STILL IN THE CLOSET

Lack of Democratic debates intentional

www.charlotteobserver.com

The Republican presidential candidates have demonstrated such an appetite for debates that if I set up nine lecterns in my living room on a weeknight around 8 p.m. and chanted “carpet bomb” and “anchor baby,” they’d probably materialize en masse, even before I had time to vacuum and put out the artichoke dip.

But I could send save-the-date cards, promise canapés by Mario Batali and recruit Adele to belt out “Hello” whenever the doorbell rang: Still the Democrats wouldn’t show up.

For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet.

Tuesday night’s meeting of Republicans was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third.

And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind.

The previous meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than 9 million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each.

In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate averaged 18 million viewers.

The Republican events certainly have seductions that the Democratic ones don’t. But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things.

Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O'Malley cried foul. So did a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over.

But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy. Shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can?

I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more griping about this. What I’ve heard instead is the concern that if Clinton indeed gets the nomination, she'll enter the general election less battle-tested than she’d be if she were facing stiffer primary competition and enduring a greater number of higher-stakes debates.

A politician who’s been through Whitewater, Travelgate, impeachment, an emotional 2008 campaign against Barack Obama and several Benghazi inquisitions doesn’t strike me as someone who needs more battle experience.

The real danger for her is that she’s become all armor.

And a real vulnerability is that she’s seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus too distant from everyday Americans.

That’s one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton can’t afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules don’t apply to her.

And the Democratic Party can’t pretend that it’s done the right thing here. While these debates aren’t as high-minded as we’d wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, they’re an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates. They deserve priority and prominence. Artichoke dip optional.

Army women hurt more often in combat training, experience more mental health issues

Uhmmm duha!

www.washingtontimes.com

In basic combat training, women are injured at twice the rate of men. For example, among the fastest groups of men and women in a 2-mile run, the male injury rate is 10 percent and the female rate is 26 ... more >

Army women not only suffer more injuries than men during combat training, but the active-duty female soldiers also are stricken with significantly higher rates of mental health disorders.

The statistics come from a study conducted by the Army surgeon general last summer in conjunction with a bevy of analyses and experiments to judge women’s suitability for direct ground combat roles. It found, for example, that female soldiers suffer depression at more than double the rate of men and that one of the triggers is exposure to combat.

Still, the study concluded: “There is no medical basis to prohibit any [military occupational specialty] opening to females.”

The Obama administration announced Dec. 3 that it is opening all jobs in infantry, armor, artillery and special operations forces to women. The Pentagon then began releasing the services’ behind-the-scenes studies.

The Army numbers present a warning that if the Defense Department is going to usher a significant number of women into combat roles, which is its stated goal, the services will have to find better ways to prepare them physically and mentally.

In basic combat training, women are injured at twice the rate of men. For example, among the fastest groups of men and women in a 2-mile run, the male injury rate is 10 percent and the female rate is 26 percent. Women have a rate of stress factors during training four times higher than men.

Women also experience twice the injury rates of men when carrying 70 pounds of gear — about normal for an infantryman on patrol in combat.

Women’s injury rates are only slightly higher during deployments, but they have yet to join and deploy in direct land combat units.

The report says that “on average, female soldiers arrive at initial training relatively less fit than male soldiers.”

One idea to reduce women’s injury rates is to get them more physically fit, including the use of weight training. Another proposal is to boost iron levels, which have been shown to increase a woman’s ability to run faster.

“Bottom line,” the study states, “iron-deficient anemic female soldiers, when treated with supplements, run 1-2 minutes faster on 2 mile run.”

The June 24 study by Lt. Gen. Patricia Horoho, the Army surgeon general, recommends that the service “implement multivitamin with iron program for females during intense training.”

Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Center for Military Readiness, called the results a “scandal” because the Pentagon knowingly is increasing physical risks for women who now will be less, not more, likely to join the military.

“This is a major scandal in the making,” Mrs. Donnelly said. “Here you have United States Army, with its own medical study pointing to the injury rates at least double compared to men. This is a consistent finding across the board. And they are proceeding anyway. And there is no indication that young women considering military service will be informed of the additional risk they will face over and above what men do. Once you sign up, they are going to be assigned to jobs beyond their strength anywhere the Armywants to send you.”

‘Real phenomena’

On the mental health front, or what theArmy refers to as “behavioral health,” the disparity between men and women is striking.

Women have double the rate of the disorder of not adjusting to Army life. They have more than double the rate of depression, at 500 cases per 100,000 compared with 210 for men. They suffer a 50 percent higher rate of anxiety. They have about the same rate of post-traumatic stress disorder. Men have twice the alcohol abuse rate, at 200 per 100,000 soldiers.

“Incidence rates of many [behavior health] disorders are higher among female than male soldiers,” the study concludes.

As a cure, the study says, “programs exist to promote mitigation of risk and enhancement of protective factors through the soldier life cycle.”

Of the top 10 diagnoses that result in soldier hospitalizations, five are results of mental health disorders.

Women are most at risk of behavioral health disorders during career or life transitions, when exposed to combat or when they become victims of assault.

Women make up about 14 percent of the 1.3 million active force, with about 70,000 female soldiers.

The disorders could affect the force because the attrition rates can run as high as 62 percent for both men and women within a year of diagnosis.

Retired Army Col. James Griffith, a research psychologist, said many of theArmy’s findings “parallel what we know about mental health between men and women in the general population.”

“For example, much more common among women than men are disorders of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress,” Mr. Griffith said. “Much more common among men are disorders of personality and alcohol/drug dependency.”

He said he is not aware of a study on how the disparity will affect combat performance. Not in the Army study are civilian women’s mental health rates and how they compare with those of military women.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was asked about the female injury rate when he announced his sweeping decision.

He answered: “There are a number of studies that indicated that. Again, that’s something that doesn’t suggest to me that women shouldn’t be admitted to those specialties, if they’re qualified. But it’s something that needs, that’s going to need to be taken into account in implementation. So these are real phenomena that affect gender, that are, rather, affected by gender and need to be taken into account in implementation.”

Healing the ‘rift’

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fell into the dicey situation of disagreeing with Mr. Carter and did not attend the Dec. 3 press conference.

As Marine commandant just a few months ago, Gen. Dunford opposed opening Marine infantry units to women because of injury rates that materialized in an experimental coed unit. The Corps concluded that this presented a risk to combat effectiveness and thus endangered more lives.

On Monday, Gen. Dunford appeared at a defense conference hosted by the Center for a New American Security.

Anna Mulrine, a reporter with the Christian Science Monitor, sharply questioned him and purported to speak for a number of Marine women.

She said, “I guess throughout this process there have been a number of women who got the message, as a Marine Corps, ‘We don’t want you in these jobs. You’re going to ruin everything. You’re going to ruin the camaraderie, the fun, the fighting, the effectiveness of the force.’”

Ms. Mulrine asked Gen. Dunford how he was going to heal this “rift.”

“I don’t actually believe that there is some huge rift,” Gen. Dunford said. “Be honest with you, it would break my heart if I thought this were true.

“Even in the recommendation I made, we were going to open up all but a very few [military occupational specialties]where the data indicated there were some challenges we had to overcome. The secretary has determined we will overcome those in implementation. And that’s where I’m at right now.”

He added: “In terms of the value of women in the Marine Corps, I think the record speaks for itself over the last 10 or 12 years, and we certainly trumpeted that. There may be in Washington, D.C., some perception that women in the Marine Corps don’t feel valued. I’ve spent a hell of a lot of time with Marines, and I think I can sniff out BS when I see it and I don’t actually think that’s true. I think Marines are proud to be Marines and the women who’ve had different opinions than me have been quite vocal in sharing those with me in a very professional way. I don’t think there’s a rift to heal.”

Fugitive monkey goes on the run because he was being bullied

www.telegraph.co.uk

File photo: Tamil, the missing lion-tailed macaque from Howletts Animal Park, Kent Photo: SWNS

A monkey on the run in Kent has been missing for two days because he was bullied by other primates.

The lion-tailed macaque is still on the loose despite keepers setting traps and searching the fields and countryside around the animal park.

Keepers from Howletts Animal Park, Kent, are continuing the search for Tamil, the six-year-old macaque who ran away from the zoo on Tuesday night.

It is thought that in-fighting with other macaques in his enclosure prompted Tamil to run away.

Adrian Harland, Animal Director said: "It is common for young male primates to fight as they become more dominant.

“If you’re at the bottom of the hierarchy, it’s likely your position will be made very clear. To run away from aggression is the reasonable response of any primate.” Kit Opie

Man Wearing Tin Foil Hat Faces Firearm Raps

www.thesmokinggun.com

DECEMBER 17--An “agitated” Internal Revenue Service employee was wearing a tin foil hat last week when Massachusetts cops confronted him for illegally possessing several firearms, according to a police report.

Acting on information provided by a Department of Homeland Security investigator, Tewksbury cops Tuesday afternoon pulled over a car driven by Roland Moore, a 46-year-old IRS customer service worker.

The federal agent had told police that he was investigating Moore, who had recently been “evaluated for possible mental health issues.” During conversations with IRS inspectors, Moore reportedly admitted to having guns in his Tewksbury home. A records check, however, showed that Moore’s firearms license had been suspended nearly six years earlier following an assault arrest.

As detailed in a Tewksbury Police Department report, when cops contacted Moore, he was “wearing a piece of tinfoil on his head under his cap” and he was “agitated” by the presence of law enforcement officers.

Moore, who admitted having four firearms in his home, denied a police request to enter the residence and retrieve the weapons. “Moore laughed and stated that it was his natural right to have guns to protect him home,” noted DetectiveAndrew Richardson.

As first reported by The Lowell Sun, police subsequently secured a search warrant for Moore’s home and seized the four guns, two of which were loaded. They also removed a “large amount of ammunition and supplies to manufacture ammunition” from the property.

Moore was charged with four weapons possession counts, as well as failure to surrender firearms as ordered following his assault bust. Moore, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, is free on his own recognizance.

A District Court judge has barred Moore from possessing dangerous weapons and ammo and has directed him to comply with any current mental health treatment. Moore is next due in court on January 26. 

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

'I started the Arab Spring. Now death is everywhere, and extremism blooming'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Tunisian municipal officer Faida Hamdy Photo: AFP

It is hardly surprising that when Faida Hamdy wonders whether she is responsible for everything that happened after her moment of fame she is overwhelmed.

Mrs Hamdy was the council inspector who, five years ago today confiscated the vegetable stall of a street vendor in her dusty town in central Tunisia.

In despair, that young man set himself on fire in a protest outside the council offices. Within weeks, he was dead, dozens of young Arab men had copied him, riots had overthrown his president, and the Arab Spring was under way.

As the world marks the anniversary, Syriaand Iraq are in flames, Libya has broken down, and the twin evils of militant terror and repression stalk the region.

Demonstrators face Egyptian police forces in the streets leading to Tahrir Square  Photo: Julian Simmonds?The Telegraph

“Sometimes I wish I’d never done it,” Mrs Hamdy told The Telegraph, in her only interview to mark the occasion.

Hers is a voice that has been rarely heard: the family of the young man, Mohammed Bouazizi, became unwilling celebrities in the weeks after his lingering death, but a nervous regime arrested Mrs Hamdy when the protests began.

By the time she was acquitted of all charges and released, President Zine el-Abedine Ben Ali had fallen, and media attention was focused on Egypt, Libya and Syria.

“I feel responsible for everything,” she went on. Her voice was shaky as she spoke of the traumatic consequences, five years that have transformed the Middle East but seemingly changed very little in poor, provincial towns like Sidi Bouzeid.

“Sometimes, I blame myself and say it is all because of me. I made history since I was the one who was there and my action contributed to it but look at us now. Meanwhile, Tunisians are suffering as always.”

Mohammed Bouazizi’s death triggered some deep nerve in the Arab world. Many myths were told about his own story and that of Mrs Hamdy, as there were about the nature of subsequent uprisings and downfalls, but there remains a basic truth underlying his experience and that of many others.

Demonstrators turn over a burned out car after reclaiming the side streets near Tahrir Square  Photo: Julian Simmonds/The Telegraph

Corruption, stifling bureaucracy, and repressive police states were holding back a largely youthful population across the region, and their victims had little way to make their frustrations felt other than extreme actions.

Subsequent studies found that self-immolation had already become a common act in Tunisia, accounting already for 15 per cent of all burns cases in Tunis hospitals. Within six months, more than 100 Tunisians had followed suit, and scores more around the Arab world, from Morocco to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, had also set themselves on fire.

Still, not many observers could have imagined the chaos that would ensue, even when Mr Ben Ali gave way to weeks of protest and boarded a plane for Saudi Arabia with his wife and a large chunk of the country’s gold reserves.

Next Hosni Mubarak of Egypt went, after 18 days of telegenic demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Then Col Muammar Gaddafi was forced out, after protests turned into civil war and then international war, with the West’s air forces joining in.

By the time he was bayoneted and shot in October 2011, Syria was in flames, and the West was starting to vacillate about its role, with effects that can still be seen today. Libya, Syria and much of Iraq remain failed states. Egypt is on the brink.

In the process a social uprising had turned into a conflict between Islamism, part peaceful, part violent, and secular governments and politicians; and then between religious sects, as Sunni and Shia turned on each other.

Despite Mrs Hamdy’s despair at the poverty that remains in Tunisia, the country is still seen as the sole success. It has had two general elections in the years since, with a moderate Islamist party, Ennahda, winning the first, before stepping into opposition in the face of an alliance between secular parties that included members of the former regime last year.

"When I look at the region and my country, I regret it all. Death everywhere and extremism blooming, and killing beautiful souls" Faida Hamdy

AMERICA FIRST – OR WORLD WAR III

THE WAR PARTY

Pat Buchanan: GOP hawks shouldn't assume President Putin is a coward

Published: 12 hours ago

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2012/03/Patrick-J.-Buchanan_avatar.jpg

 PATRICK J. BUCHANAN 
About | Email | Archive

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//favicon.ico

 Alerts 

image: http://mobile.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Read

     267

“If you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”

So said Rand Paul, looking directly at Gov. Chris Christie, who had just responded to a question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian plane that violated his no-fly zone in Syria.

“Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it,” blurted Christie: “I would talk to Vladimir Putin … I’d say to him, ‘Listen, Mr. President, there’s a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.’

“Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling … we have in the Oval Office … right now.”

Ex-Gov. George Pataki and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum would also impose a no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes that violated it. Said Gov. John Kasich, “It’s time we punched the Russians in the nose.”

Carly Fiorina would impose a no-fly zone and not even talk to Putin until we’ve conducted “military exercises in the Baltic States” on Russia’s border. Jeb Bush, too, would impose a no-fly zone.

These warhawks apparently assume that President Putin is a coward who, if you shoot down his warplanes, will back away from a fight.

Are we sure? After the Turks shot down that Sukhoi SU-24, Moscow sent fighter planes to Syria to escort its bombers and has reportedly deployed its lethal S-300 antiaircraft system there.

A U.S. Marine Corps aviator describes the S-300: “A complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Is Putin bluffing? Are we prepared to ride the up-escalator, at the top of which is nuclear war, if Putin, who has been boasting of his modernized nuclear forces, is also willing to ride it rather than back down?

Uber-hawk Lindsey Graham wants to send tens of thousands of American troops to fight ISIS, and refuses to work with Iran, Russia, or Syria’s Bashar Assad to crush our common enemy ISIS.

Graham prefers “allies,” like the Saudis and Gulf Arabs.

But both have bailed out of the air war on ISIS and sent troops and bombers instead to attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Result: The Houthis have been in retreat, and al-Qaida and ISIS are moving into the vacated territory.

Another Mideast base camp for terrorists is being created – by us.

“I miss George W. Bush!” wailed Graham in the undercard debate.

How many other Americans are, like Graham, pining for the return of a Bush foreign policy that gave us Barack Obama?

Yet, now, a rival school is taking center stage in the Republican presidential campaign, rejecting the knee-jerk hostility to working with Putin. Not only does Rand Paul belong to this school, so, apparently, do Donald Trump and his strongest challenger, Sen. Ted Cruz.

Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.

Cruz had previously disparaged the legacy of the “neocons” who prodded Bush into war in Iraq and championed a democracy crusade in the Middle East. In Las Vegas, he spoke of a new national-interest-based foreign policy, a policy that puts “America first.”

“If we topple Assad … ISIS will take over Syria, and it will worsen national security interests. And the approach – instead of being … a democracy promoter, we ought to hunt down our enemies and kill ISIS rather than creating opportunities for ISIS to control new countries.”

Cruz rejects the Manichaean worldview of the neocons and their reflexive hostility to Russia and appears willing to work with a Russian autocrat to crush a monstrous evil like ISIS, as U.S. presidents did in working with anti-Communist dictators to win the Cold War.

Midway through the debate, Trump cut loose with a sweeping indictment of mindless American interventionism in the Middle East:

“We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems – our airports and all the other problems we have – we would have been a lot better off. …

“We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East – we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away – and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports and everything else that are all falling apart!”

If we do not want Syria in 2016 to become what Sarajevo became in 1914, the powder keg that explodes into a world war, the War Party Republicans, who have learned nothing from the past, should be relegated to the past.

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/12/america-first-or-world-war-iii/#14XLt8uegbiRQ3ps.99

GOP Sells America Down the River - The Rush Limbaugh Show

RushLimbaugh

RUSH: The country was just sold down the river again by your very Republican Party. 

I have a headline here from the Washington Times:  "White House Declares Total Victory Over GOP in Budget Battle." That headline's a misnomer.  There was never a battle.  None of this was opposed.  The Republican Party didn't stand up to any of it, and the die has been cast for a long time on this.  I know many of you are dispirited, depressed, angry, combination of all of that. But, folks, there was no other way this could go. Because two years ago when the Republican Party declared they would never do anything that would shut down the government and they would not impeach Obama, there were no obstacles in Obama's way and there were no obstacles in the way of the Democrat Party. 

When you surrender the power of the purse -- and that's the primary power the House of Representatives has.  Not a penny of money can be spent in this country by this government without the House of Representatives authorizing it.  Obama can spend all he wants, but if the House doesn't give him the mechanism, he can't spend any of it.  But the Republicans squandered that.  They gave up the power of the purse.  The reason they did that is because for some inexplicable reason, they are literally paranoid and scared to death of even being accused of doing something that would shut down the government. 

So to avoid even the accusation that they were going to or would ever even think of shutting down the government, they signaled that whatever Obama wanted to spend, he would get, because they figured that had less damage to them politically than the allegation that they were shutting down the government.  So, very simply, ever since the Republican Party became the party of keeping the government open at all costs, we get bills like this.  There's simply no stopping the Democrats.  There's no mechanism.  Every constitutional mechanism found in the power of the purse, Separation of Powers, the Republican Party years ago gave it away, in total fear of the media. 

Now, there's also a factor that needs to be mentioned, too, and that is that many Republican donors want every bit of this money spent, and they have donated voluminously to key Republicans in order to get the money spent. So it's not all Republican fears. It's not all Republican caving.  A lot of it is Republican fealty and loyalty to some of their donors.  Some people today looking at this, and this is 2,009 pages.  It's said to be a spending bill.  Among the things that it does, it fully funds Obamacare. 

It fully funds Planned Parenthood.  That, to me, is unforgivable, with everything now known about what goes on behind closed doors at Planned Parenthood, and that the federal government, led by a Republican Party, sees fit to pay for it.  It is beyond comprehension, and it is a total squandering of moral authority to fully fund the butchery at Planned Parenthood.  This spending bill fully pays for Obama's refugee plans, fully.  This spending bill, this budget bill quadruples the number of visas Obama wants for foreign workers.  This is even a slap at American union workers.  Not the leaders.  The union leaders seem to be in favor of it, but blue-collar people, known as working people, have been sold down the river along with everybody else here. 

This spending bill even fully pays for every dime asked for by Obama on all of this idiocy that's tied up into climate change.  Everything Obama wanted, everything he asked for, he got.  You go down the list of things, it's there. 

And this is causing some people to wonder if they just dreamed all that stuff about Boehner resigning.  And then other people are wondering if they even dreamed all that stuff about the Republicans winning the largest number of seats they've had in Congress since the Civil War.  We had two midterm elections in 2010 and 2014, which were landslide victories for the Republican Party.  The Democrat Party lost over a thousand seats nationwide in just those two elections.  People went to the polls in droves wanting exactly what was rubber-stamped last night (or what will be) stopped. 

And instead they showed up in record numbers and they it turned out and they just defeated Democrats down the ballot. In the process, they elected Republicans to stop this.  And now the Republicans have the largest number of seats in the House they've had in Congress since the Civil War.  And it hasn't made any difference at all.  It is as though Nancy Pelosi is still running the House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate.  "Betrayed" is not even the word here.  What has happened here is worse than betrayal. Betrayal is pretty bad, but it's worse than that.