Soldiers: JUST SAY NO to suicide.

post from SanchoPress - Recent Diaries on 04 February 2008 06:44:35 PM. © SanchoPress - Recent Diaries

I posted this today at Daily Kos, and a member there (Pluto) suggested that I cross post it here. I'd never heard of this blog, but I will definitely be stopping by now that I have. Anyway...

:::

Soldiers: JUST SAY NO to suicide.

I read a diary this morning by bl968 about 'a Disgusted army wife who speaks out on Army's response to soldier suicide surge'. This important diary, like many, was drowned out by candidate diaries so I decided to write another one on the same subject and add my perspective and personal experience. My experience isn't as a veteran or as a family member of a veteran, but as a psychiatric nurse who has treated them.

I was appalled by the article bl968 found:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

"The individual has got to take personal responsibility. They have got to take responsibility for themselves and realize that they can save their own lives. It comes back to the individual."

-Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, Commanding General at Fort Campbell

In other words, JUST SAY NO to suicidal ideation.

February 4, 2008: The stress of repeated trips to combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan is having an effect on the troops. This can be seen by the increase in U.S. Army suicides. The rate in 2007 was 17.5 per 100,000 troops. The rate in 2006 was 12.8, and for the last decade, has fluctuated between 10-13 per 100,000. The suicide rate for troops in Iraq has always been about 40-50 percent higher than for soldiers stationed elsewhere. The suicide rate for the entire U.S. population is about 11 per 100,000.

http://www.strategypage.com/ht...

The Vetarans Suicide Prevention Bill that Bush signed toward the end of 2007 includes funding for faith-based programs so the Christian Right has taken a postion: first, there aren't that many soldiers committing suicide, and second, the solution can be found in... you guessed it: prayer.

The Christian Broadcasting Network's take:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/315...

But let's be clear on one thing: Our men and women in uniform are not jumping off cliffs like lemmings. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the suicide rate in the military is actually much lower than the rate for their civilian peers.
How you can help:
1. Pray for our troops.
2. Honor our service members any way you can. One way is to ask them how things are going "over there."
3. Give away a copy of the Chuck Dean's excellent book, "When the War is Over, a New one Begins - rebuilding relationships after trauma."

So... the good General says these soldiers need to simply man-up and get over it, the Christian right says we need to pray for them, I say we need to make sure there is funding for the psychiatric treatment they need.

I work in mental health and I remember when I started seeing vets from the first Iraq war coming in to seek services. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of how their benefits work, but I know these vets had nothing left. Some were homeless and absolutely disabled by their psychiatric disorder. I would have assumed that a veteran with such severe problems would have treatment available to him. From what I saw first hand, they don't.

I worked at a bottom-of-the-barrel county psych facility at the time. This is the awful place you go when you can't afford a better place. No insurance, no money, no Medicare/Medicaid, no job, no home, no ID, no English, no nothing, cant even tell me your name - this is the place that will take you. I was surprised to see vets there - I would have assumed they'd have coverage to go someplace better.

The vets would come in seeking homeless placement services... stricken so severely with PTSD and other disorders that they could not work or function in any productive way. Keep in mind: these are vets from the first Iraq war, which was nothing like this one. If that war traumatized enough vets to overload the VA system what will this war do?

The mental health services available to these vets (or anyone else who can't pay) is usually limited to a 3-day stabilization (specifics vary state-by-state). It's kind of like going to the ER for a medical problem... there's no long-term treatment, they just make sure you don't die (or in mental health, kill yourself) then they kick you out and tell you to go see "your doctor".

They don't need a 3-day stabilization, they need medication, individual therapy, group therapy, all under the direction of a psychiatrist. And this coordinated based on a thorough psychiatric evaluation. I'm sure there is some type of screening done on every returning soldier but my guess is that it could be done lot more thoroughly. These problems are easier (read: cheaper) to solve if they are caught early.

Many, by the time they seek services, have added a drug problem to the mix which may or may not require a detox and rehabilitation treatment they can't pay for either... Dual diagnosis (psych problem + drug problem) care is a messy, complicated endeavor - it's expensive and it takes time.

