oil reserves. By a curious accident of geography and history, the world's largest hydrocarbon concentrations surround the northern Gulf, in mostly Shiite regions. The possibility of a tacit Shiite alliance has been a nightmare for planners for a long time.

In states lacking major hydrocarbon reserves, tactics vary, typically keeping to a standard game plan when a favored dictator is in trouble: support him as long as possible, and when that cannot be done, issue ringing declarations of love of democracy and human rights -- and then try to salvage as much of the regime as possible.

The scenario is boringly familiar: Marcos, Duvalier, Chun, Ceauşescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and many others. And today, Tunisia and Egypt. Syria is a tough nut to crack and there is no clear alternative to the dictatorship that would support US goals. Yemen is a morass where direct intervention would probably create even greater problems for Washington. So there state violence elicits only pious declarations.

Libya is a different case. Libya is rich in oil, and though the US and UK have often given quite remarkable support to its cruel dictator, right to the present, he is not reliable. They would much prefer a more obedient client. Furthermore, the vast territory of Libya is mostly unexplored, and oil specialists believe it may have rich untapped resources, which a more dependable government might open to Western exploitation.

When a non-violent uprising began, Qaddafi crushed it violently, and a rebellion broke out that liberated Benghazi, Libya's second largest city, and seemed about to move on to Qaddafi's stronghold in the West. His forces, however, reversed the course of the conflict and were at the gates of Benghazi. A slaughter in Benghazi was likely, and as Obama's Middle East adviser Dennis Ross pointed out, "everyone would blame us for it." That would be unacceptable, as would a Qaddafi military victory enhancing his power and independence. The US then joined in UN Security Council resolution 1973 calling for a no-fly zone, to be implemented by France, the UK, and the US, with the US supposed to move to a supporting role.

There was no effort to institute a no-fly zone. The triumvirate at once interpreted the resolution as authorizing direct participation on the side of the rebels. A ceasefire was imposed by force on Qaddafi's forces, but not on the rebels. On the contrary, they were given military support as they advanced to the West, soon securing the major sources of Libya's oil production, and poised to move on.

The blatant disregard of UN 1973, from the start began to cause some difficulties for the press as it became too glaring to ignore. In the New York Times, for example, Karim Fahim and David Kirkpatrick (March 29) wondered "how the allies could justify airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi's forces around [his tribal center] Surt if, as seems to be the case, they enjoy widespread support in the city and pose no threat to civilians." Another technical difficulty is that UNSC 1973 "called for an arms embargo that applies to the entire territory of Libya, which means that any outside supply of arms to the opposition would have to be covert" (but otherwise unproblematic).

Some argue that oil cannot be a motive because Western companies were granted access to the prize under Qaddafi. That misconstrues US concerns. The same could have been said about Iraq under Saddam, or Iran and Cuba for many years, still today. What Washington seeks is what Bush announced: control, or at least dependable clients. US and British internal documents stress that "the virus of nationalism" is their greatest fear, not just in the Middle East but everywhere. Nationalist regimes might conduct illegitimate exercises of sovereignty, violating Grand Area principles. And they might seek to direct resources to popular needs, as Nasser sometimes threatened.

It is worth noting that the three traditional imperial powers -- France, UK, US -- are almost isolated in carrying out these operations. The two major states in the region, Turkey and Egypt, could probably have imposed a no-fly zone but are at most offering tepid support to the triumvirate military campaign. The Gulf dictatorships would be happy to see the erratic Libyan dictator disappear, but although loaded with advanced military hardware (poured in by the US and UK to recycle petrodollars and ensure obedience), they are willing to offer no more than token participation (by Qatar).

While supporting UNSC 1973, Africa -- apart from US ally Rwanda -- is generally opposed to the way it was instantly interpreted by the triumvirate, in some cases strongly so. For review of policies of individual states, see Charles Onyango-Obbo in the Kenyan journal East African (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103280142.html).

Beyond the region there is little support. Like Russia and China, Brazil abstained from UNSC 1973, calling instead for a full cease-fire and dialogue. India too abstained from the UN resolution on grounds that the proposed measures were likely to "exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya," and also called for political measures rather than use of force. Even Germany abstained from the resolution.

Italy too was reluctant, in part presumably because it is highly dependent on its oil contracts with Qaddafi -- and we may recall that the first post-World War I genocide was conducted by Italy, in Eastern Libya, now liberated, and perhaps retaining some memories.

2. Can an anti-interventionist who believes in self determination of nations and people ever legitimately support an intervention, either by the UN or particular countries?

There are two cases to consider: (1) UN intervention and (2) intervention without UN authorization. Unless we believe that states are sacrosanct in the form that has been established in the modern world (typically by extreme violence), with rights that override all other imaginable considerations, then the answer is the same in both cases: Yes, in principle at least. I see no point in discussing that belief, so will dismiss it.

With regard to the first case, the Charter and subsequent resolutions grant the Security Council considerable latitude for intervention, and it has been undertaken, with regard to South Africa, for example. That of course does not entail that every Security Council decision should be approved by "an anti-interventionist who believes in self-determination"; other considerations enter in individual cases, but again, unless contemporary states are assigned the status of virtually holy entities, the principle is the same.

As for the second case -- the one that arises with regard to the triumvirate interpretation of UN 1973, and many other examples -- then the answer is again Yes, in principle at least, unless we take the global state system to be sacrosanct in the form established in the UN Charter and other treaties.

There is, of course, always a very heavy burden of proof that must be met to justify forceful intervention, or any use of force. The burden is particularly high in case (2), in violation of the Charter, at least for states that profess to be law-abiding. We should bear in mind, however, that the global hegemon rejects that stance, and is self-exempted from the UN and OAS Charters, and other international treaties. In accepting ICJ jurisdiction when the Court was established (under US initiative) in 1946, Washington excluded itself from charges of violation of international treaties, and later ratified the Genocide Convention with similar reservations -- all positions that have been upheld by international tribunals, since their procedures require acceptance of jurisdiction. More generally, US practice is to add crucial reservations to the international treaties it ratifies, effectively exempting itself.

Can the burden of proof be met? There is little point in abstract discussion, but there are some real cases that might qualify. In the post-World War II period, there are two cases of resort to force which -- though not qualifying as humanitarian intervention -- might legitimately be supported: India's invasion of East Pakistan in 1971, and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, in both cases, ending massive atrocities. These examples, however, do not enter the Western canon of "humanitarian intervention" because they suffer from the fallacy of wrong agency: they were not carried out by the West. What is more, the US bitterly opposed them and severely punished the miscreants who ended the slaughters in today's Bangladesh and who drove Pol Pot out of Cambodia just as his atrocities were peaking. Vietnam was not only bitterly condemned but also punished by a US-supported Chinese invasion, and by US-UK military and diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge attacking Cambodia from Thai bases.

While the burden of proof might be met in these cases, it is not easy to think of others. In the case of intervention by the triumvirate of imperial powers that are currently violating UN 1973 in Libya, the burden is particularly heavy, given their horrifying records. Nonetheless, it would be too strong to hold that it can never be satisfied in principle -- unless, of course, we regard nation-states in their current form as essentially holy. Preventing a likely massacre in Benghazi is no small matter, whatever one thinks of the motives.

3. Can a person concerned that a country's dissidents not be massacred so they remain able to seek self determination ever legitimately oppose an intervention that is intended, whatever else it intends, to avert such a massacre?

Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that the intent is genuine, meeting the simple criterion I mentioned at the outset, I don't see how to answer at this level of abstraction: it depends on circumstances. Intervention might be opposed, for example, if it is likely to lead to a much worse massacre. Suppose, for example, that US leaders genuinely and honestly intended to avert a slaughter in Hungary in 1956 by bombing Moscow. Or that the Kremlin genuinely and honestly intended to avert a slaughter in El Salvador in the 1980s by bombing the US. Given the predictable consequences, we would all agree that those (inconceivable) actions could be legitimately opposed.

4. Many people see an analogy between the Kosovo intervention of 1999 and the current intervention in Libya. Can you explain both the significant similarities, first, and then the major differences, second?

Many people do indeed see such an analogy, a tribute to the incredible power of the Western propaganda systems. The background for the Kosovo intervention happens to be unusually well documented. That includes two detailed State Department compilations, extensive reports from the ground by Kosovo Verification Mission (Western) monitors, rich sources from NATO and the UN, a British Parliamentary Inquiry, and much else. The reports and studies coincide very closely on the facts.

In brief, there had been no substantial change on the ground in the months prior to the bombing. Atrocities were committed both by Serbian forces and by the KLA guerrillas mostly attacking from neighboring Albania -- primarily the latter during the relevant period, at least according to high British authorities (Britain was the most hawkish member of the alliance). The major atrocities in Kosovo were not the cause of the NATO bombing of Serbia, but rather its consequence, and a fully anticipated consequence. NATO commander General Wesley Clark had informed the White House weeks before the bombing that it would elicit a brutal response by Serbian forces on the ground, and as the bombing began, told the press that such a response was "predictable."

The first UN-registered refugees outside Kosovo were well after the bombing began. The indictment of Milosevic during the bombing, based largely on US-UK intelligence, confined itself to crimes after the bombing, with one exception, which we know could not be taken seriously by US-UK leaders, who at the same moment were actively supporting even worse crimes. Furthermore, there was good reason to believe that a diplomatic solution might have been in reach: in fact, the UN resolution imposed after 78 days of bombing was pretty much a compromise between the Serbian and NATO position as it began.

All of this, including these impeccable western sources, is reviewed in some detail in my book A New Generation Draws the Line. Corroborating information has appeared since. Thus Diana Johnstone reports a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on October 26, 2007 by Dietmar Hartwig, who had been head of the European mission in Kosovo before it was withdrawn on March 20 as the bombing was announced, and was in a very good position to know what was happening. He wrote:

"Not a single report submitted in the period from late November 1998 up to the evacuation on the eve of the war mentioned that Serbs had committed any major or systematic crimes against Albanians, nor there was a single case referring to genocide or genocide-like incidents or crimes. Quite the opposite, in my reports I have repeatedly informed that, considering the increasingly more frequent KLA attacks against the Serbian executive, their law enforcement demonstrated remarkable restraint and discipline. The clear and often cited goal of the Serbian administration was to observe the Milosevic-Holbrooke Agreement [of October 1998] to the letter so not to provide any excuse to the international community to intervene. ... There were huge 'discrepancies in perception' between what the missions in Kosovo have been reporting to their respective governments and capitals, and what the latter thereafter released to the media and the public. This discrepancy can only be viewed as input to long-term preparation for war against Yugoslavia. Until the time I left Kosovo, there never happened what the media and, with no less intensity the politicians, were relentlessly claiming. Accordingly, until 20 March 1999 there was no reason for military intervention, which renders illegitimate measures undertaken thereafter by the international community. The collective behavior of EU Member States prior to, and after the war broke out, gives rise to serious concerns, because the truth was killed, and the EU lost reliability."

History is not quantum physics, and there is always ample room for doubt. But it is rare for conclusions to be so firmly backed as they are in this case. Very revealingly, it is all totally irrelevant. The prevailing doctrine is that NATO intervened to stop ethnic cleansing -- though supporters of the bombing who tolerate at least a nod to the rich factual evidence qualify their support by saying the bombing was necessary to stop potential atrocities: we must therefore act to elicit large-scale atrocities to stop ones that might occur if we do not bomb. And there are even more shocking justifications.

The reasons for this virtual unanimity and passion are fairly clear. The bombing came after a virtual orgy of self-glorification and awe of power that might have impressed Kim Il-Sung. I've reviewed it elsewhere, and this remarkable moment of intellectual history should not be allowed to remain in the oblivion to which it has been consigned. After this performance, there simply had to be a glorious denouement. The noble Kosovo intervention provided it, and the fiction must be zealously guarded.

Returning to the question, there is an analogy between the self-serving depictions of Kosovo and Libya, both interventions animated by noble intent in the fictionalized version. The unacceptable real world suggests rather different analogies. 5. Similarly, many people see an analogy between the ongoing Iraq intervention and the current intervention in Libya. In this case too, can you explain both the similarities, and differences?

I don't see meaningful analogies here either, except that two of the same states are involved. In the case of Iraq, the goals were those that were finally conceded. In the case of Libya, it is likely that the goal is similar in at least one respect: the hope that a reliable client regime will reliably supported Western goals and provide Western investors with privileged access to Libya's rich oil wealth -- which, as noted, may go well beyond what is currently known.

6. What do you expect, in coming weeks, to see happening in Libya and, in that context, what do you think ought to be the aims of an anti-interventionist and antiwar movement in the US regarding US policies?

It is of course uncertain, but the likely prospects now (March 29) are either a break-up of Libya into an oil-rich Eastern region heavily dependent on the Western imperial powers and an impoverished West under the control of a brutal tyrant with fading capacity, or a victory by the Western-backed forces. In either case, so the triumvirate presumably hopes, a less troublesome and more dependent regime will be in place. The likely outcome is described fairly accurately, I think by the London-based Arab journal al-Quds al-Arabi (March 28). While recognizing the uncertainty of prediction, it anticipates that the intervention may leave Libya with "two states, a rebel-held oil-rich East and a poverty-stricken, Qadhafi-led West ... Given that the oil wells have been secured, we may find ourselves facing a new Libyan oil emirate, sparsely inhabited, protected by the West and very similar to the Gulf's emirate states." Or the Western-backed rebellion might proceed all the way to eliminate the irritating dictator.

Those concerned for peace, justice, freedom and democracy should try to find ways to lend support and assistance to Libyans who seek to shape their own future, free from constraints imposed by external powers. We can have hopes about the directions they should pursue, but their future should be in their hands.

oMg not MORE political freedom....

BEIJING, March 29 (Xinhuanet) -- Anti-government protesters again took to the streets of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Monday. The demonstrations come a day after embattled President Ali Abdullah Saleh scrapped an offer to step down by year's end.

During a TV interview Saturday, Saleh warned Yemen was "a ticking time bomb". He added that without him in power, the country would descend into civil war.

The formal withdrawal by the President, seems to indicate, that an attempt to negotiate a transfer of power to end the crisis has failed.

The protesters complain of corruption, the lack of jobs, and are seeking MORE political freedom. They're demanding President Saleh step down immediately.

unspeakable

japan whirlpool

scary, rhythmic, humming, physical chaos

03/11/2011 7:45 PM A New Yorker's On The Ground Account From The Earthquake
Via BoingBoing:

It began as a light tremor, something that one becomes oddly accustomed to when living in Japan. But then the deceptively gentle tremor kept going... and going... and going. Until the bemused giggles of my Japanese office mates gradually turned into full on screams of fear as everyone tried to duck under the nearest desk. But what really brought the thought that this might be my last Friday was the fact that the quake didn't obey the rules of good luck and suddenly stop once we all ducked under the desks. No. The quake lasted a very, very long time. Not unlike an animal's howl, the quake went from a deep rumble and gradually built up to a thunderous and sustained wave of rhythmic, humming, physical chaos. It lasted about five minutes by my guess. And if you've ever experienced an earthquake, you know that five minutes is an eternity compared to the run-of-the-mill quake. It was scary.
What I find most odd is that I'm not hearing the major cable news channels mention the fact that we experienced a similar (albeit far weaker), very long precursor earthquake earlier in the week. Clearly, that was the warning shot leading to the hit we sustained today.

a bad habit of telling the truth at the wrong time

Clapper lambastes Russia; wait, isn’t Joe Biden in Russia?
By Carol Felsenthal - 03/10/11 03:58 PM ET
Vice President Joe Biden is in Russia, lecturing officials there on the need for reform but emphasizing his earlier and friendly metaphor, echoed by his boss Barack Obama, that it is time for the U.S. to “push the reset button” in its relationship with Russia. While in Moscow, Biden also met with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

While Biden is in Moscow, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He tells visibly stunned senators that the biggest threats to our nation are Russian and China. Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) suggests that in his opinion, Iran and North Korea are more menacing to the U.S.

Soon thereafter, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) goes on Fox News and calls for Clapper’s resignation. “Three strikes and you’re out” — the first strike, Graham explained, was seeming not to know, while being interviewed on ABC, that men allegedly planning a terrorist attack had been arrested in London, and the second was describing Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular.”

About the only worse example of flatfooted timing would have been if Clapper had delivered his remarks last January while President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hosted Chinese President Hu Jintao at a White House State Dinner.

violence does not help god say's the pope

By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY -- Violence committed in the name of God or religion is a "favorite instrument of the Antichrist," Pope Benedict XVI writes in a new book on the life and teachings of Jesus.

"Violence does not build up the kingdom of God, the kingdom of humanity," Benedict writes. "On the contrary, it is a favorite instrument of the Antichrist, however idealistic its religious motivation may be. It serves not humanity, but inhumanity."

The passage appears in Jesus of Nazareth -- Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, which was published in English and seven other languages on Thursday (March 10), with an initial printing of 1.2 million copies.

According to its American publisher, Ignatius Press, 90,000 copies of the English edition had been sold before publication.

The book is a sequel to the pope's 2007 bestseller, Jesus of Nazareth, which explored Jesus' public ministry from his baptism to the Transfiguration. In the trilogy that he began before his 2005 election as pope, Benedict studies the Gospels in light of the work of other scholars, including those who have sought to discover the "historical Jesus."

In pre-publication excerpts that were released March 2, Benedict wrote that the Jewish people were not responsible for Jesus' crucifixion, and their descendants have not inherited blame for his death.

humph who does she think she is criticising the U.S. media...

business says GOP is dumb

GM Posts First Profitable Year Since 2004.
More In Business: Mortgage Settlement... Oil Shortage Coming?... New Home Sales Plunge... .
Foreclosed Homes Grew Even More Affordable Last Year.
Toyota Recalls 2.17 Million Vehicles.
Blacks, Hispanics Fall Far Behind In Retirement Savings.
State, Local Tax Share Falls For First Time Since 2000.
Goldman Sachs Says GOP Budget Plan Will Hurt Economy
The Huffington Post Yepoka Yeebo First Posted: 02/24/11 09:45 AM Updated: 02/24/11 11:16 AM

Inspiring
Greedy
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Infuriating
Read More: Alec Phillips, Budget, Chuck Schumer, GDP Spending Cuts, Goldman Sachs, Gop, Obama Administration, Republican, Timothy Geithner, Business News share this story
24012332419 Get Business Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this storydigg
reddit
stumble The GOP spending cuts have been criticized again.

A Goldman Sachs economist has warned that the $60 billion package of spending cuts proposed by the Republicans to counter President Obama's proposal could slow economic growth.

And if budget wrangling between the Obama administration and the Republican-dominated House of Representatives led to a shutdown? That, according to Goldman, could cost $8 billion a week, the Financial Times reported.

Goldman's warning follows Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner's recent claims that the Republican plan would cost jobs.

In the confidential report, obtained by ABC News, among other news outlets, Goldman Sachs economic forecaster Alec Phillips said the GOP plan could slow economic growth by up to 2 percent. Even a compromise deal, with $25 billion in cuts could slow growth by 1 percent.

In its latest spending plan, the White House predicted GDP growth of 2.7 percent this year.

Goldman's analysis contradicts the GOP's "cut-and-grow' fantasy," Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) told Reuters. "This nonpartisan study proves that the House Republicans' proposal is a recipe for a double-dip recession," Schumer added.

Story continues below
AdvertisementThe Republican spending measures were proposed in opposition to White House budget plans released earlier this month, spurring fears that there would be no compromise before temporary measures funding the government run out on March 4.

Without a budget solution, the U.S. government could be shut down. Based on similar government closures in 1995 and 1996, Goldman says a shutdown would cost the U.S. economy $8 billion in reduced spending.

Earlier this month, the White House presented a budget focused on reducing the deficit and spurring growth. President Obama's plan included funding cuts for a variety of programs that assist the working poor, and help the needy heat their homes.

The aggregate of the cuts, the Goldman report said, according to ABC News, could briefly slow growth:

"Federal spending cuts deserve the most attention... discretionary spending cuts of $25bn and $50bn below the CBO baseline for FY2011 and FY2012 respectively--would shave nearly one percentage point off of the annualized rate of real GDP growth in Q2, but would fade quickly with a negligible effect on growth by year-end."
In response, early on Saturday morning following an all-night session, the House of Representatives voted 235-189, to pass legislation that would slash $60 billion in government spending between now and the end of September, setting up a showdown. The President has vowed to veto the plans.

what is this China now?

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/02/22/sot.wi.dems.web.access.widemparty

neocons fingerprints all over Libya

February 21, 2011
Categories: Defense, Defense Department, Democracy, Libya, Middle East, Muslim world, Think Tanks
Among Libya's lobbyists

As several Libyan diplomats Monday denounced their country’s four-decade ruler Col. Muammar Qadhafi for unleashing the army against anti-government protesters, U.S. consultancies that have worked to burnish Libya’s and Qadhafi’s U.S. image were laying low.

Several consulting, law and lobbying firms have moved in to advise the Libyan government and energy interests since U.S. sanctions were lifted on Libya in 2004, according to Justice Department records, including Fahmy Hudome International, and White & Case LLP.

The Livingston Group canceled its $360,000-per-year lobbying contract with the Libyan government as well as one with an associated Qadhafi charity in September 2009, following the hero’s welcome Libyan leaders gave for the convicted Lockerbie bomber upon his release in August 2009 from a Scottish prison on humanitarian grounds.

One of the more unlikely image-mongers that has worked to burnish Qadhafi's and Libya’s image never registered with the Justice Department. Prominent neoconservative Richard Perle, the former Reagan-era Defense Department official and George W. Bush-era chairman of the Defense Policy Board, traveled to Libya twice in 2006 to meet with Qadhafi, and afterward briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on his visits, according to documents released by a Libyan opposition group in 2009.

Perle traveled to Libya as a paid adviser to the Monitor Group, a prestigious Boston-based consulting firm with close ties to leading professors at the Harvard Business School. The firm named Perle a senior adviser in 2006.

The Monitor Group described Perle’s travel to Libya and the recruitment of several other prominent thinkers and former officials to burnish Libya’s and Qadhafi’s image in a series of documents obtained and released by a Libyan opposition group, the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition, in 2009.

The Monitor Group did not return phone calls left at its Boston offices Monday. But Monitor describes, in a series of documents published by the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition in 2009, an “action plan” to "introduce and bring to Libya a meticulously selected group of independent and objective experts" to travel to Libya, meet senior officials, hold lectures and workshops, and promote the image of Libya and its controversial ruler.

A 2007 Monitor memo named among the prominent figures it had recruited to travel to Libya and meet with Qadhafi “as part of the Project to Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi” Perle, historian Francis Fukuyama, Princeton Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, famous Nixon interviewer David Frost, and MIT media lab founder Nicholas Negroponte, the brother of former deputy secretary of state and director of national intelligence John Negroponte.

“At a critical time when the United States was debating its recognition of Libya, Monitor met with senior officials in the United States government to share its perspectives on Libya,” the company’s 2007 Phase I executive summary states. “In coordination with the client Monitor briefed officials and various agencies of the United States government. Monitor continues to advocate on Libya’s behalf with a range of leading individuals. Many of these individuals have indicated a willingness to engage with Libya and visit in the future.”

“Richard Perle … is an American political advisor and lobbyist,” Monitor’s 2007 Phase I Libya project summary states. “Perle made two visits to Libya (22-24 March and 23-25 July 2006) and met with Qadhafi on both occasions. He briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on his visits to Libya.”

Perle, listed as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, did not respond to an e-mail query Monday.

The Monitor group said it was charging the government of Libya $250,000 per month for the project ($3 million per year), plus expenses which were not to exceed $2.5 million, according to a 2006 Monitor group memo to its Libyan client.

Monitor is not listed with the Justice Department as a lobbyist for Libya, as it explained in a 2006 letter to its Libyan client:

“Monitor is not a lobbying organization,” its CEO Mark Fuller and Director Rajeev Singh-Molares wrote to their Libyan client in July 2006. “Our ability to introduce important, influential visitors to Libya’s advantage depends on our experience, prestige, networks and reputation for independence. We are deeply committed to helping you with this program.”

A later Monitor memo says the company will assist Libya in the creation of its National Security Council and the training of its employees, continue to help advise and coordinate Libya’s modernization program, continue the cultivation of an elite group of influence makers to help improve Libya’s global image and reputation, etc. -- a highly involved program that “is a mission of several years,” the company wrote.

A person who answered the phones at Monitor’s Cambridge, MA offices Monday said it would be hard to reach a public relations official on the President’s Day holiday. But the company’s website currently describes “recent work … assisting the Government of Libya on strategies for improving its national economic growth and competitiveness.”

china is in the crosshairs/or tyrant death throes

Today 8:07 AM Gadhafi Speaking Now
Gadhafi is speaking now on Libyan state television. He says that coverage of the Libyan protests has been distorted and that Libya has challenged "America, the superpower. "

He insists that he will not leave Libya and vows to die a martyr. He does not blame the youth, and he says that some of the protesters are sick and on hallucinatory drugs.

The consent of the Libyan people has always been present, he argues. He mentions new municipalities and says that "everyone will have their own municipality."

If you love Gadhafi, get out of your house, he says. He adds,"Get out of your homes, secure the streets, get the greasy rats out of the streets! If we have to use force we will use it, according to international law and the LIbyan Constitution."

He then addresses parents of the protesters, saying, "Take your children from the streets. They took your children from you. They are dying, for what reason?" He adds that the "rats" can reach the oil fields and blow them up.

He says, "Our country will become Afghanistan, is that what you want?"

The speech is punctuated by long pauses as Gadhafi appears to think over his next words.

He says that anyone who undermines the sovereignty of the state or spies for other countries will be punished by death. 'I haven't even started giving the orders to use bullets," he says.

He seems to be making historical comparisons, referring to the unity of Russia and saying that the unity of CHina is more important than "those people in Tiananmen Square."

He asks for the youth, excepting those who are "rats on drugs," to secure the city tonight and tomorrow.

He says that the distribution of wealth should be decided by the people.

He goes back to making historical references, this time citing the fact that Waco was dealt with using "armed vehicles." He mentions Tiananmen Square again.

The translator is having trouble keeping up with what he is saying.

Al Jazeera has now switched translators. They also jumped in to point out that he's been speaking for an hour.

"What's come over you?" Gadhafi asks. "We were leaving in prosperity."

Analysis to follow.

ghadafi going down,

22 February 2011 Last updated at 12:39 ET Share this pageFacebookTwitterShareEmailPrint
Defiant Gaddafi refuses to quit amid Libya protests


Click to play

Click to play

Col Gaddafi refused to stand down during an angry address on Libyan State TVContinue reading the main story
Mid-East Unrest

Mid-East and North Africa unrest Live
The Gaddafi family tree
Do Libya's tribal ties matter?
Crackdown backfires
Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi has refused to stand down amid widespread anti-government protests which he said had tarnished the image of the country.

In his first major speech since unrest began last week, Col Gaddafi said the whole world looked up to Libya and that protests were "serving the devil".

Reading from the country's constitution, he said enemies of Libya would be executed.

Rights groups say nearly 300 have been killed in the violence so far.

A defiant and angry Col Gaddafi said that he had brought glory to Libya. As he had no official position in Libya from which to resign, he would remain the head of the revolution, he said.

He blamed the unrest on "cowards and traitors" who were seeking to portray Libya as a place of chaos and to "humiliate" Libyans. At other points he referred to them as cockroaches or "rats and mercenaries".

State TV had said Col Gaddafi was going to announce "major reforms" in his speech, but the only such reference was to some devolution of power to local authorities.

Civil war threat
The protesters had been given drink and drugs, he said, frequently shouting and banging his fist on the table as the address continued.

He called on "those who love Muammar Gaddafi" to come on to the streets in support of him, telling them not to be afraid of the "gangs".

"Come out of your homes, attack them in their dens. Withdraw your children from the streets. They are drugging your children, they are making your children drunk and sending them to hell," he said.

He urged young people to form committees "for the defence of the revolution and the defence of Gaddafi". He said they would "cleanse Libya house by house".

"If matters require, we will use force, according to international law and the Libyan constitution," he said, and warned that the country could descend into civil war or be occupied by the US if protests continued.

Anyone who played games with the country's unity would be executed, he said, referring to the Chinese authorities' crushing of the student protests in Tiananmen Square among other historical events.

He also railed against western countries, in particular the United States and Britain, which he accused of trying to destabilise Libya.

Evacuations
It was unclear whether the speech, which lasted about an hour, was live or had been pre-recorded.

Continue reading the main story
Mid-East unrest: Libya


Col Muammar Gaddafi has led since 1969
Population 6.5m; land area 1.77m sq km, much of it desert
Population with median age of 24.2, and a literacy rate of 88%
Gross national income per head: $12,020 (World Bank 2009)
Country profile: Libya
Stock markets fall on Libya fears
Middle East protests: Country by country
But it was apparently filmed at his Bab al-Azizia barracks in Tripoli, which still shows damage from a US bombing in 1986. The cameras occasionally cut away to an image of a giant fist crushing a US war plane.

The BBC's Frank Gardner said that even by Col Gaddafi's usual standards it was an extraordinary speech, full of theatrical defiance against almost everyone.

He appears completely divorced from reality, says our correspondent, saying that he had not authorised the army to use force, despite opposition statements that more than 500 people have been killed and more than 1,000 are missing.

The Libyan authorities have reacted fiercely to the outbreak of protests in the country, which have come amid anti-government unrest in many other countries in the region.

Foreign journalists work under tight restriction in Libya, and much of the information coming from the country is impossible to verify.

But witnesses say foreign mercenaries have been attacking civilians in the streets and that fighter planes have been shooting down protesters.

Tens of thousands of foreigners are trying to leave the country and many oil companies are attempting to remove their expatriate staff.

A BBC correspondent in Tripoli says there is a heavy police presence in the capital but that, the second city, Benghazi - where there has been intensive fighting - is now in opposition control and there is no sign of security forces.

Many Libyan diplomats, including the country's ambassador to the US, have turned their backs on Col Gaddafi and are urging the international community to take action.

The UN Security Council and Arab League have both called emergency meetings over the crisis. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said he is "outraged" by the violence

Human Rights Watch said at least 62 bodies had been taken to hospital morgues since Sunday, in addition to the 233 people it said had been killed outside the capital previously.

The violence has helped to push up oil prices to their highest levels since the global financial crisis of 2008.

thank you

Beverly WillettBeverly Willett is a writer and former attorney.
Posted: February 22, 2011 11:22 AM
BIOBecome a Fan Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index
'Feminists Love Divorce!'
Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird
Read More: Child Custody , Conservatives , Democratic Party , Democrats , Divorce , Divorce-Reform , Equal Rights Amendment , Family Court , Feminism , Feminists , Marriage , Women's Movement , Women's Rights , Divorce News

SHARE THIS STORY

5
18
0
16
Get Divorce Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story
"If there's one thing feminists love, it's divorce - they consider it liberating." That's just one of the claims Phyllis Schlafly and her co-author Suzanne Venker make in their new book, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say, to be released this March. Schlafly--political activist, bestselling author, syndicated columnist, radio personality--is often called the grande dame of the conservative movement (she is perhaps best known for her successful campaign to stop passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and founding of the national volunteer organization known as the Eagle Forum). Venker, a.k.a. "No Bull Mom," is author of 7 Myths of Working Mothers and a regular contributor to NewsReal.

In a series of e-mails and telephone conversations over the last few weeks from their offices in St. Louis, Missouri, they weighed in on marriage, divorce and feminism in our society:

Why do you claim feminists love divorce?

Phyllis: Their own writings reveal that feminists sought liberation from home, husband, family, childbirth, children, and the role of fulltime homemaker. They wanted to be independent of men and liberated from the duties of marriage and motherhood. So, their first legislative goal was the adoption of easy-to-get divorce. They were behind California's adoption of unilateral divorce, which then spread across the country.

So why do so many marriages fail, not just those of feminists?

Suzanne: Living in a culture in which people break vows easily makes it difficult to keep one's own vows. The modern generation was groomed for an independent life. Marriage and motherhood are not something to which young women have been taught to aspire. Instead the women in their lives tell them to focus solely on their career. The result is women don't think of marriage and motherhood as fulfilling in and of itself. It's silly to think there's something wrong with being in the kitchen--everybody has to eat! Sandra Bullock's claim marriage is the end of who you are is indicative of the modern generation's defeatist attitude toward marriage.

What do you believe is the single biggest obstacle to lasting marriages?

Suzanne: Americans' attitude. We have this notion that "Hey, we can always get divorced if it doesn't work out." This is in stark contrast to the attitude in previous generations, where marriage was assumed to be a lifelong, irrevocable commitment. In my twenties, I had what we now call a "starter marriage": one that lasts less than five years and does not produce children. My ex-husband and I both had considerable doubts, and I distinctly recall our conversation, before we got married, about the fact that we could always get divorced. How pitiful is that?

You claim feminism failed women. Why?

Phyllis: None of the feminists' goals, including the Equal Rights Amendment, offered women a single benefit they didn't have before, zip. But it would have taken away a lot of the rights and benefits women then possessed such as the right to be exempt from the military and the right of a wife to be supported by her husband. Feminists demeaned marriage and motherhood even though most women want marriage and motherhood. Feminism has run its course, and surveys show that women are not as happy now as they were in the 1950s.

Suzanne: Let me add that feminism also taught women that men are idiots, so now there's a lack of respect for men who are considered an inconvenience. It's a wonder any marriage survives.

If, as you say, divorce is not "the answer to what ails us," what's the solution?

Suzanne: The Flipside of Feminism! We honestly believe Flipside has the potential to change women's and men's lives -- and that includes their marriages. Flipside is a call for Americans to change their perspective completely, to challenge themselves to think in a way that goes counter to what they've been exposed to their entire lives.

Flipside takes a positive view of women and their role in society as wives, mothers, career women and volunteers in the community. It's the antithesis of the average feminist book in which the author kvetches about how bad American women have it. How is that helpful?

You claim American women have never had it better. What do you mean by that?

Phyllis: American women can structure their lives to accomplish anything they want.

How so?

Phyllis: It is self evident that American women are the most fortunate women who ever lived and enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than are available in any other country. Armed with the right attitude, they have every opportunity for happiness and achievement. Women should stop feeling they are victims of the patriarchy, reject feminist myths, and follow the roadmap to success and happiness spelled out in Flipside.

Do we need divorce reform?

Phyllis: Yes. We need to restore fault-based reasons to justify divorce. When a man and woman stand up before witnesses and solemnly swear to love and cherish, forsaking all others, 'till death do us part, do they mean it, or are they lying?

The best way to reduce divorce is to legislate 50-50 joint custody of children, unless evidence proves one parent unfit. It would eliminate the current incentive to one parent, usually the woman, who now believes she can walk out on all marital obligations, taking the kids and the income of the other parent.

One comment I get writing about divorce reform is: "You can't legislate morality." What do you think?

Phyllis: That's ridiculous. We have adopted thousands of federal and state laws to legislate morality. What do you think the criminal code is?

Flipside states that our courts no longer protect the sanctity of marriage, but rather owe their allegiance to the institution of divorce. Can you explain?

Phyllis: Marriage is a contract, and one party should not be able to renounce it without the consent of the other party.

The family courts are the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, but the most powerful. Family court judges exercise unaccountable discretion according to their own personal biases and preferences. They have control over the private living arrangements and income of 48 million Americans and $40 billion in transfer payments made between households. Family court judges are an arm of government that exercises virtually unlimited power to dictate the private lives and income of millions of Americans who have committed no actionable offense. Divorce has become a tremendous money-making industry with judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, custody evaluators, and counselors getting well paid to run other people's lives.

Despite the commercial success of Eat, Pray, Love and Committed, you're fairly critical of both. Why?

Suzanne: Elizabeth Gilbert makes several great observations, for example, that marriage cannot be solely about romantic love, a point we make in Flipside. Gilbert is also a gifted writer. In Committed, however, her analysis of marriage is wrong-headed and immature. No woman who reads Committed will be encouraged to embrace marriage and family life. Ms. Gilbert does not have children either. Thus her experience is extremely lacking. Like any modern feminist, Gilbert's attitude toward marriage is hopelessly doomed: she believes it threatens women's independence and well-being. She questions the purpose of marriage at every turn and blames conservatives for keeping women down.

And yet Gilbert remarried?

Suzanne: Gilbert was "sentenced to wed" due to her boyfriend's status as an illegal alien. If the couple wanted to continue living in the United States, or ever visit the United States, they had to get married--and Ms. Gilbert was resentful, for she had sworn off marriage altogether.

But don't conservatives avail themselves of unilateral divorce just as much as liberals?

Phyllis: Many conservatives are seduced by feminist and anti-marriage propaganda and peer pressure. Flipside is designed to arm them against negative social trends and decisions.

So how did things get so out of hand?

Phyllis: The decline of marriage is the result of the work of highly motivated special-interest groups, and they enjoy the support of Big Media. Feminists have also had the support of academia and Hollywood, and they did a pretty good job of intimidating politicians.

Where were conservatives when the divorce rate got out of hand?

Phyllis: They were quietly raising their own families.

Is feminism really to blame for all our marriage and divorce woes?

Suzanne: No, there are other factors that helped it along. Technology, for example, has played a role in the disintegration of the American family. In previous generations, people's worlds were rather small. Close-knit communities and family ties, along with the universal moral order, meant Americans were mostly exposed to people who lived like they did--conservatively.
Today, this world is gone. Families are spread out; people rarely mill about in their neighborhoods but are instead glued to their television sets and computers; and religious life is at an all-time low. Because of this, young people's preferences are largely influenced by technology and mainstream media, all of which are very liberal. In other words, the culture at large--via college life and the media--has played a larger role in shaping the values and attitudes of young people.

I consider myself a liberal Democrat though I put my career on hold, became a stay-at-home mom, opposed my ex-husband's wrongful divorce suit and now speak out about divorce reform. Yet you state there is a "chasm" between feminists and conservative women. Is there any common ground or way to bridge the gap?

Suzanne: This is a great question. There are many women I know who vote Democrat and/or consider themselves liberal, yet their lifestyles and attitudes do not jibe with their voting patterns. Many of these folks do not identify with feminism at all, yet at the same time they don't think of themselves as conservative.

This confusion is primarily a matter of semantics. Liberal-minded women are often more conservative than they care to admit. Unfortunately, modern liberals have butchered the term conservative by teaching people that it means being backward and close-minded--and who wants to think of themselves this way? Consequently, people refer to themselves as liberal-- even if they're not -- because that is the socially acceptable worldview.

But being conservative isn't just about politics -- there are many conservative Democrats in America. Conservatism is a lifestyle in which independence and self-reliance come naturally. Conversely, feminists - who dominate the Democratic party -- are negative by nature and believe women are oppressed. Thus, the question women who vote Democrat need to ask themselves is, Why do I stand with a party whose goals and values are in direct opposition to my own? Most women in America have nothing in common with the feminist elite, which means that any time a woman in America pulls the Democratic lever, she sabotages her own future.

Any final piece of advice for parents contemplating divorce today?

Phyllis: Unless they are dealing with abuse, addiction or extreme conflict, we recommend parents stay together at least until the children have left home. Not only must adult happiness come second to children's needs, research shows that most marriages that end in divorce today are not a result of these extreme circumstances. Judith Wallerstein's work demonstrates that children fare much better if their parents stay together. Research also shows that couples who once reported being unhappy in their marriage were much happier together five years down the road.

most egregious abuse of power in the history of the American legal system

Pennsylvania Judge Convicted in Alleged 'Kids for Cash' Scheme
Judge Mark Ciavarella Could Face Over 10 Years in Prison for Racketeering

Teens Sentenced by Ciavarella Speak Out
Eric Stefanski had never been in trouble before he found himself in front of Ciavarella, who took office in 1996.


More Video



"I was 12 years old when I got locked up. I had no clue what to say when he asked me how do I plead," Stefanski told "20/20" correspondent Jim Avila in a March 2009 report. "I was 12 years old. I didn't know too much about the court system."

Stefanski went joyriding with his mom's car and ran over a barrier, smashing the undercarriage. No one was hurt, not even Stefanski, but in order to get his insurance to pay for the damage, his mom, Linda Donovan, had to file a police report. Donovan even thought an appearance before a judge would be good for her son and give him a little scare. She wasn't prepared for what happened when Eric came before Ciavarella.


"He read me my charges and said, 'How do you plead?' And I didn't know what to say, so I looked at my mom, and I guess she didn't know I was looking, and I said, 'Guilty,'" Stefanski recalled. "That's when I turned around, I looked at my mom and she started crying."

Stefanski was locked up for two years. He was not represented by an attorney, his mom said, because she didn't think he needed one.

"His first offense, he's so young, I just didn't think that it was necessary," Donovan said.


Juvenile Justice Exposed
It's not supposed to be like this in juvenile court, where incarceration is considered the last resort, legal experts said. But Levick told ABC News she saw a disturbing trend inside Ciavarella's courtroom.


Levick claimed the kids going into placement in Luzerne Country tended to be two to three times higher than other countries and the kids were being locked up for minor infractions. "A child who shoplifted a $4 bottle of nutmeg," she said. "A child who was charged with conspiracy to shoplift because he was present when his friend was shoplifting. A child who put up a MySpace page, taunting her school administrator.

"I think what we have here in Luzerne County is probably the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the American legal system," Levick said.

Levick turned her findings over to the FBI, and the outcome rocked the Pennsylvania justice system.

Ciavarella and Conahan allegedly devised a plot to use their positions as judges to pad their pockets. They shut down the old county-run juvenile detention center by first refusing to send kids there and, then, by cutting off funds, choking it out of existence.

They then allegedly replaced the facility with a cash cow -- a privately owned lockup built by the judges' cronies -- and forged a deal for the county to pay $58 million for a 10-year period for its use. At the time, Conahan was serving as president judge of the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court, a position that allowed him to control the county-court budget. Ciavarella was the Luzerne County juvenile court judge.


In the judges' original plea deal, they admitted that they took more than $2.6 million in payoffs from the private youth detention center between 2003 and 2006.

Prosecutors said the judges attempted to hide their income from the scheme by creating false records and routing payments through intermediaries. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed them from their duties after federal prosecutors filed charges Jan. 26, 2009.

why Mubarak fell

Memo to President Obama: Given the absence of intelligent intelligence and the inadequacy of your advisers' advice, it's not surprising that your handling of the Egyptian uprising has set new standards for foreign policy incoherence and incompetence. Perhaps a primer on how to judge the power that can be wielded by mass protest will prepare you better for the next round of political upheavals.

Continue reading
Remember the uprising in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989? That was also a huge, peaceful protest for democracy, but it was crushed with savage violence. Maybe the memory of that event convinced you and your team that, as Secretary of State Clinton announced when the protests began, the Mubarak regime was "stable" and in "no danger of falling." Or maybe your confidence rested on the fact that it featured a disciplined modern army trained and supplied by the USA.

But it fell, and you should have known that it was in grave danger. You should have known that the prognosis for this uprising was far better than the one that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square; that it was more likely to follow the pattern of people power in Tunisia, where only weeks before another autocrat had been driven from power, or Iran in 1979 and Poland in 1989.

Since your intelligence people, including the CIA, obviously didn't tell you, let me offer you an explanation for why the Egyptian protesters proved so much more successful in fighting off the threat and reality of violence than their Chinese compatriots, and why they were so much better equipped to deter an attack by a standing army. Most importantly, let me fill you in on why, by simply staying in the streets and adhering to their commitment to nonviolence, they were able to topple a tyrant with 30 years seniority and the backing of the United States from the pinnacle of power, sweeping him into the dustbin of history.

When Does an Army Choose to Be Nonviolent?

One possible answer -- a subtext of mainstream media coverage -- is that the Egyptian military, unlike its Chinese counterpart, decided not to crush the rebellion, and that this forbearance enabled the protest to succeed. However, this apparently reasonable argument actually explains nothing unless we can answer two intertwined questions that flow from it.

The first is: Why was the military so restrained this time around, when for 50 years, "it has stood at the core of a repressive police state." The second is: Why couldn't the government, even without a military ready to turn its guns on the demonstrators, endure a few more days, weeks, or months of protest, while waiting for the uprising to exhaust itself, and -- as the BBC put it -- "have the whole thing fizzle out."

The answer to both questions lies in the remarkable impact that the protest had on the Egyptian economy. Mubarak and his cohort (as well as the military, which is the country's economic powerhouse) were alarmed that the business "paralysis induced by the protests" was "having a huge impact on the creaking economy" of Egypt. As Finance Minister Samir Radwin said two weeks into the uprising, the economic situation was "very serious" and that "the longer the stalemate continues, the more damaging it is."

From their inception, the huge protests threatened the billions of dollars that the leaders and chief beneficiaries of the Mubarak regime had acquired during their 30 year reign of terror, corruption, and accumulation. To the generals in particular, it was surely apparent that the massive acts of brutality necessary to suppress the uprising would have caused perhaps irreparable harm, threatening its vast economic interests. In other words, either trying to outwait the revolutionaries or imposing the Tiananmen solution risked the downfall of the economic empires of Egypt's ruling groups.

But why would either of those responses destroy the economy?

Squeezing the Life Out of the Mubarak Regime

Put simply, from the beginning, the Egyptian uprising had the effect of a general strike. Starting on January 25th, the first day of the protest, tourism -- the largest industry in the country, which had just begun its high season -- went into free fall. After two weeks, the industry had simply "ground to a halt," leaving a significant portion of the two million workers it supported with reduced wages or none at all, and the few remaining tourists rattling around empty hotels, catching the pyramids, if at all, on television.

Since pyramids and other Egyptian sites attract more than a million visitors a month and account for at least 5% of the Egyptian economy, tourism alone (given the standard multiplier effect) may account for over 15% of the country's cash flow. Not surprisingly, then, news reports soon began mentioning revenue losses of up to $310 million per day. In an economy with an annual gross domestic product (GDP) of well over $200 billion, each day that Mubarak clung to office produced a tangible and growing decline in it. After two weeks of this ticking time bomb, Crédit Agricole, the largest banking group in France, lowered its growth estimate for the country's economy by 32%.

The initial devastating losses in the tourist, hotel, and travel sectors of the Egyptian economy hit industries dominated by huge multinational corporations and major Egyptian business groups dependent on a constant flow of revenues. When cash flow dies, loan payments must still be made, hotels heated, airline schedules kept, and many employees, especially executives, paid. In such a situation, losses start mounting fast, and even the largest companies can face a crisis quickly. The situation was especially ominous because it was known that skittish travelers would be unlikely to return until they were confident that no further disruptions would occur.

The largest of businesses, local and multinational, are not normally prone to inactivity. They are the ones likely to move most quickly to stem a tide of red ink by agitating the government to suppress such a protest, hopefully yesterday. But the staggering size of even the early demonstrations, the face of a mobilizing civil society visibly shedding 30 years of passivity, proved stunning. The fiercely brave response to police attacks, in which repression was met by masses of new demonstrators pouring into the streets, made it clear that brutal suppression would not quickly silence these protests. Such acts were more likely to prolong the disruptions and possibly amplify the uprising.

Even if Washington was slow on the uptake, it didn't take long for the relentlessly repressive Egyptian ruling clique to grasp the fact that large-scale, violent suppression was an impossible-to-implement strategy. Once the demonstrations involved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Egyptians, a huge and bloody suppression guaranteed long-term economic paralysis and ensured that the tourist trade wasn't going to rebound for months or longer.

The paralysis of the tourism industry was, in itself, an economic time bomb that threatened the viability of the core of the Egyptian capitalist class, as long as the demonstrations continued. Recovery could only begin after a "return to normal life," a phrase that became synonymous with the end of the protests in the rhetoric of the government, the military, and the mainstream media. With so many fortunes at stake, the business classes, foreign and domestic, soon enough began entertaining the most obvious and least disruptive solution: Mubarak's departure.

Strangling the Mubarak Regime

The attack on tourism, however, was just the first blow in what rapidly became the protestors' true weapon of mass disruption, its increasing stranglehold on the economy. The crucial communications and transportation industries were quickly engulfed in chaos and disrupted by the demonstrations. The government at first shut down the Internet and mobile phone service in an effort to deny the protestors their means of communication and organization, including Facebook and Twitter. When they were reopened, these services operated imperfectly, in part because of the increasingly rebellious behavior of their own employees.

Similar effects were seen in transportation, which became unreliable and sporadic, either because of government shutdowns aimed at crippling the protests or because the protests interfered with normal operations. And such disruptions quickly rippled outward to the many sectors of the economy, from banking to foreign trade, for which communication and/or transportation was crucial.

As the demonstrations grew, employees, customers, and suppliers of various businesses were ever more consumed with preparations for, participation in, or recovery from the latest protest, or protecting homes from looters and criminals after the government called the police force off the streets. On Fridays especially, many people left work to join the protest during noon prayers, abandoning their offices as the country immersed itself in the next big demonstration -- and then the one after.

As long as the protests were sustained, as long as each new crescendo matched or exceeded the last, the economy continued to die while business and political elites became ever more desperate for a solution to the crisis.

The Rats Leave the Sinking Ship of State

After each upsurge in protest, Mubarak and his cronies offered new concessions aimed at quieting the crowds. These, in turn, were taken as signs of weakness by the protestors, only convincing them of their strength, amplifying the movement, and driving it into the heart of the Egyptian working class and the various professional guilds. By the start of the third week of demonstrations, protests began to hit critical institutions directly.

On February 9th, reports of a widening wave of strikes in major industries around the country began pouring in, as lawyers, medical workers, and other professionals also took to the streets with their grievances. In a single day, tens of thousands of employees in textile factories, newspapers and other media companies, government agencies (including the post office), sanitation workers and bus drivers, and -- most significant of all -- workers at the Suez Canal began demanding economic concessions as well as the departure of Mubarak.

Since the Suez Canal is second only to tourism as a source of income for the country, a sit-in there, involving up to 6,000 workers, was particularly ominous. Though the protestors made no effort to close the canal, the threat to its operation was self-evident.

A shutdown of the canal would have been not just an Egyptian but a world calamity: a significant proportion of the globe's oil flows through that canal, especially critical for energy-starved Europe. A substantial shipping slowdown, no less a shutdown, threatened a possible renewal of the worldwide recession of 2008-2009, even as it would choke off the Egyptian government's major source of steady income.

As if this weren't enough, the demonstrators turned their attention to various government institutions, attempting to render them "nonfunctional." The day after the president's third refusal to step down, protestors claimed that many regional capitals, including Suez, Mahalla, Mansoura, Ismailia, Port Said, and even Alexandria (the country's major Mediterranean port), were "free of the regime" -- purged of Mubarak officials, state-controlled communications, and the hated police and security forces. In Cairo, the national capital, demonstrators began to surround the parliament, the state TV building, and other centers critical to the national government. Alaa Abd El Fattah, an activist and well known political blogger in Cairo, told Democracy Now that the crowd "could continue to escalate, either by claiming more places or by actually moving inside these buildings, if the need comes." With the economy choking to death, the demonstrators were now moving to put a hammerlock on the government apparatus itself.

At that point, a rats-leaving-a-sinking-ship-of-state phenomenon burst into public visibility as "several large companies took out adverts in local newspapers putting distance between themselves and the regime." Guardian reporter Jack Shenker affirmed this public display by quoting informed sources describing widespread "nervousness among the business community" about the viability of the regime, and that "a lot of people you might think are in bed with Mubarak have privately lost patience."

It was this tightening noose around the neck of the Mubarak regime that made the remarkable protests of these last weeks so different from those in Tiananmen Square. In China, the demonstrators had negligible economic and political leverage. In Egypt, the option of a brutal military attack, even if "successful" in driving them off the streets, seemed to all but guarantee the deepening of an already dire economic crisis, subjecting ever widening realms of the economy -- and so the wealth of the military -- to the risk of irreparable calamity.

Perhaps Mubarak would have been willing to sacrifice all this to stay in power. As it happened, a growing crew of movers and shakers, including the military leadership, major businessmen, foreign investors, and interested foreign governments saw a far more appealing alternative solution.

Weil Ziada, head of research for a major Egyptian financial firm, spoke for the business and political class when he told Guardian reporter Jack Shenker on February 11th:

"Anti-government sentiment is not calming down, it is gaining momentum…This latest wave is putting a lot more pressure on not just the government but the entire regime; protesters have made their demands clear and there's no rowing back now. Everything is going down one route. There are two or three scenarios, but all involve the same thing: Mubarak stepping down -- and the business community is adjusting its expectations accordingly."

The next day, President Hosni Mubarak resigned and left Cairo.

President Obama, remember this lesson: If you want to avoid future foreign policy Obaminations, be aware that nonviolent protest has the potential to strangle even the most brutal regime, if it can definitively threaten the viability of its core industries. In these circumstances, a mass movement equipped with fearsome weapons of mass disruption can topple a tyrant equipped with fearsome weapons of mass destruction.

the right likes a dictator

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy