Thursday, March 27, 2008

Obama Attacks Wall Street While Taking Their Money

I am trying to be an equal opportunity offender, so here is a reasonable challenge to Senator Barack Obama that I found on the NPR News Blog. Speak truth to power...



Senator Obama's speech today outlined his differences with the other presidential candidates regarding the crisis on Wall Street. But it also highlighted the degree to which all three major candidates are involved with Wall Street.

In assigning blame for the subprime mortgage collapse, as well as for other financial woes, Obama went further than either his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, or Republican John McCain.

He spread the blame around... but largely in Washington. He said both Democrats and Republicans, quote, let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales.

"The future cannot be shaped by the best-connected lobbyists with the best record of raising money for campaigns. This thinking is wrong for the financial sector and it's wrong for our country."

"Obama is now the number one recipient of securities and investment money among the presidential candidates," says Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center for Responsive Politics. She says the center's analysis of campaign finance data shows that Obama has raised 6.7 million dollars from people and political action committees in the securities and investment industry.

Hillary Clinton is right behind him, at 6 point 6 million. McCain trails the Democrats, at about 3 million.

This just might explain why none of them -- most notably Obama or Clinton -- has been beating the drum for punishing investment firms, or their executives, for their roles in this financial mess.

Bashing Wall Street was once a fine tradition in the Democratic party. At the 1936 nominating convention, President Franklin Roosevelt lit into business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, and a few others.

"They are unanimous in their hate for me. And I welcome their hatred," said Roosevelt.

The kind of thing a Democrat would say 72 years ago, but not today.

Earlier this week, Clinton offered her solutions for the housing crisis. She urged that Washington should help homeowners just as much as it helps Wall Street. "We've seen unprecedented action to maintain confidence in our credit markets and head off a crisis for Wall Street banks. It's now time for equally aggressive action to help families avoid foreclosure."

On Tuesday, Republican McCain weighed in. He said that no assistance should be given to speculators. But he was talking about home buyers, not the folks who sold them the mortgages. For the industry, McCain said, government aid should be based only on heading off major systemic risks in the future.

At the Center for Responsive Politics, Krumholz says that in recent history, Wall Street has been careful to go with the winner -- Congressional Republicans in the late 1990s. President Bush in 2000 and 2004. And now she says, "The securities and investment industry, & specifically the more aggressive players, the hedge funds & the private equity funds, are leaning more to the left than they have in the past, & the hedge funds and private equity, the more aggressive players, are leaning more to the left than the industry as a whole."

And Democrats are happy to be leaned on.

Just after his speech this morning, Obama's schedule included a fundraising lunch at the Manhattan offices of Credit Suisse, the multi-national investment bank. Seats were priced from 1 thousand dollars to 23 hundred dollars. The lunch has long been sold out.

-- Peter Overby

5:25 PM ET | 03-27-2008 | permalink

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pentagon: Inventory Ordered of All U.S. Nukes

OMG!!!!! We are not absolutely sure where all of our nukes are?! Humm...and we are worried that Iran or North Korea would give nukes to terrorists! What if we accidentally already shipped them to the terrorists?! Kudos to Secretary Gates for at least ordering an immediate and thorough inventory.



* Defense Secretary Robert Gates orders accounting of all weapons
* U.S. mistakenly shipped four nuclear warhead fuses to Taiwan in 2006
* Gates' order: All nukes and nuke materials to be counted by serial number
* An inquiry is expected regarding the Taiwan shipment, Pentagon says

WASHINGTON (CNN)
-- Defense Secretary Robert Gates has formally ordered the Air Force, Navy and Defense Logistics Agency to conduct an inventory of all U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon-related materials to make sure all items are accounted for, according to a Pentagon memo released Thursday.

The order comes in the wake of the discovery last week that four nuclear warhead fuses were accidentally shipped to Taiwan in 2006.

Gates' memo, issued Wednesday, calls for all items to be accounted for by serial number.

Pentagon officials said at a news conference Tuesday that Gates would call for the review in addition to a full investigation into how the shipment to Taiwan from a Defense Logistics Agency warehouse happened 18 months ago.

The inventory review, which will involve thousands of items, is due to Gates in 60 days. Pentagon officials said the request was ordered, in part, because this latest incident comes after the August 2007 accidental flight of six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on a B-52 bomber across the country.

"At a minimum, your report should include the results of the inventory and your personal assessment of the adequacy of your respective department or agency's positive inventory control policies and procedures," Gates said in the memo.

Four officers --- including three colonels -- were relieved of duty last year after a B-52 bomber mistakenly carried six nuclear warheads from North Dakota to Louisiana, the Air Force said.

A six-week investigation uncovered a "lackadaisical" attention to detail in day-to-day operations at the bases involved in the incident, an Air Force report said.

From Barbara Starr

Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/27/pentagon.nuclear.review/index.html

© 2008 Cable News Network


Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Huge Antarctic Ice Chunk Collapses

There is no such thing as global climate change due to human accelerated atmospheric carbon output. People like this need to be silenced...they are dangerous to political stability and economic expansion. I believe that President Bush must take action by declaring such voices as anti-American and supporting terrorists; and protect us from them by placing them secretive prisons around the globe via extraordinary rendition. The President should strip them of their rights and remove them from the oversight of the liberal judges. We cannot be trusted to do the right thing...we must trust our leader to do it for us!



* Antarctic ice chunk seven times the size of Manhattan collapses
* Rest of ice shelf is hanging by a narrow beam of thin ice
* Larger, more dramatic ice collapses occurred in 2002 and 1995

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A chunk of Antarctic ice about seven times the size of Manhattan suddenly collapsed, putting an even greater portion of glacial ice at risk, scientists said Tuesday.

Satellite images show the runaway disintegration of a 160-square-mile chunk in western Antarctica, which started February 28. It was the edge of the Wilkins ice shelf and has been there for hundreds, maybe 1,500 years.

This is the result of global warming, said British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan.

Because scientists noticed satellite images within hours, they diverted satellite cameras and even flew an airplane over the ongoing collapse for rare pictures and video.

"It's an event we don't get to see very often," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. "The cracks fill with water and slice off and topple... That gets to be a runaway situation."

While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades, Vaughan said. The collapse is similar to what happens to hardened glass when it is smashed with a hammer, he said.

The rest of the Wilkins ice shelf, which is about the size of Connecticut, is holding on by a narrow beam of thin ice. Scientists worry that it too may collapse. Larger, more dramatic ice collapses occurred in 2002 and 1995.

Vaughan had predicted the Wilkins shelf would collapse about 15 years from now.

Scientists said they are not concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event in Antarctica, but say it's a sign of worsening global warming.

Such occurrences are "more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system," said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Did You Celebrate Dyngus Day Today?

I am so glad that I did not grow up in a Polish culture! I would have been beaten to a pulp as a young man if I attempted to throw water on the girls that I liked then attempted to hit them in the legs with willow or birch branches. Wow, what a holiday?! By the way, my wife, the former Missy Janczewski, comes from a Polish and Russian family, but has never heard of Dyngus Day. Alas, the Borgification of culture in Lucedale, Mississippi.



(A picture taken of boys filling buckets and water pistols with water drawn from a town water pump on Easter Monday in Skwierzyna, Lubuskie, Poland. In Poland this day is known as Śmingus Dyngus and is a tradition, which involves boys running around the villages, towns and cities of Poland throwing water on others. Tradition states that girls who get caught and soaked with water will marry within the year.)

Dyngus Day (Smigus Dyngus)

by Melissa Block

Listen Now: Windows Media

All Things Considered, April 21, 2003 · NPR's Melissa Block talks with Mark Kohan, editor in chief of the Polish-American Journal, about the Polish holiday of Smigus Dyngus -- better known as Dyngus Day or Wet Monday. On this day in Polish tradition, boys soak girls with water on the day after Easter. The tradition lives on among Polish-Americans, especially in Buffalo, N.Y., where dozens of parties, complete with polka music and squirt guns, are scheduled today.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Grim Milestone: 4,000 U.S. service employees dead in Iraq war

Gee, how wonderful to hear...at least one Iraqi understands how our mothers, widows, and children feel about loosing the ones they love in this war. That makes it all worth it to me! Let's send some more of our kids to kill others' kids...as long as someone understands how we must feel.



* NEW: As Iraq war enters sixth year, American death toll rises to 4,000
* At least 30 Iraqis died Sunday; 80,000 to 150,000 or more killed since war's start
* Iraq security adviser said Sunday that Iraq war is "well worth fighting"
* Democratic senator: Pause in withdrawal sends "wrong message to the Iraqis"

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Four U.S. soldiers died in a roadside bombing in Iraq on Sunday, military officials reported, bringing the American toll in the 5-year-old war to the grim milestone of 4,000 deaths. Eight of the 4,000 killed were civilian employees of the Pentagon.

The four were killed when their vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device while patrolling a neighborhood in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military headquarters in Iraq reported Sunday night. A fifth soldier was wounded in the attack, which took place about 10 a.m. (3 a.m. ET).

The news came on the same day that Iraq's national security adviser urged Americans to be patient with the progress of the war, contending that it is "well worth fighting" because it has implications about "global terror."

"This is global terrorism hitting everywhere, and they have chosen Iraq to be a battlefield. And we have to take them on," Mowaffak al-Rubaie said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

"If we don't prevail, if we don't succeed in this war, then we are doomed forever," he said. "I understand and sympathize with the mothers, with the widows, with the children who have lost their beloved ones in this country.

"But honestly, it is well worth fighting and well worth investing the money and the treasure and the sweat and the tears in Iraq."

The war has just entered its sixth year. It started March 19, 2003.

Estimates of the Iraqi death toll range from about 80,000 to 150,000 or more. At least 30 Iraqis were killed Sunday, officials said.

Nearly 160,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, and the war has cost U.S. taxpayers about $600 billion, according to the House Budget Committee.

The conflict is now widely unpopular among Americans: A CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll out Wednesday found only 32 percent of Americans support the conflict. And 61 percent said they want the next president to remove most U.S. troops within a few months of taking office.

In the weekly Democratic radio address Saturday, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey said President Bush "took us to war on the wings of a lie."

Menendez said that the war has depleted the resources and morale of the U.S. military; diverted national attention away from the war in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda is regrouping; and hurt the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The Iraq war has not made Americans safer, Menendez said, but has instead hurt the U.S. economy.

The senator called for a "responsible new direction" regarding Iraq.


CNN learned last week, from several U.S. military officials familiar with the recommendations but not authorized to speak on the record, that senior U.S. military officials are preparing to recommend to Bush a four- to six-week "pause" in additional troop withdrawals from Iraq after the last of the "surge" brigades leaves in July.

"If the conditions on the ground dictate that we have to have a pause, then we will have to have a pause," al-Rubaie said.

The return of all five brigades added to the Iraq contingent last year could reduce troop levels by up to 30,000, but still leave approximately 130,000 or more troops in Iraq.

Al-Rubaie emphasized Sunday that any drawdown of U.S. troops "has to be based on the conditions on the ground."

"It depends on the development and the growth and the equipment and the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, and the preparedness of the Iraqi security forces," he said. "This should not be a purely political decision. It should be also a technical, military and intelligence decision."

But there has been too much "foot-dragging on key governance questions in Iraq," Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said on CNN on Sunday. "It seems to me you put off those troop withdrawals, you send exactly the wrong message to the Iraqis."


On Wednesday, Bush will visit the Pentagon to be briefed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chaired by Adm. Michael Mullen.

The American troop level in Iraq "depends on the negotiations that we are engaged in now between the government of Iraq and the United States government," al-Rubaie said.

When conditions warrant the withdrawal of American troops, the Iraqis will say "'Thank you very much, indeed,' " al-Rubaie said. "A big, big thank you for the United States of America for liberating Iraq, for helping us in sustaining the security gains in Iraq ... and we will give them a very, very good farewell party then."

Responding to recent remarks from U.S. presidential candidates that Iraqis are not taking responsibility for their own future, al-Rubaie said Iraqis are making political and security gains.

"Literally by the day and by the week, we are gradually assuming more responsibility," he said, noting that Iraqis have taken responsibility for security in many provinces.

Other developments:

• U.S. troops raided a suspected suicide bomber cell in Diyala province on Sunday, killing a dozen militants, half of whom had shaved their bodies -- which the U.S. military says indicates they were in the final stage of preparation for a suicide attack. Diyala province stretches north and east of Baghdad and has been a major front for U.S. troops fighting militants.

• Several mortars landed in Baghdad's International Zone on Sunday, according to the Interior Ministry. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said there were no major casualties.

• A suicide car bomb exploded at a fuel station Sunday in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood in northwest Baghdad, killing seven people and wounding 12 others, the Interior Ministry said.

• A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives outside the main gate of an Iraqi military base in Mosul, killing at least 10 Iraqi soldiers and wounding 35 people, including 20 soldiers, Mosul police said. The U.S. military put the death toll higher, at 12.

• A mortar round landed in a Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, killing seven people and injuring nine others, a ministry official said. Six more mortar rounds landed in other Baghdad neighborhoods Sunday night, killing three people, the Interior Ministry said.

• In southeastern Baghdad, gunmen riding in at least two cars opened fire on a crowded outdoor market, killing at least three people and wounding 17 others, the Interior Ministry said.

• A suicide bomber detonated a small truck rigged with explosives outside a local Awakening Council leader's house just east of Samarra on Saturday, killing at least five people and wounding 13 others, a Samarra police official said. Awakening Councils are largely Sunni security groups that have been recruited by the U.S. military.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/23/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories


© 2008 Cable News Network



Powered by ScribeFire.

Friday, March 21, 2008


Richardson Calls Out Clinton Adviser: Richardson’s backing was sought by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.



(CNN) – Bill Richardson criticized a Clinton campaign adviser Friday for suggesting his endorsement of Barack Obama is insignificant.

"I resent the fact that the Clinton people are now saying that my endorsement is too late because I only can help with Texans — with Texas and Hispanics, implying that that's my only value," the New Mexico governor told CNN's John King.

"That's typical of some of his advisers that kind of turned me off."Earlier Friday, Clinton campaign senior strategist Mark Penn said he thought Richardson's endorsement came too late to make an impact.

“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed," Penn told reporters on a conference call. "I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”

In the interview Friday, Richardson also said he called Hillary Clinton Thursday to inform her of his decision to back Obama, a conversation he described as "painful."

"It was painful and it wasn't easy," he said. "I've spoken to others who have had that same conversation and they say at the end, it’s not all that pleasant.

"The former Democratic presidential candidate declined to elaborate further on his conversation with Clinton.Last month, Chris Dodd — another former presidential candidate who decided to endorse Obama last month — said he had a "not comfortable" conversation with Clinton informing her of the news.

Also in the interview Friday, Richardson said he ultimately decided to back Obama because the Illinois senator has "something special."

"I think that Sen. Obama has something special,” explained Richardson. “Something that can bring internationally America’s prestige back, that can deal with the race issue as he did so eloquently last week, that can deal with the domestic issues in a bipartisan way."

Richardson, who held posts as the Secretary of Energy and the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. in President Clinton’s administration, also said he "owes a lot to the Clinton family but I served well. I paid it back in service to the country."



Posted on CNN's politicalticker at 05:15 PM ET

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Is Hagel right that it may be time for a new political party?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:



The U.S. needs independent leadership and maybe even a new political party.

Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican and one of the very few class acts in Washington, has a new book out, “America: Our Next Chapter.” Hagel writes, “In the current impasse, an independent candidate for the presidency, or a bipartisan unity ticket… could be appealing to Americans.”

Hagel, who is a Vietnam veteran, also suggests that the war in Iraq might be remembered as one of the five biggest blunders in all of history. He says that the invasion 5 years ago was “the triumph of the so-called neoconservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence.”


Hagel says he held one of the Senate’s strongest records of support for President Bush, but his standing as a Republican was still doubted because of his opposition to the administration’s foreign policy – one he sees as “reckless” and “divorced from a strategic context.”


Hagel announced last year that he wouldn’t run for a third Senate term or seek the Republican nomination for president. His name was often mentioned as a potential running mate for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on an independent presidential ticket. But last month, Bloomberg said he wouldn’t run.

Posted: March 20, 2008 at 04:35 PM ET


Powered by ScribeFire.

A Stupid Conversation: As the United States and Europe bicker, the Atlantic alliance is losing influence

I wonder if what the world most needs from the United States is for the United States to abide by its Constitution (rather than work around it), set an example of Liberty at home (rather than impose it abroad), and speak truth to the world (rather than vomiting self-serving hack)?! The greatest influence we can have is on the imagination of others...

Reports of the death of American hegemony have been greatly exaggerated, as I argued in my last column. But this does not mean all is well. The fall of the dollar is one obvious indicator of relative decline; Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's celebratory visit to Baghdad is another. Last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the International Herald Tribune's Roger Cohen that "the magic is over."

America and Europe face political, economic and demographic challenges to their longstanding primacy. This is a delicate moment for a power transition, given the host of emerging global threats: global warming, nuclear proliferation, macroeconomic imbalances, terrorism, the need to reform global governance and so on. The question is, can the United States and the European Union continue to exercise leadership on these issues? The answer, at best, is, "not for long."

The signals of a decline in Western influence are getting hard to ignore. The Center for Transatlantic Relations reports a mixed bag. On the one hand, in 2006 the United States and European Union were responsible for less than 30 percent of world exports. On the other hand, the two regions accounted for more than 75 percent of outward foreign direct investment. As Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski recently put it, "talk of decline of the West is as old as the West itself."

To assess the strength of the transatlantic relationship, I attended the Brussels Forum, an all-star confab orchestrated by the German Marshall Fund (GMF). The conference made it clear that relations between America and Europe have recovered significantly from the trough of 2002-2003. This accords with public opinion. A just-released British Council poll found that strong majorities in America and Europe want a closer partnership. Both the United States and the European Union have been humbled in recent years by missteps in the application of hard power and soft power, as Constanze StelzenmĂźller pointed out in a GMF briefing paper. The rise of new state threats (Russia, Iran) and nonstate threats (see above) have led the transatlantic neighborhood to recognize that they have more common than divergent interests.

That's the good news. The bad news is that it is far from clear whether Washington and Brussels are truly focused on external challenges and threats. The same poll revealed that both Americans and Europeans were unimpressed with transatlantic cooperation on peacekeeping, global warming, human rights, poverty reduction and counterterrorism. The elites attending the Brussels Forum seem to share this skepticism. When panelists at one meeting devoted the bulk of their time to carping about past disputes (like NATO expansion) and second-tier issues (like Kosovo), former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke complained: "We're having a really stupid conversation."

Unfortunately, this trope repeated itself throughout the conference. At dinner one evening, I was sandwiched between a Bundestag representative and an Austrian ambassador. Conversation was lacking until the question of Turkish admission to the European Union came up. Both guests remarked that it was a mistake to have offered the Ankara accession negotiations to admit Turkey to the EU. They agreed that Russia was more a part of Europe than Turkey. At the same time, rumors were flying of a secret plan to sneak Turkey into the Union. This symbolizes a chronic problem that plagues the EU: any effort to present a common external front gets sidetracked by persistent questions about defining Europe's borders.

The United States is just as incapable of action. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry said that for state-building to proceed in Afghanistan, military efforts need to be augmented with civilian efforts. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer concurred, noting that there was "a substantial gap" between military and civilian capacities for crisis management. This echoed a theme that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stressed late last year: the State Department needs more money and resources to advance American interests in the Middle East. When one cabinet secretary lobbies for more money for a different cabinet agency, it's a sign that America's foreign-policy budget is way out of whack.

On issues where the transatlantic partnership really does have the lead, it's hard to see forward progress. In Afghanistan, NATO is paralyzed by the fact that only the Canadians are willing to send troops to the Kandahar region. If the alliance cannot scrape together another battalion to send to the region before NATO's Bucharest summit next month, then the Canadians will withdraw.

On trade, no one at the conference sees any forward progress on the Doha Round; experts were advocating a "pause" in those talks. Trade liberalization is a negotiation process in which the parties ostensibly see a win-win. If the United States and European Union cannot agree on reducing agricultural subsidies, how can they possibly agree on how to reduce global warming?

Perhaps the West's difficulties are overstated. Perhaps conferences like the Brussels Forum allow Americans and Europeans to vent their frustrations as a first step toward problem solving. Nevertheless, both the Bush administration and the Barroso Commission are in their lame-duck years. At a time when urgent action is needed, status-quo policies are likely until 2009.

Perhaps the magic is still there, but as Kouchner gloomily concluded, "I knew what was the West, and I don't know what the West is now."

By Daniel Drezner


Updated: 6:15 PM ET Mar 20, 2008

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/124417

© 2008


Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Looking Backwards In Order To Move Forward: A New Chance To Fix The GDP Metric

I think there is something to this. While it may be as illusive as Einstein's Unified Field Theory, finding a way to truly measure the health of our society, not just an economic metric, could positively impact national, state, and local policy-making.

Today, March 18, 2008 is the fortieth anniversary of one of Robert F. Kennedy's most famous speeches, given just months before his assassination.

In it, RFK performed a rhetorical evisceration of our national economic report card, Gross National Product. You can watch a great new video of his remarks, prepared by the Glaser Progress Foundation. He said:

"Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. . . . Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

His words have circulated in the writings of economic critics ever since. Yet Washington, DC has done essentially nothing to correct the flawed accounts, until now. There’s now a chance for action.

Last week, US Senator Byron Dorgan held hearings on GDP accounting and declared his intention to improve it. (GNP has given way to GDP in public discourse, but there are no important differences between them.) His timing couldn’t be better. Outside of Washington, economists and statisticians have been quietly elaborating methods for giving the nation a better tally of its prosperity. A National Academy of Sciences panel, for example, has laid out an exhaustive, sober, and detailed plan for issuing regular reports on several “satellite accounts” in tandem with the monetary tally of GDP. The present administration stopped the Department of Commerce from adopting the improved methods.

A new president, supported perhaps by Senator Dorgan and like-minded leaders, will have the opportunity to seize the challenge RFK threw down four decades ago. The implications could be broader than you’d imagine. For example, whether we’re in a recession or not depends entirely on what our system of national accounts includes and excludes.

Imagine the news stories that might follow if satellite accounts were published along with GDP figures: "GDP up; parents' time with kids plummets." "GDP flat; education surges." "GDP and resource depletion both soar."

A decade of such headlines might refocus our national attention. It might spur us to organize our society to win on measures more meaningful than gross production: things like the health of our families, the strength of our communities, and the integrity of our natural heritage.

A few hours of hearings on Capitol Hill might not seem like much. But it was at least a small watershed. In his testimony at the hearing, Dr. Steven Landefeld, who runs the Department of Commerce bureau that tracks GDP, mentioned that in his thirteen years in that role he has never before been asked before a Congressional committee to discuss his agency’s work. Not once. Until last week.

Somewhere, Robert F. Kennedy is smiling.

(Disclosure: The Glaser Progress Foundation has long been a generous supporter of Sightline Institute, but I would have posted this even if I’d never heard of them.)


by Alan Durning
WorldChanging Team

March 19, 2008 11:07 AM


Powered by ScribeFire.

Clinton Calendars Full of Unexplained Private Meetings

I found this curious blog entry at Deep Background. I would hate to know that my life would be so thoroughly investigated and picked apart.

Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's calendar entries are full of unexplained private meetings on key dates when she and President Clinton were fending off a variety of scandals, the newly released White House records show.

Take Jan. 21, 1998. That's the day when most Americans first learned, courtesy of the Washington Post, that President Clinton had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton's calendar entry shows that she left the White House at 7:25 pm that evening and returned 25 minutes later. The National Archives, which released the 17,484 calendar pages today, has excised the reason for the brief trip and the names of any of the people whom Mrs. Clinton may have met. The Archives, working in consultation with President Clinton's representatives, cite privacy concerns in blacking out all details of the trip.

Dec. 22, 2000 also remains a bit of a mystery. That's the day when Mrs. Clinton and the President met in the White House with a New York rabbi who successfully lobbied President Clinton to commute the sentences of four Hassidic men who had been convicted of massive fraud and conspiracy. The commutations were extremely controversial at the time, and photos of the meeting exist. And yet, there's no mention of it in Mrs. Clinton's daily log. The calendar simply lists four separate "private meetings" in the Map Room that day, with no names attached.

On Jan. 4, 1996, the calendars also record four "private" meetings that the First Lady held with her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, and undisclosed others. That's the same day that one of the First Lady's aides discovered a stack of Mrs. Clinton's law-firm billing records in the private quarters of the White House. Whitewater investigators had been searching for the subpoenaed documents for months.

A team of NBC News producers, correspondents and researchers pored over the White House logs today. The calendar entries show, as Sen. Clinton has argued on the campaign trail, that as first lady she had a continuing interest in substantive foreign policy matters, including Bosnia and the effort to find peace in Northern Ireland. “These documents are outlines of the First Lady's activities and illustrate the array of substantive issues she worked on,” Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson said. “Her daily schedules also list some of the meetings and travel she conducted to more than 80 countries in pursuit of the Administration's domestic and foreign policy goals.”

Foreign Policy Experience?
But the calendars also seem to show that, on occasion, Mrs. Clinton was not substantively involved with foreign affairs when a real 3 a.m. crisis hit the White House.

Take, for example, when Al Qaeda terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing hundreds of people. Mrs. Clinton’s schedule does not show any foreign policy meetings in the aftermath of the crisis, only a trip to Andrews Air Force Base to console victims and their families as they returned from Africa to the United States. And when, in retaliation for those embassy attacks, President Clinton bombed Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan, where was Mrs. Clinton? The records show that she was vacationing at a “private residence” in Martha’s Vineyard, Ma., and had no official events.

Foreign trips offer a mixed review of Mrs. Clinton’s national-security experience. On a trip to Japan and Korea in 1993, for example, her schedule was filled with teas, tours of gardens and other traditional first lady fare. And on a trip to Russia in 1994, Mrs. Clinton met with other first ladies and attended coffees and tours, separate from her husband or the Russian president. Clinton campaign spokesman Carson described the calendars as only a “guide,” and said that they “of course cannot reflect all of Senator Clinton's activities as First Lady.”

Indeed, on overseas trips in 1996, Mrs. Clinton held "private" or "closed" meetings with foreign heads of state in Greece, Turkey, and Bosnia--without the president's attendance. And on dozens of times throughout her White House years, she attended White House meetings with Cabinet secretaries, was briefed by senior National Security Council officials and met with foreign dignitaries from around the world.

Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:16 PM PT

By Jim Popkin, NBC News Senior Investigative Producer



--NBC News contributors to this report include: Erika Angulo, Rich Gardella, Alicia Jennings, EJ Johnson, Mike Kosnar, Luke Mayo, CarrollAnn Mears, Amna Nawaz, Aram Roston, Antoine Sanfuentes and Ken Strickland.



Powered by ScribeFire.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

On Your Health: It seems our bodies are less like a temple...and more like a car!



Just like a car, your body needs routine maintenance. Here's an easy schedule to follow
Turn on and tune-up!
Woman on scale
Steve Cole / Getty Images

Just
like your car, your body needs routine maintenance. In the April issue
of Women’s Health, we put together an easy schedule to keep you on
track. This tune-up calendar will tell you what to do and when to do
it.

To live a long, healthy life, women should start
their body maintenance routine young. We recommend starting in your 20s
and continuing the schedule, with a few additions along the way, into
your 30s and 40s and beyond. No matter what your age, it’s never too
late to start taking proper care of yourself.

Daily

Floss
Even
if you brush twice a day, decay-causing bacteria can still lurk between
teeth. That sets you up for gum disease, which raises the risk of heart
disease, stroke, and, if you're pregnant, pre-term delivery. Gingivitis
can affect even young adults: More than 50 percent of people over 30
have it.

Step on the scale
Studies show that people who weigh themselves every day are more likely to maintain a healthy weight.

Take a multivitamin
Throughout
your 20s, a multivitamin offers an essential boost of iron and folic
acid. And no matter what your age, if you're trying to get pregnant (or
already are), you need these minerals to help prevent birth defects.

In your 30s and 40s, the calcium and vitamin D in a good multi will help keep your skeleton strong.

Get the 101 on vitamins here.

Weekly
Intimate couple
Lucas Lenci / Lucas Lenci Photo

Get it on
Research
has shown that having sex once or twice a week boosts by 30 percent
your body's production of immunoglobulin A, an antibody that sends
viruses and bacteria packing.
Every 3-6 months

Open up and say "ahh"
You
need to see your dentist at least twice a year to check for cavities,
get a professional polishing, and keep up with X-rays. Make sure at
least one visit each year includes an inspection of your lips, gums and
tongue for oral cancer: Because the disease spreads fast, early
detection is crucial.

Screen for STDs
Most are curable, but if you put off testing, you could compromise your fertility and your health.

Certain
you're not infected? Don't be: Noticeable symptoms often don't show up
for months, or ever. Get screened if you've recently had a new partner,
if the person you're seeing has (or you suspect it), or if you've never
been tested. The big three to check for are chlamydia, gonorrhea and
HIV. You can even order at-home tests through the mail.

Yearly
Eye chart and eyeglasses
Getty Images / MedioImages

Show your doc some skin
Melanoma
- the deadliest form of skin cancer - is on the rise in women, and 25
percent of those cases occur before age 40. See a dermatologist once a
year for a full-body screening.

And every couple of
months, do a mirror check for moles that are asymmetrical, have
irregular borders, change in color, or are larger than a pencil eraser.

See an ob-gyn
Show
up for the routine poking and prodding (i.e., a breast and pelvic exam
and a Pap smear) every year. If you're at high risk for cervical
cancer, ask your doctor for an HPV test too: Research shows that it's
nearly 40 percent better than the Pap at detecting precancerous lesions.

Have your eyes examined
Get
tested for glaucoma, macular degeneration, and cataracts starting at
age 35 - earlier if the guy across the bar starts looking less than
high-def.

Get a mammogram
Do it yearly starting at age
40. If you have a family history of breast cancer, get checked at least
five years before the earliest age that cancer was diagnosed in your
family. If you're at very high risk, your doc may also recommend an
MRI, which gives a more detailed picture of your breast tissue.

Every 2-3 years

Have a physical
Many
women figure that a yearly ob-gyn visit covers all the necessary bases.
But lots of health problems - including heart disease, the top killer
of women - can't be detected in your nether regions. In addition to any
tests you're due for, a doc should check your heartbeat, blood
pressure, height and weight.

Get a Pap smear
If
you're over 30 and have had two or more consecutive normal smears and
no new sexual partners, it's safe to reduce the frequency of your Paps.

Screen for diabetes
Get
your blood glucose levels checked once you hit 45. Go earlier if you're
overweight, have a family history of diabetes, or are trying to get
pregnant.

Every 5 years

Get a full lipid profile
Beginning
at age 20, have your LDL, HDL, total cholesterol and triglyceride
levels checked. If your levels are high, you may need to be screened
more frequently.

Get a thyroid check
More than
eight out of 10 thyroid disease patients are women, and since the
symptoms tend to be common complaints that are easy to dismiss (aches,
fatigue, weight gain), you may not even realize you have a problem.
Start having your thyroid hormone levels screened when you're 35.

Source: Women's Health

Updated: 5:00 p.m. ET Mar. 18, 2008

© 2008 MSNBC.com


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23692514/



Powered by ScribeFire.

Obama: "A More Perfect Union"

As Prepared for Delivery, on March 18, 2008

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories tha t we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naĂŻve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, March 17, 2008

This is one of the most emotionally painful scenes from a movie that I have ever watched. Evan and Gabi refuse to watch the movie with me because of this scene...and I do not blame them.

The snippet is from Mission to Mars. The crew made it to the red planet, but their ship was battered by micro meteoroids resulting in catastrophic failure of the ship during orbital insertion. The crew is attempting to transfer to the resupply module to safely make it to the planet's surface. Woody and Teri are married.



This is too good to pass up...can you see inside the Bush/Cheney psyche? It seems to me that they have developed a John Wayne war movie romanticized view of war and death. To counteract this unrealistic view, perhaps they could both sit down and reflect on their own war experiences: lost time with family, financial hardship, death of comrades, killing another human being, and the horror of collateral damage. Oops...I forgot.

By the way...I do not know if or how I would serve during a time a war, nor do I think that military service should be a prerequisite for elected office. Nonetheless, I do not believe in the practicalities of a Just War...war is always a failure, even if it may be, regrettably, necessary. I am unclear on how a follower of Christ can assume the role of a servant with a gun in his/her hand and malice in his/her heart. Finally, I would at least expect that our Congress would actually declare war as our Constitution dictates. In light of how our nation has deployed its armed forces since World War II, none of the aforementioned criteria has been satisfactorily met. Hence, I would have to respectfully, and conscientiously, object to such service on behalf of my nation, unless I could be allowed to bind the wounds of friend and enemy alike.

Honest Answers on Oil Prices?

Excerpted from MSNBC's Answer Desk...

By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
updated 7:58 p.m. CT, Sun., March. 16, 2008

This week, readers are looking for honest answers on the reasons behind the recent spike in oil prices. Some may not like what they hear, but we'll give it a shot.

Let’s be honest. We all know that the oil market is being manipulated to drive up the price and profit for oil companies. … Do you think anybody in DC will do anything or are they just too busy cashing those lobbyists’ checks to keep the unimaginable profits rolling in?
— Richard A., Covington, Ga.

The honest answer is the reason oil prices keep setting records is that demand for fossil fuels is growing faster than the world’s oil producers can find new sources to satisfy that demand and replace the oilfields that are used up. A lot of readers don't like that answer, but it's the truth.

Prices of commodities in limited supply — gold, corn, Hannah Montana tickets on eBay — are set by the market, not the producer. The latest price is set by the last buyer, often represented by those folks waving their hands around and screaming in the trading pits, based on what the buyer is willing to pay for it. If a producer decided to ask for, say, $125 a barrel when the market price was at $100, why would anyone pay that price?

There was a time, in the early days of the Texas oil boom, when crude came out of the ground faster than producers could find a place to put it and each new gusher sent prices crashing. Eventually, the Texas Railroad Commission won the right to set limits on oil production and, in effect, set prices. That worked well as long as the U.S. companies regulated by the commission produced almost all of the world’s oil. But by the 1970s, that era was over, and Mideast producers formed OPEC, a cartel modeled after the TRC. But with so many players in today's global oil market, even OPEC has had mixed success in managing prices as its members squabbled over political differences and cheated on assigned production quotas.

Today, independent oil producers like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and BP are relatively small players — as big as they are. The bulk of oil is produced by non-U.S., state-owned oil companies — many of them in parts of the world where corruption, underinvestment or violence have hurt efforts to expand production.

Congress has no more control over oil prices that you do. Some countries, like China and Venezuela, keep prices low by subsidizing the cost to retail buyers. That could happen here too, but all you would do is take taxes paid by everyone and give them to people who use gasoline. You would also encourage people to use more gasoline, which is not a great idea when it’s harder and harder to find the oil needed to make it.

Congress could, and should, end the large tax subsidies it handed out to oil companies to promote oil production a few years ago — just as those companies began setting record profits. There’s no reason they can’t use those profits money to explore for oil and leave the tax breaks for companies that need them. Congress could also raise the amount of money it charges oil companies for the right to drill in areas controlled by the federal government. That oil belongs to the U.S. taxpayer — oil companies just lease the right to produce it. And Congress could open up more oil-rich offshore areas under its control to drilling, demanding strict environmental controls and stiff fines to pay the cost of cleaning up any spills.

Making oil less profitable to produce means producers have that much less incentive to find more. But no matter how profitable, the era of “cheap” oil is over. The deeper oil companies have to drill, the higher the cost of producing the next barrel, and the higher the price goes. So we’re not going to produce our way out of the current fix we’re in.

That leaves the question of demand. Every barrel of oil you don’t consume is just as good as the new barrel of oil you find and produce. There, too, demand is being driven by forces outside the U.S., especially the rapid growth in the developing world. You can’t tell a billion Chinese workers in newly-built cities to go back home and leave the relatively high-paying jobs that are allowing them to accumulate enough wealth to own cars. As all those new cars hit the road, demand for gasoline will keep going up.

So if demand keeps rising, and you can’t find more oil fast enough, the only way to meet that growing demand is to get more out of each barrel. For American consumers, that means cars that go farther on each tank of fuel, which is where most of the oil consumed here ends up.

The same thing happened in the 70s: we all weatherproofed our homes, bought higher mileage cars and, lo and behold, oil demand actually dropped, which sent oil prices crashing.

There’s no reason the same thing can't happen again. So far, high prices don’t seem to have curtailed Americans' desire to zoom down the highway in low-mileage, high-powered trucks, most of which will never leave asphalt or haul a load and rarely carry more than one person. Until that changes there's little chance of bringing oil prices back down. Shifting blame on oil companies won’t make it happen.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Remembering Another Jeremiah

Pulled from a great site called Crooks and Liars...

I’ve been in communication with many other bloggers and progressive activists about various aspects of the primary race. It’s always been helpful to me to bounce ideas off of others and just check my gut reactions before I start blogging about a subject. As you might imagine, the media storm over Barack Obama’s relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Wright has resulted in a flurry of emails back and forth. One of the most thoughtful emails I got was from Jeff Sharlet, author of the upcoming book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, and I asked and received his permission to share it with you:

In contextualizing Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” it might be worth remembering another Jeremiah who expressed similar sentiments: namely, Jeremiah. As in, the prophet of the Hebrew Bible, or the “Old Testament,” if you prefer.

Why does that matter? Because it reminds us that a core function of one who attempts to speak in a prophetic voice is to remind us that we are in this together and that we’ll both prosper and suffer together. Many evangelical Christians speak of a “gift of discernment,” not unlike the “gift of tongues.” Us democratically-minded folk might do well to remember that that core concept of a democracy is that we all have some gift of discernment. So let’s use ours and consider the prophetic statements on offer:

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

For my money, my Bible, and my democracy, that last sentiment has the ring of truth, and I’m not even a religious man.

That doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment for a campaign trail. But it does mean that in framing this, we might want to turn our anger toward Fox and the NY Post and all those denouncing Jeremiah Wright rather than the man who says we suffer because of racism. Here is a pastor trying, perhaps not successfully, to preach accountability for hate, not for tolerance. And here is a media that is demanding that we NOT be held accountable for hate.

That is, mainstream media is telling us we must tolerate hate — Hagee — but not those who don’t believe we should tolerate hate — Wright.

Jeremiah Wright’s words were harsh, as were Jeremiah’s. As were Martin Luther King’s — “I have a dream” wasn’t his only speech, and he died holding America accountable for the war in Vietnam and the war against the poor at home. That’s not left, that’s not right, that’s not “racial,” that’s not “post-racial.” It’s prophetic. The Right’s screeching, meanwhile, is simply pathetic.

You can learn more about Jeff’s book on his blog, The Revealer. Diana Butler Bass at BeliefNet also wrote a very compelling piece that I hope puts to rest the accusation of hate in Rev. Wright’s sermons:

The current media flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor, strikes me as nothing short of strange. Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. Rather, being a church member means being part of a community of faith—a gathered people, always diverse and sometimes at odds, who constitute Christ’s body in the world.

But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.

I know because I am one of those white people. My first sustained encounter with African-American preaching came in graduate school about twenty years ago. I had been assigned as a teaching assistant to a course in Black Church Studies. The placement surprised me, since I had no background in the subject. But the professor assured me that “anyone with experience teaching American religion” would be able to handle the load.

The subject matter was not, as the professor indicated, difficult. The emotional content, however, was. To prepare, I had to read literally thousands of pages of black preaching and theology covering the entire scope of American history. While the particulars of preaching changed through time, one thing did not. Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters—accusing white Christians of maintaining “ease in Zion” while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression.

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass’ address, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. “Fellow-citizens,” Douglass proclaims, “above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them.” He goes on to calls American conduct “hideous and revolting” and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, “For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective—the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends—even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright’s “radical” sermons today, I do not hear the words of a “dangerous” preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant—I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

By: Nicole Belle on Sunday, March 16th, 2008 at 3:32 PM - PDT


Powered by ScribeFire.

Cocaine Abuse May Lead To Strokes and Mental Deficits

After viewing my Monday, March 10, 2008 post a second time, I decided to do some cursory research on the long-term effects of cocaine use since President Bush has admitted an earlier cocaine addiction. The purpose of this research is in no way scientific or partisan, I was just looking to see if some organic or prima facie correlation could be made. Take a look at what I pulled from NIDA NOTES, Volume 13, Number 3 (July, 1998).

By Steven Stocker, NIDA NOTES Contributing Writer

In 1977, a 43-year-old man came to an emergency room in New York City after having injected cocaine into a muscle in his left arm. Between 1 and 2 hours after the injection, he had begun having trouble speaking and was weak in his right arm and leg. After performing a brain scan, doctors at the hospital determined that the man had had a stroke on the left side of the brain. Although the man also abused other drugs, the fact that the stroke had occurred shortly after he had injected cocaine suggested that cocaine had contributed to the stroke. This case was one of the earliest verified reports of a stroke associated with cocaine use. In their report, the doctors concluded, "If, in fact, cocaine played a causal role [in the stroke], we anticipate that more strokes will be seen among the many abusers of this agent in American cities."

Their prediction turned out to be correct. In subsequent years, cocaine-related strokes became more frequent, particularly in the mid-1980s after the advent of crack cocaine. These strokes involved sudden dramatic reductions in blood flow to areas of the brain, resulting in neurological symptoms, such as paralysis, loss of speech, and dementia.

In the late 1980s, researchers began noticing another type of blood flow disturbance associated with cocaine use. This second type involved less dramatic but more persistent reductions in cerebral blood flow that could lead to difficulties concentrating, slowed thought processes, and memory deficits.


Until recently, scientists could only theorize about how cocaine was causing these cerebral blood flow disturbances. Now NIDA-supported scientists have learned more about how cocaine causes strokes and produces the persistent blood flow deficits. Other NIDA-funded researchers have observed that the brain damage caused by these deficits interferes with drug treatment, and they are studying how to modify treatment to accommodate patients with this type of brain damage.

Short-term Reductions in Blood Flow

Using magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), an imaging technique that shows blood flow in large- and medium-sized arteries in the brain, NIDA-funded researchers Dr. Marc Kaufman and Dr. Jonathan Levin and their colleagues at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, have demonstrated that cocaine use temporarily narrows arteries in the brain, thereby reducing the blood supply to various brain regions. Researchers had suspected this for many years because they knew that cocaine could cause vasoconstriction, or narrowing of blood vessels, in the heart and other regions of the body. This study conclusively demonstrated this effect in the human brain.

The researchers administered either cocaine or a placebo solution to 24 men, ages 24 to 34. The volunteers had used cocaine occasionally but were not dependent on the drug. The cocaine doses administered were relatively low, resulting in cocaine blood levels that were at the low end of the range typically experienced during cocaine abuse.

Images of the brain were obtained before and 20 minutes after the cocaine was administered. By comparing before and after images, the researchers could see where blood vessels were narrowed. Among the 7 men who received the placebo, only 1 showed blood vessel narrowing, but among the 9 men who received the lowest dose of cocaine, 3 had vasoconstriction in several brain arteries. Among the 8 men who received a higher dose, 5 showed this effect. The vasoconstrictions ranged from small reductions in blood vessel diameter to more significant obstructions of blood flow.

The more often the men had used cocaine in the past, the more likely the drug was to narrow blood vessels, which suggests that cocaine has a cumulative effect on brain arteries. "This cumulative effect may start with as few as 5 to 10 exposures to cocaine," says Dr. Kaufman. "As a result, people who use cocaine many times probably have a high incidence of vasoconstriction in their brains."

One possible outcome of cocaine's cumulative effect may be a stroke. As a result of many cocaine exposures, brain arteries may be more reactive to the chemical stimuli that normally cause them to constrict, Dr. Kaufman says. This constriction could substantially reduce the blood supply to a region for several minutes, thereby damaging nerve cells and possibly causing stroke-like symptoms. A more likely outcome of the cumulative effect would be persistent blood flow reductions to large areas of the brain. These reductions are less substantial than those that occur in a stroke and may not kill nerve cells, but they could cause thinking and memory deficits, says Dr. Kaufman.

Long-term Reductions in Blood Flow

Scientists began to observe that cocaine could cause persistent blood flow deficits in the brain in the mid-1980s. NIDA-funded scientist Dr. Nora Volkow and her colleagues at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, and at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston used another imaging technique called positron emission tomography (PET), which can show the flow of blood in the brain tissue rather than in the brain arteries, as MRA does. When the researchers compared PET scans of young adult cocaine-abusing men with scans of normal volunteers, they found that most of the abusers had less blood flow in some areas of the brain. When the researchers performed PET scans again 10 days later, the blood flow deficits were still there, even though the abusers had stopped using cocaine. Many of the volunteers had difficulties concentrating and performing simple calculations, which the researchers concluded were associated with the blood flow deficits.

Subsequently, other scientists verified that cocaine abusers had blood flow deficits in the brain and that these deficits persisted long after the individuals stopped abusing cocaine. Using a technique similar to PET called single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), Dr. Tony Strickland of Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles and the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine and his colleagues took brain images of cocaine abusers who had abstained from cocaine for at least 6 months before evaluation. Even after this long period of abstinence, the images showed that the abusers still had blood flow deficits compared to control subjects, suggesting that the deficits may be long-term or perhaps even permanent.

In addition to taking brain images with SPECT, Dr. Strickland's group also administered neuropsychological tests to the cocaine abusers. These tests detected many abnormalities that seemed to be associated with reduced activity in the parts of the brain affected by the reduced blood flow. These abnormalities included deficits in attention, memory, concept formation, and mental flexibility. The tests also showed that long-term cocaine abusers had trouble inhibiting inappropriate behaviors, a condition psychologists call disinhibition.

Dr. Levin, who worked on the MRA study with Dr. Kaufman, thinks that chronic cocaine abuse may lead to strokes and long-term blood flow deficits by accelerating atherosclerosis in brain arteries. Atherosclerosis is a thickening on the inside of blood vessels that some researchers believe makes the vessels more likely to go into vasospasm, which is a vasoconstriction that lasts for minutes rather than seconds. "Let's say a blood vessel in a person's brain has atherosclerosis as a result of some injury to the blood vessel. If the person takes a compound such as cocaine that causes vasoconstriction, the part of the blood vessel that is likely to go into spasm is the part with the atherosclerosis," explains Dr. Levin. This vasospasm may then damage the inner lining of the blood vessel, which would further promote the development of atherosclerosis. If the person continues to take cocaine, more vasospasms would occur and hence more atherosclerosis. "It becomes a vicious cycle," he says.

This would explain how cocaine could cause strokes. Eventually, the vasospasms induced by cocaine last so long that nerve cells die from a lack of blood. The explanation for the persistent blood flow deficits might be that the atherosclerosis is slowly clogging the inside of the blood vessels, thereby reducing blood flow. One piece of evidence in favor of this theory is that aspirin has been shown to reverse temporarily the cerebral blood flow deficits caused by cocaine. Aspirin inhibits the formation of blood clots that are part of the atherosclerotic process.

Using a technology called transcranial Doppler sonography (TCD), Dr. Ronald Herning, Dr. Jean Lud Cadet, and colleagues in NIDA's Division of Intramural Research in Baltimore have found evidence that cocaine abusers do indeed have significant atherosclerosis in their brain arteries. In TCD, very high frequency sound waves are bounced off the blood flowing in large arteries in the brain, and the characteristics of the reflected sound waves can be used to estimate the constriction of the arteries. "Our data suggest that cocaine abusers in their thirties have arteries that are as constricted as those of normal subjects in their sixties," says Dr. Herning.

Mental Deficits

Drug treatment providers should be aware that mental deficits that develop in cocaine abusers as a result of reduced blood flow may hamper the ability of these patients to benefit from treatment, says Dr. Strickland. Some patients have trouble paying attention or remembering conversations; others disrupt the therapy by being disinhibited. They constantly interrupt the therapist, they begin tasks without waiting for all the instructions, and they may become aggressive.

Dr. Strickland recommends giving new drug abuse patients neuropsychological screening tests to identify their deficits. Once these deficits are identified, the therapist can modify the drug treatment to accommodate the deficits, he suggests. For example, if the patient has trouble paying attention and remembering, the therapist could present information in small segments and repeat each segment until the patient learns it.

A major component of therapy is simply informing these patients that their long-term drug abuse has changed the way their brains function, Dr. Strickland says. "Some of these patients know that something is wrong but don't know what it is," he says. "They are relieved to learn that they're not 'crazy' and that the source of their problems is that drugs have altered the way their brains process information. They also are relieved to learn that they can take steps to enhance their performance."

"Compared to patients who have brain injury from motorcycle accidents, gunshot wounds, or other causes, drug abuse patients have considerably less impairment," notes Dr. Strickland. "We're successful in helping traumatic brain injury patients, and so the chances of helping patients with drug-induced brain injury are comparatively good."

In addition to modifying drug abuse treatment to accommodate the mental deficits of cocaine abusers, NIDA scientists are also investigating the possibility of treating their blood flow and mental deficits with medications. TCD will be particularly useful for monitoring the blood flow effects of medications, says Dr. Herning. "TCD is a quick, easy, relatively inexpensive measure that can be used repeatedly, so you can give your subjects medications and monitor them weekly, which you cannot do with PET or SPECT."

Sources

Brust, J.C.M.; and Richter, R.W. Stroke associated with cocaine abuse? New York State Journal of Medicine 77:1473-1475, 1977.

Herning, R.I.; King, D.E.; Better, W.; and Cadet, J.L. Cocaine dependence: A clinical syndrome requiring neuroprotection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 825:323-327, 1997.

Kaufman, M.J., et al. Cocaine-induced cerebral vasoconstriction detected in humans with magnetic resonance angiography. The Journal of the American Medical Association 279(5):376-380, 1998.

Kosten, T.R.; Malison, R.; and Wallace, E. Neuropsychological abnormalities in cocaine abusers: Possible correlates in SPECT neuroimaging. In: Majewska, M.D., ed. Neurotoxicity and Neuropathology Associated with Cocaine Abuse. NIDA Research Monograph Series, Number 163. NIH Publication No. 96-4019. Pittsburgh, PA: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1996, pp. 175-192.

Strickland, T.L., et al. Cerebral perfusion and neuropsychological consequences of chronic cocaine use. Journal of Neuropsychiatry 5(4):419-427, 1993.

Strickland, T.L.; Stein, R.A.; Khalsa-Denison, M.E.; and Andre, K. Neuropsychological effects of chronic cocaine use following sustained abstinence. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 11(5):456-457, 1996.

Volkow, N.D.; Mullani, N.; Gould, K.L.; Adler, S.; and Krajewski, K. Cerebral blood flow in chronic cocaine users: A study with positron emission tomography. British Journal of Psychiatry 152:641-648, 1988.