We cannot let what happened to so many Vietnam veterans happen to veterans of this war. We cannot let their newfound psychiatric disorders and/or drug problems go untreated and we must provide a better answer than: "Get over it" or "the church will pray for you".

We owe them better than that.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.sanchopress.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=209

Digg this

Roll Roundup

post from Moue Magazine on 04 February 2008 06:43:34 PM. © Moue Magazine

We made a lot of new friends during the Blogroll Awareness weekend. Instead of just sitting around looking at our longer blogroll, I spent the morning checking in on the sites of our new friends. I plan to do this every couple of days, so if you’re[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://mouemagazine.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/roll-roundup/

Digg this

The Day Bush Eliminated Congress

post from My Left Wing - Front Page on 04 February 2008 06:37:36 PM. © My Left Wing - Front Page

We've all seen cartoon scenes similar to the following:

A character takes an object of frustration, smashes it on the ground, and jumps all over it.

That's what a recent Presidential Executive Order does to the separation of powers.

I don't know if this has been covered in any depth, but I haven't seen any major dissection of it, so I thought I'd post.

On January 29, 2008, President Bush issued an innocuously-named Executive order. He seems to be a man of few talents, but he has raised the naming of bills with innocuous sounding names to high art. Like a master magician's sleight-of-hand, this administration's sleight-of-word is phenomenal.

Follow me below the fold to learn how he turned a reduction in spending into the end of Government oversight with nothing more than his magician's pen...

First, here's the executive order. Its name says it's supposed to save us money. What it does, however, is save us from democracy.

It's long, so feel free to scroll...

Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the Federal Government to be judicious in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. To ensure the proper use of taxpayer funds that are appropriated for Government programs and purposes, it is necessary that the number and cost of earmarks be reduced, that their origin and purposes be transparent, and that they be included in the text of the bills voted upon by the Congress and presented to the President. For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.
Sec. 2. Duties of Agency Heads. (a) With respect to all appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, the head of each agency shall take all necessary steps to ensure that:
(i) agency decisions to commit, obligate, or expend funds for any earmark are based on the text of laws, and in particular, are not based on language in any report of a committee of Congress, joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference of the Congress, statement of managers concerning a bill in the Congress, or any other non-statutory statement or indication of views of the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof;
(ii) agency decisions to commit, obligate, or expend funds for any earmark are based on authorized, transparent, statutory criteria and merit-based decision making, in the manner set forth in section II of OMB Memorandum M-07-10, dated February 15, 2007, to the extent consistent with applicable law; and
(iii) no oral or written communications concerning earmarks shall supersede statutory criteria, competitive awards, or merit-based decisionmaking.
(b) An agency shall not consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry out any earmark unless such views are in writing, to facilitate consideration in accordance with section 2(a)(ii) above. All written communications from the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof, recommending that funds be committed, obligated, or expended on any earmark shall be made publicly available on the Internet by the receiving agency, not later than 30 days after receipt of such communication, unless otherwise specifically directed by the head of the agency, without delegation, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to preserve appropriate confidentiality between the executive and legislative branches.
(c) Heads of agencies shall otherwise implement within their respective agencies the policy set forth in section 1 of this order, consistent with such instructions as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may prescribe.
(d) The head of each agency shall upon request provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget information about earmarks and compliance with this order.
Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) The term "agency" means an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and the United States Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission, but shall exclude the Government Accountability Office; and
(b) the term "earmark" means funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to an agency or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 29, 2008.

Let's break this down:

...executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.

Here the President tells all agencies (CIA, DOE, NASA, GSA, EPA, etc...) of the government that they may do their work ONLY if a LAW is passed pre-allocating the funds to do that work.

This would prevent any agency from doing almost any work that had not been conceived of prior to its need. For example, they would not be able to do new research or research on a new topic to help Congress make decisions about the potential efficacy of a proposed bill, unless Congress passed, and the President signed, a law okaying the funding for the research.

Heck, the way it's worded, the Government Printing Office might not even be allowed to cover the cost of paper and printing expenses to print up pre-existing reports requested by Congress if the request for those reports hasn't been made by passing a law, which of course must in turn be signed by the President - who might just not want Congress to have those reports.

It turns the President into a filter for any and all actions of any agency of government, enabling him to prevent Congress and others - including other agencies, and possibly the courts - from receiving any information from or requesting any actions by those agencies.

For example, If a Congressperson were to order the General Accounting Office to provide a report to the Senate Intelligence committee about the dispensation of funds provided to certain entities on a certain date, the GAO could be prevented from taking any action on that order if doing so required funds that are not already included in a law, or those funds don't meet the, um, fungible, criterion of "having merit under ... merit-based decisionmaking."

Since it's not defined, the definition of "merit" is anyone's guess, but we can rest assured that this President has a definition in mind, and it's unlikely to involve the agency cooperating with the request.

(b) An agency shall not consider the views of a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff of the Congress with respect to commitments, obligations, or expenditures to carry out any earmark unless such views are in writing, to facilitate consideration in accordance with section 2(a)(ii) above. All written communications from the Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff thereof, recommending that funds be committed, obligated, or expended on any earmark shall be made publicly available on the Internet by the receiving agency, not later than 30 days after receipt of such communication, unless otherwise specifically directed by the head of the agency, without delegation, after consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to preserve appropriate confidentiality between the executive and legislative branches.

This ensures that the President is made aware of any funding that he hasn't signed off on. Essentially the President has just told all agencies that they may not keep any conversations with members of Congress or their staff confidential, if that conversation involves agency activities that would cost any money not already allocated in the budget.

Let's take a look at a hypothetical situation under which this little tid-bit might come into play:

1) Say there's a hypothetical corrupt executive office holder who might have treasonously outed an undercover operative as political payback, and that there are, perhaps 5 million hypothetical emails that were sent from the executive branch around the date in question, and that those emails are buried on hypothetical hard drives of servers deep in the bowels of a hypothetical IT department.
2) Congress wants copies of those hypothetical emails (which are required by actual statute to be retained), and needs the related agency to do forensic data recovery on the hypothetical hard drives.
3) In order to produce the hypothetical emails, the agency will need funds not already in their budget (forensic data recovery is expensive).
4) Congress says - we'll give you the money, you do the work.
5) The agency hypothetically posts this fact publicly, as required by the new, hypothetical executive order.
6) Coincidentally, right after the hypothetical executive is tipped off by the posting that his hypothetical goose is about to be cooked, the hypothetical hard drives meet with some very powerful hypothetical magnets. Also coincidentally, the hypothetical hard drives are stored in a room where there's a subsequent hypothetical fire. Sadly, all the data on those drives are hypothetically converted into a mass of molten metal and plastic.

This basic scenario (attempt to investigate, public tip-off, coincidental elimination of evidence) could play out, hypothetically, for any investigation of any kind, into any government activities (like war profiteering, or funneling nuclear technology to Turkey, or massive voter fraud, or ... ).

Nah....

Of course, investigations aren't the only casualties.

For example: If climate study isn't specifically in NASA's budget under statute, then NASA's climate research has just been shut down. Poof! We know that the administration does not consider climate change research to have any merit. If this is the case, then the only way to restart it is to pass a law adding climate study to NASA's charter, which should be really easy - until the second it lands on the President's desk. Then it's DOA. Ooops!

Note: I do not know if funding for climate study is included in NASA's budget by statute, but the point isn't to discuss NASA specifically, it's to describe the type of scenario that may now unfold at myriad government agencies.

(b) the term "earmark" means funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.

The executive branch HAS NO constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process. (I haven't enough information to know if the President has any such statutory responsibilities.) Constitutionally, allocating funds is the Congress' job.

The President's SOLE responsibilities are commander of the armed forces; ensuring that the laws passed by Congress are executed AS WRITTEN (or to veto and request a rewrite); and to signing treaties IF they're ratified by the Senate.

On the plus side:

(b) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Methinks Congress should specifically forbid the appropriation of any funds in support of this executive order... Someone needs to find applicable law that can relegate this piece of [fill in the blank] to the junk heap of usurpation history.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

ACTION:

Call, write, fax, or otherwise pester the bejeebers out of your Congressional delegation - tell them NOT to appropriate funds for the implementation of this executive order. Heck, tell them to specifically DENY funds for the implementation of this order.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=20781

Digg this

CREW calls for special counsel on missing WH
e-mails.

post from Think Progress on 04 February 2008 06:33:00 PM. © Think Progress

CREW sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey today, asking that he appoint a special council to investigate “whether the White House violated federal record-keeping laws by knowingly failing to preserve and restore millions of emails.” CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated:

“The importance and historical significance of the missing emails makes it imperative that an impartial special counsel be appointed without delay to investigate the disappearance of these records. […] The missing emails do not belong to the Bush administration, but to the American people. The Attorney General should take action to protect the right of future generations to look back and understand the role of White House officials in critical events.”

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/04/crew-calls-for-special-counsel-on-missing-wh-
e-mails/

Digg this

Hot Celebrity Sex Photos!

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 04 February 2008 06:32:36 PM. © Docudharma - Front Page

The most candid photos of your favorite celebrities can be found at this amazing website!Britney? Paris? Lindsey? Tomcat? Brangelina? Guess what was the hottest story of 2007...And guess who looks to be the breakout star of 2008!As the election cycle[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4266

Digg this

John McCain: Maverick Man Who Thinks War With
Iran Inevitable

post from The Washington Note on 04 February 2008 06:31:00 PM. © The Washington Note

There's so much tension in the air now as we trip into tomorrow that folks are forgetting to laugh a bit about the sillier part of elections. I kind of liked this montage that Media Matters put together on...

Read The Full Article:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002788.php

Digg this

How the White House Snookered the 9/11 Commission
Through an Inside Mole, Philip Zelikow

post from BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash on 04 February 2008 06:27:52 PM. © BuzzFlash.org - Progressive News and Commentary with an Attitude | Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash

The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation Philip ShenonBuzzFlash.com's Review 9/11 Breaking stories about "The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation" buzzflash | delicious | digg digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Alerts 9/11 Commission Shenon Zelikow BuzzFlash

Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/node/4286

Digg this

Super Tuesday Prediction Thread

So this will be my latest attempt to decisively prove to the world that I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. And if I happen to get any right, it'll be because of blind luck.

CLINTON OBAMA CLINTON OBAMA
AL 51 47 AK 42 58 AZ 54 44 AR 62 36 CA 46 48 CO 48 50 CT 47 49 DE 51 47 GA 37 60 ID 45 54 IL 30 69 KS 51 49 MA 51 47 MN 49 48 MO 53 46 NJ 54 45 NM 52 48 NY 57 41 ND 46 54 OK 57 41 TN 59 39 UT 42 57

My shocker upset pick for the night is Mitt Romney winning California. Note, a 13-9 split in favor of Clinton is probably too optimistic. 14-8 or 15-7 seems more realistic. Which states could go the other way? Connecticut, Colorado, and of course California would be the obvious culprits. But when I do these I go off of gut instinct, and my gut might be currently unduly influenced by the Obama Reality Distortion Field.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/229200920/0956

Digg this

"Affirmative Action Election"

It's quite the mystery how Michael Savage stays on the air.

Well, not really I suppose.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/229200883/2008_02_03_archive.html

Digg this

FISA Fight: More GOP shenanigans

McConnell and Reid are on the Senate floor trading verbal blows over the most recent obstructionist move by the Republicans. They have tied up what was supposed to have been quick consideration of the economic stimulus package by invoking 30 more hours of debate, using the argument that they got it too late to fully consider it. They're actually raising hell about low-income heating assistance being "slipped" into the bill. Heartless bastards.

Reid is as steamed as I've ever seen him, and is actually sounding like us in talking about the important constitutional issues and executive overreach on FISA. He's arguing that McConnell is using this stall tactic to try to run out the clock on the 15 day extension of FISA, thereby trying to get us back to the position we were in last August, forcing through a bad bill under strict time constraints.

This means that we are pretty unlikely to see any votes on FISA before Thursday. Which means that we could get past Super Tuesday and perhaps have a full Dem caucus in DC when the votes happen.

Update: dsmilev sums it up perfectly in the comments: