So there is a possibility that even if Robert Mueller is never fired we will never see his final report.

Courtesy of Vox: 

President Donald Trump spent the weekend publicly bashing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, raising new fears that the president might take the extreme step of actually firing Mueller in an attempt to end the probe. 

But even if the Mueller investigation survives, the public may never get to hear most of what he ultimately finds. 

That’s because Mueller is only required by law to deliver a confidential report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the investigation. And Rosenstein has no obligation to send the report to Congress or tell the public about it. Which means much of what Mueller uncovers may remain a secret. 

Now, Rosenstein could choose to make some or all of the report public, but he’s only required to notify Congress if Mueller proposes some action that is “so inappropriate or unwarranted” under Justice Department rules “that it should not be pursued.” So unless Mueller does something Rosenstein finds objectionable, he can keep the report secret. 

Mueller certainly knows this, which is why he’s using his indictments to reveal part of what he’s finding. “He is telling a story through the indictments that he files in court, which are painting a vivid picture of Russian efforts to interfere in the election,” Jens David Ohlin, the vice dean of Cornell Law School, told me. 

And because of the way the special counsel is set up, that picture may end up being the closest thing the public ever gets to a full accounting of what happened between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Well this is completely unacceptable.

After all of this time we need, no we DESERVE, to read that final report.

I'm hoping that even if Trump's Justice Department tries to bury this report that some intrepid Democrat will simply choose to leak it, or that there will be enough new liberal members of Congress elected in 2018 that they will vote to make this public despite Trump's efforts to quash it.

Of course admittedly that is less important to me than that Congress read the report and use it as justification for starting impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Exhaustive new report finds that, despite what the conservatives would have you believe, the IRS targeted both liberal and right wing groups seeking a tax exempt status.

Courtesy of the New York Times: 

A federal watchdog investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status said that the agency also scrutinized organizations associated with liberal causes from 2004 to 2013. 

The findings by the Treasury Department’s inspector general mark the end of a political firestorm that embroiled the I.R.S. in controversy, led to the ouster of its commissioner and prompted accusations the tax collection agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration. 

The exhaustive report, which examined nine years worth of applications for tax-exempt status, comes after a similar audit in 2013 found that groups with conservative names like “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12” were unfairly targeted for further review. 

The new report found that the I.R.S. was also inappropriately targeting progressive-leaning groups. While the investigation does not specify the political affiliations of the groups, names that were flagged included the words “Progressive,” “Occupy,” “Green Energy,” and Acorn — the acronym for the now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 

A spokeswoman for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration noted that the report makes no characterization of the political leanings of any of the groups.

To be honest, while I appreciate that this report has come out, we ALREADY knew all of this years ago.

Almost from the second that the conservatives were pissing themselves with outrage that the IRS was "targeting" them, many news sites were publishing information which completely refuted their faux outrage.

And the fact is that the Right Wing media undoubtedly knew that it was all bullshit, but they also knew their audience was made up of drooling slack jawed morons who were never going to look for alternative information sources and would prove easy to manipulate into a frenzy.

What's more is that this report will not change a single mind because the idea that the government was out to quash the conservative movement fees into their confirmation bias, and nothing will rattle that cage.

Senate Torture Report now available as a graphic novel.

Courtesy of Slate: 

The 2014 torture report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee is a 500-plus-page denunciation of the CIA’s use of EITs, or enhanced interrogation techniques, during George W. Bush’s presidency. Now Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón, the pair behind the best-selling graphic novel adaptation of the 9/11 Commission Report, have illustrated the torture memo in powerful, disturbing detail. Here’s an excerpt from their haunting book.

Haunting is right take a look at some of the pages.

Damn reminds me of some of the horror comics I read as a kid.

Remember Trump once made the following statement:

"Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I'd approve it! You bet your ass! In a heartbeat! In a heartbeat! And I would approve more than that!"

Gee, perhaps we should all buy a copy of this graphic novel and send it to the White House?

It's only $14.98, and it has pictures so perhaps Trump could actually understand what it says.

I don't know, worth a shot I guess.

Donald Trump finally has that intelligence briefing, acknowledges "possibility" that Russia hacked DNC, claims it changed nothing.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

President-elect Donald J. Trump acknowledged the possibility on Friday that Russia had hacked a variety of American targets, including the Democratic National Committee, after an almost two-hour meeting with the nation’s top intelligence officials. 

Mr. Trump asserted the hacking had no effect on the outcome of the election.

Here is Trump's full statement after the briefing:  

"While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines. There were attempts to hack the Republican National Committee, but the RNC had strong hacking defenses and the hackers were unsuccessful," Trump said in a statement released after the session. 

"Whether it is our government, organizations, associations or businesses we need to aggressively combat and stop cyberattacks.”

Trump then announced plans to appoint a team to look into cyber security during the first 90 days of his presidency.

(Personally I don't know why he simply does not call up Vlad and ask him how he did it and to please stop doing it.)

For their part the NSA, CIA, and FBI jointly released a declassified version of the report that Donald Trump, President Obama, and other key officials have just seen.

I found this part in particular rather informative:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. 

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President- elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. 

Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency. 

Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals. 

Based on this, Trump's contention that these hacks had no impact is absolutely ridiculous. 

Perhaps they did not hack the voting machines themselves, but they clearly hacked into the minds of the American voters and helped to shape their opinion of Hillary Clinton and the DNC.

And before somebody makes the claim that all the hacks did was reveal information about the DNC and Clinton which upset the voters, you must remember that these snippets of e-mails were constantly being misrepresented or exaggerated to the point where they often did not even remotely resemble the original source.

It took almost an army of fact checkers to go back and explain what the sensational headlines got wrong, but sadly the publications which corrected the lies rarely showed up on people's Facebook news feeds.

But as for whether the Russian hacks changed the outcome of the election I would go a little deeper, as far back as 2013, when a hacker named Guccifer hacked the e-mail of Clinton pal Sid Blumenthal.

Now though Guccifer, real name Marcel Lazar Lehel, was supposedly Romanian, his IP address was traced back to Russia.

Not only that but subsequent leaks came from a number of folks all using the pseudonym Guccifer 2.0. (I hardly think that is a coincidence.)

And those leaks have now been determined  (Read the report) to have come from Russian hackers. 

So if this first Guccifer was ALSO a Russian operative, that would mean that since it was from Blumenthal's e-mails that we first learned of Hillary's private server, which then of course inspired the GOP led congressional witch hunt, that also provided ammunition for James Comey's eleventh hour suggestion that Clinton might still be indicted, then that would mean that virtually EVERYTHING that damaged Hillary's credibility and undermined her character came directly from Russian directed hacking.

And yes, THAT most definitely impacted the outcome of this election.

In short this report should disqualify Donald J. Trump from being sworn in as our 45th president, because a hostile foreign government interceded to help him to win that title.

And America, the home of democracy, simply cannot let that stand. Period!

Just a reminder that the FBI warned us way back in 2006 that white supremacist groups were infiltrating law enforcement.

Courtesy of The Grio: 

Because of intensifying civil strife over the recent killings of unarmed black men and boys, many Americans are wondering, “What’s wrong with our police?” Remarkably, one of the most compelling but unexplored explanations may rest with a FBI warning of October 2006, which reported that “White supremacist infiltration of law enforcement” represented a significant national threat. 

Several key events preceded the report. A federal court found that members of a Los Angeles sheriffs department formed a Neo Nazi gang and habitually terrorized the black community. Later, the Chicago police department fired Jon Burge, a detective with reputed ties to the Ku Klux Klan, after discovering he tortured over 100 black male suspects. Thereafter, the Mayor of Cleveland discovered that many of the city police locker rooms were infested with “White Power” graffiti. Years later, a Texas sheriff department discovered that two of its deputies were recruiters for the Klan. 

In near prophetic fashion, after the FBI’s warning, white supremacy extremism in the U.S. increased, exponentially. From 2008 to 2014, the number of white supremacist groups, reportedly, grew from 149 to nearly a thousand, with no apparent abatement in their infiltration of law enforcement. 

This year, alone, at least seven San Francisco law enforcement officers were suspended after an investigation revealed they exchanged numerous “White Power” communications laden with remarks about “lynching African-Americans and burning crosses.” Three reputed Klan members that served as correction officers were arrested for conspiring to murder a black inmate. At least four Fort Lauderdale police officers were fired after an investigation found that the officers fantasized about killing black suspects. 

The United States doesn’t publicly track white supremacists, so the full range of their objectives remains murky. Although black and Jewish-Americans are believed to be the foremost targets of white supremacists, recent attacks in Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas and North Carolina, demonstrate that other non-whites, and religious and social minorities, are also vulnerable. Perhaps more alarmingly, in the last several years alone, white supremacists have reportedly murdered law enforcement officers in Arkansas, Nevada and Wisconsin.

That Grio article is over a year old, and the original FBI report was from 2006, but I get the uneasy feeling that right now the information shared in both is more timely than ever. 

My second uneasy feeling is that things are about to get much worse.

While we in the US talk of private e-mail servers the United Kingdom issues blistering report condemning the decision to invade Iraq.

Damn you look fine in the flight jacket. I just wish I knew how to quit you.

Courtesy of The Guardian: 

Sir John Chilcot has delivered a devastating critique of Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, with his long-awaited report concluding that Britain chose to join the US invasion before “peaceful options for disarmament” had been exhausted. 

The head of the Iraq war inquiry said the UK’s decision to attack and occupy a sovereign state for the first time since the second world war was a decision of “utmost gravity”. He described Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, as “undoubtedly a brutal dictator” who had repressed his own people and attacked his neighbours. 

But Chilcot – whom Gordon Brown asked seven years ago to head an inquiry into the conflict – was withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. Chilcot said: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

 The conclusions of the report were as follows: 

• There was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. 
• The strategy of containment could have been adopted and continued for some time. 
• The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – WMDs – were presented with a certainty that was not justified. 
• Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam were wholly inadequate. 
• The government failed to achieve its stated objectives.

The report did not weigh in on the legality of the invasion itself, though it makes it abundantly clear that the evidence did not support the decision.

The report also revealed the private correspondence between Blair and Bush, with one memo written even before Bush had sold the idea of an invasion to Congress saying:“I will be with you [Bush] whatever.”

What was it Dakota Meyer said again about the Obama Administration being corrupt and its supporters overlooking "obvious crimes?"

In this country Congress has NEVER launched a serious investigation into the legality of the Iraq War decision, and as long as the Republicans remain in charge it never will.

Instead they will likely launch yet another investigation going after Hillary Clinton. (Oh look they are already starting.)

However if anybody wants to really learn of the criminal and deceptive behaviors utilized by the Bush Administration to get us into this tragic and costly conflict perhaps the best source for that would be Rachel Maddow's brilliant documentary "Hubris."

Sarah Palin is not convinced that Donald Trump mocked a person with disabilities, because she does not trust the news.

Courtesy of Buzzfeed: 

“Um, I don’t know entirely the context,” Palin said on SiriusXM radio. “I mean, if for sure there was mocking of one individual who does have, or any [unclear] individual who has a special need. Um, that’s bad, obviously. I’ve seen others do that. You know we saw the president mocking — while he was sitting as president — mocking those who participate in the Special Olympics.” 

“And I mean, that’s, that’s like a gut punch when you hear that kind of thing,” she continued. “I don’t like it. And, you know, everybody’s gotta be a bit better than that.”

Oh yeah GOT to attack the President in every interview right Sarah? (BTW here is the President's remark. You can decide if they constitute a "gut punch" for yourself.)

Palin goes on with her attempt to give Trump a pass: 

“Well again, I haven’t known what the whole context is, you know,” Palin added. “We’ve been uh — delved into and dived into — this book tour, so, you know, I haven’t really turned on the new in the past couple of days. But again—” 

“But respectfully, but respectfully, you’ve seen the footage, right,” interjected radio host Michael Smerconish. Palin responded she had, and if Trump mocked an individual it would be “terrible.” 

“Oh yeah, I I saw the footage, I think it was just yesterday, or two days ago,” said Palin. “Yeah. And um, again, if that was mocking an individual, if that’s accurate, then, no, you don’t — I — it’s terrible, its terrible.” 

“But um, again, I’m not gonna buy into the narrative without knowing all the facts that he purposefully was talking about, um, a New York Times reporter or editor who had the special needs — yeah, I won’t buy into it until I know the facts, but I apply that to every issue. I’m not gonna just buy into what I’m seeing on TV because I don’t trust everything that I see on TV and hear on the news.”

Gee lack of trust in the media certainly did not stop her from jumping all over the President for his one casual remark. Did it?

Here is Trump mocking the reporter.

That seem pretty clear, doesn't it Sarah?

Here, does this image of the reporter side by side with Trump's mocking make it easier?

Well of course it doesn't, because this is Trump. And Palin needs to kiss his ass just in case he actually wins the nomination.

After all Sarah Palin's indignation only extends to non-Christians, liberals, and those who believe in facts. 

More good news about the end of religion in America.

Courtesy of Quartz:  

Pew’s new report—which surveyed 35,071 people in 2014, and encompasses the second half of findings released in May—can be juxtaposed with the group’s similarly sized 2007 study on the same topic. Americans who are “absolutely certain” in God’s existence have decreased by eight percentage points in the intervening time. Religiously unaffiliated people now make up 23% of the adult population, compared to 16%; even among the pious, regular service attendance is faltering. 

When sorted by generation, the contrasts get even starker. Younger Americans, by some measures, are almost twice as likely to be uninterested in religion as their parents and grandparents. For instance: only 27% of millennials attend weekly religious services, versus 51% of adults in the Silent Generation (those aged 70 to 87). Emphasis on the importance of religion is also lagging. 

The wide difference in generational religious interest is explained in part by people’s tendency to care more about religion as they age—a caveat Pew has carefully noted. But even so, the research group finds that younger people nowadays aren’t showing the same increase in religious fervor when they get older as past generations did. 

“As older cohorts of adults … pass away, they are being replaced by a new cohort of young adults who display far lower levels of attachment to organized religion than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations did when they were the same age,” wrote the authors of the report.

As I have mentioned before, I have been here all along, unshackled by fear, prejudice, and superstition, just waiting for everybody else to finally join me. 

And increasingly they have been doing exactly that.

Two reviews find that the shooting of 12 year old Tamir Rice for holding a BB gun was justified. Say what?

Courtesy of CBS News: 

A white Cleveland police officer was justified in fatally shooting a black 12-year-old boy holding a pellet gun moments after pulling up beside him, according to two outside reviews conducted at the request of the prosecutor investigating the death. 

A retired FBI agent and a Denver prosecutor both found the rookie patrolman who shot Tamir Rice exercised a reasonable use of force because he had reason to perceive the boy -- described in an emergency call as a man waving and pointing a gun -- as a serious threat. 

The reports were released Saturday night by the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, which asked for the outside reviews as it presents evidence to a grand jury that will ultimately determine whether Timothy Loehmann will be charged in the death of Tamir last November. 

"We are not reaching any conclusions from these reports," Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty said in a statement. "The gathering of evidence continues, and the grand jury will evaluate it all." 

He said the reports, which included a technical reconstruction by the Ohio State Highway Patrol, were released in the interests of being "as public and transparent as possible."

For those who may have forgotten exactly what happened on that November day back in 2014, here is the surveillance video of the event. (Most the tape just shows Tamir walking around playing with his toy, the killing takes place around the 7:10 mark.)

It should be noted that the 9-11 caller who phoned the police reported that Rice was "possibly a juvenile" and that the weapon was "probably fake."

And yet seconds after arriving they shot this young man down in cold blood.

We live in a country where white men can safely walk the streets wearing assault rifles strapped to their bodies like over sized jewelry and yet a young boy playing with a toy gun is murdered in cold blood by the police.

And people wonder why a group like Black Live Matter exists in the world today.

Human Rights Watch issues a report revealing that sexual assault victims in the Military are suffering retaliation.

Courtesy of Human Rights Watch:  

US military service members who report sexual assault frequently experience retaliation that goes unpunished, Human Rights Watch said. The report is the result of an 18-month investigation by Human Rights Watch with the support of Protect Our Defenders, a human rights organization that supports and advocates for survivors of military sexual assault. Despite extensive reforms by the Defense Department to address sexual assault, the military has done little to hold retaliators to account or provide effective remedies for retaliation. 

The 113-page report, “Embattled: Retaliation against Sexual Assault Survivors in the US Military,” finds that both male and female military personnel who report sexual assault are 12 times as likely to experience some form of retaliation as to see their attacker convicted of a sex offense. Retaliation against survivors ranges from threats, vandalism, and harassment to poor work assignments, loss of promotion opportunities, disciplinary action including discharge, and even criminal charges. 

“The US military’s progress in getting people to report sexual assaults isn’t going to continue as long as retaliation for making a report goes unpunished,” said Sara Darehshori, senior US counsel at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “Ending retaliation is critical to addressing the problem of sexual assault in the military.” 

The report says that some of the retaliation came from superior officers including this chilling claim by one soldier:

“A certain Sergeant in my platoon had told me he would kill me if we ever went to Afghanistan because ‘friendly fire is a tragic accident that happens,’” said a soldier who reported a sexual assault by a male soldier from another platoon in 2012. “After I had been there for a year, someone tried to knife me in a bar and kept screaming ‘DIE FAGGOT, DIE’ and that was when I told my Captain that I wanted a discharge before I ended up dead on the evening news which would be bad for him too.”

It is incredibly troubling that not only are in serious danger of being sexually assaulted in the United States military, whether you are a man or a woman, but that if you dare report the crime you can then be subjected to threats of violence, harassment, and loss of promotion.

That is not just a few assholes being assholes, that is a systemic problem which speaks to an underlying problem in our military structure.

American exceptionalism my ass.

New report claims that conservative paint chip eaters sent $50 million dollars to "scam groups" like SarahPAC.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Conservatives are finally starting to notice that sham activist groups are ripping off Republican donors, after dismissing “liberal” reports about the scams. 

Jonah Goldberg, the syndicate columnist and National Review Online blogger, points to a report on Rightwing News, which commissioned a study of 17 “big name conservative groups.” 

Many of those groups have already been identified as sleazy in numerous reports, but the conservative website admits many of those were likely shrugged off by GOP donors and activists. 

“The problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations,” wrote John Hawkins, of Rightwing News. “That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces.” 

And that last part is true, and we have covered those reports more than once.

However it appears that with this report the conservatives are starting to catch on.

And if you think about it these scam artists have the perfect setup.

The conservative websites, radio talk shows, and cable news outlets tell their audience not to trust the mainstream media, while also promoting right wing politicians and ideas in whose name these  PACs are set up. So when the MSM reports that they are being hoodwinked they simply chalk it up to left wing propaganda or bad reporting and continue sending junior's college fund to places where it can be spent on exorbitant salaries for those running the PAC, or travel expenses, vacations, and cold hard cash for the person whose name appears on the letterhead.

And that is exactly what this investigation reports:

The 170-page report showed the vast majority of money spent last year by prominent conservative political action committees was “siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs.”

Gee I wonder which groups stand out?

(It's at number eleven in case you were having trouble finding it.)

Personally I think that even the slowest of the slow are starting to catch on which helps to explain why SarahPAC has been hemorrhaging money as of late.

But you know if they DO catch on all that means is that it is time for a new scam, like for instance having a book ghostwritten for you that the morons feel obligated to buy, or starting a reality show and then manipulating them into watching, or getting them to pay a subscription fee for content that used to be offered for free.

Gee now why does that last one sound so familiar?

Let's face it these are quite literally the dumbest people on the planet, and probably the only thing that will stop some of them from sending folks like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain their money will be when worried family members have them committed for their own good.

Architect of CIA torture program claims that release of Senate report put his life in danger. Bummer.

Courtesy of TWC Central:  

The "architect" of the CIA's interrogation program, James Mitchell, accused Senate Democrats of putting his life in danger last week when they released a report detailing the program's "brutal" abuses. 

"They issue this report that essentially stirs up all the crazies and all the jihadists. So now we're getting death threats," Mitchell, a retired Air Force psychologist, said during a Monday night Fox News interview. 

"I'm angry about this. They have a foregone conclusion. They put my life in danger. They put the lives of other CIA personnel ... and our families in danger for some sort of morale high ground?" he said. "You can probably tell I'm a little agitated by this. For me, I don't want to die because the Democrats in the Senate don't have the courtesy to ask the CIA to explain what they view as abuses that occurred."

Hang on I'm going to try and gin up a little sympathy.

Nope, don't give a shit.

The Uniform Code of Justice says that military personnel have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

As a former member of the Air Force this guy should have known that. And as a human being he should have done that.

The Senate report on CIA torture techniques may only be the beginning. Soon there may be pictures.

Courtesy of The Daily Beast:

The Obama administration is withholding hundreds, perhaps even thousands of photographs showing the U.S. government’s brutal treatment of detainees, meaning that revelations about detainee abuse could well continue, possibly compounding the outrage generated by the Senate “torture report” now in the public eye. 

Some photos show American troops posing with corpses; others depict U.S. forces holding guns to people’s heads or simulating forced sodomization. All of them could be released to the public, depending on how a federal judge in New York rules—and how hard the government fights to appeal. The government has a Friday deadline to submit to that judge its evidence for why it thinks each individual photograph should continue to be kept hidden away. 

The photographs are part of a collection of thousands of images from 203 investigations into detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan and represent one of the last known secret troves of evidence of detainee abuse. While the photos show disturbing images from the Bush administration’s watch, it is the Obama administration that has allowed them to remain buried—all with the help of a willing Congress. 

The president may have entered office promising a new era of transparency—and was even prepared to release at least 21 of the photos in 2009. But Obama pulled back at the last minute at the urging of his top commander in Iraq, who worried the graphic images could generate a backlash against U.S. troops.

The possibility that terrorists might get angry enough to launch an attack on American troops of embassies overseas in response to anything released to the public concerning our torture of detainees is bullshit.

As others have said we are actively bombing the crap out of ISIL. If THAT has not convinced them to attack us it is hard to believe that a couple of reports or photos will push them over the edge.

However it just might cause the conservatives defending CIA torture to suddenly go quiet.

One of the reasons that the incident in Abu Ghraib grabbed the public's attention was that the American people were able to see what we were doing and they were disgusted.

I think the same thing will happen this time.

Which in my opinion would be a good thing, and would do much to ensure that we never revisited this type of inhuman treatment again.

In other words, bring-em on.

Cartoon of the day.

Boy ain't that the truth!

New report finds that yes religion is the source of most of today's terrorism.

Courtesy of the Guardian: 

Religious extremism has become the main driver of terrorism in recent years, according to this year’s Global Terrorism Index. 

The report recorded 18,000 deaths in 2013, a rise of 60% on the previous year. The majority (66%) of these were attributable to just four groups: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaida. 

Overall there has been a fivefold increase in deaths from terrorism since the 9/11 suicide attacks. 

The report’s authors attribute the majority of incidents over the past few years to groups with a religious agenda. 

Before 2000, it was nationalist separatist terrorist organisations such as the IRA and Chechen rebels who were behind the most attacks. The number of incidents from nationalist separatist groups has remained relatively stable in the years since while religious extremism has grown. 

The prevalence of Islamist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria is the main driver behind these trends. 

This report is interesting because it flies in the face of  arguments given by Islamic apologists, like Reza Aslan, who argue that religion is NOT the trigger for extremist views or violence.

And in fact making this connection was what got Bill Maher into so much trouble recently.

However I would be quick to mention that just because it seems that Islam is the religion of choice for most terrorists today, there is still plenty of terrorism in the name of Christ as well.

And it could be argued that in the not too distant past Christian terrorism terrorized communities around the world for many hundreds of years before it was brought under some semblance of control by more civilized minds.

As Steven Weinberg once said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

New report reveals that Alaska is number one in men killing women. Can't we ever be number one for something good?

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch: 

Alaska has the nation's highest rate of men murdering women, more than double the U.S. average, according to a study released Monday by Violence Policy Center. 

The study said that 2.57 of every 100,000 women in the Last Frontier were murdered by men in 2012 -- more than double the national average of 1.16. That represents nine women murdered in Alaska under circumstances involving only one female victim and one male murderer. 

"One is too many," Gov. Sean Parnell said in response to the numbers. 

The study used data collected from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Report. According to the data, the average age of women killed in Alaska in 2012 was 41. Four were shot -- none with a handgun, according to the study -- three were killed with knives "or other cutting instruments," and one was killed using blunt force. One was not accounted for in the study. 

All but one knew her killer, and many of the killers and victims were in intimate relationships. Half of the deaths followed an argument, the study said.

Sadly this is nothing new up here .

The men of this state have long represented a significant danger to the women of this state, especially during the dark days of winter when alcohol flows and cabin fever rears its ugly head.

The article goes on to discuss Parnell's "Choose Respect" campaign which aside from a couple of Palin-like photo-ops has been essentially a huge dud.

Parnell likes to talk about what the project is doing, but even with a fifteen million dollar grant from the US Justice Department he hasn't done dick.

And at least one of my Senators agrees with me: 

"The state needs to be more focused on this issue, not just have a bumper sticker campaign," Begich said during a phone call from Washington, D.C. He called the Choose Respect campaign a good conversation starter, but ultimately, he said, it's not doing enough to solve the problem, as Alaska also has high rates of domestic violence and sexual assault.

We need to do something comprehensive up here to protect our women, and handing out brochures and giving speeches is just not enough.

Not by a long shot.

New report on climate change should start a worldwide panic. But sadly it will barely be noticed.

Here are the highlights.

1. We're already feeling the impacts of climate change. Glaciers are already shrinking, changing the courses of rivers and altering water supplies downstream. Species from grizzly bears to flowers have shifted their ranges and behavior. Wheat and maize yields may have dropped. 
2. Heat waves and wildfires are major threats in North America. Europe faces freshwater shortages, and Asia can expect more severe flooding from extreme storms. In North America, major threats include heat waves and wildfires, which can cause death and damage to ecosystems and property. The report names athletes and outdoor workers as particularly at risk from heat-related illnesses. 
3. Globally, food sources will become unpredictable, even as population booms. Especially in poor countries, diminished crop production will likely lead to increased malnutrition, which already affects nearly 900 million people worldwide. Some of the world's most important staples—maize, wheat, and rice—are at risk. The ocean will also be a less reliable source of food, with important fish resources in the tropics either moving north or going extinct, while ocean acidification eats away at shelled critters (like oysters) and coral. Shrinking supplies and rising prices will cause food insecurity, which can exacerbate preexisting social tensions and lead to conflict. 
4. Coastal communities will increasingly get hammered by flooding and erosion. Tides are already rising in the US and around the world. As polar ice continues to melt and warm water expands, sea level rise will expose major metropolitan areas, military installations, farming regions, small island nations, and other ocean-side places to increased damage from hurricanes and other extreme storms. Sea level rise brings with it risks of "death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods," the report says. 
5. We'll see an increase in climate refugees and, possibly, climate-related violence. The report warns that both extreme weather events and longer-term changes in climate can lead to the displacement of vulnerable populations, especially in developing parts of the world. Climate change might also "indirectly increase" the risks of civil wars and international conflicts by exacerbating poverty and competition for resources. 
6. Climate change is expected to make people less healthy. According to the report, we can expect climate change to have a negative impact on health in many parts of the world, especially poorer countries. Why? Heat waves and fires will cause injury, disease and death. Decreased food production will mean more malnutrition. And food- and water-borne diseases will make more people sick. 
7. We don't know how much adaptation is going to cost. The damage we're doing to the planet means that human beings are going to have to adapt to the changing climate. But that costs money. Unfortunately, studies that estimate the global cost of climate adaptation "are characterized by shortcomings in data, methods, and coverage," according to the IPCC. 
8.  There's still time to reduce the impacts of global warming...if we cut our emissions. Here's the good news: The IPCC says that the impacts of climate change—and the costs of adaptation—will be "reduced substantially" if we cut our emissions of greenhouse gases.

 There are many who think that the damage is too far along and that nothing can be done to stop the inevitable.

Others don't believe there is any problem at all and that these findings are just the imaginative ravings of liberal Chicken Little's.

However there is still time, and if we really start to address the situation with the seriousness it deserves, and focus the scientific community into solving the problems with the same zeal they show for improving computers, we could very well see things turn around to the point that the most troubling predictions will not come to pass.

And in fact some of the recent breakthroughs in renewable energy research have been amazing.

The clock is ticking, so the question remains, are we doing enough, fast enough?

Sadly I don't yet think that we are.

(Source.)

New study shows that Social Security pumps $2 into the economy for every $1 paid out in benefits.

Courtesy of AARP:  

A new report by the AARP Public Policy Institute, "Social Security's Impact on the National Economy," found that Social Security adds more than $1 trillion to the U.S. economy each year. People who receive Social Security benefits are not saving that money for a rainy day. They're spending it on goods and services — pumping it back into the economy. We have to remember that the typical older American has an income of about $22,000 a year, and Social Security accounts for about half of a typical older family's income. 

Businesses use the income to purchase more goods and services, to realize profits and to hire more employees. Those employees, in turn, spend their wages on more goods and services, which creates more spending and income for more people. This creates a powerful multiplier effect that benefits the economy, businesses and workers. In fact, our report found that every dollar in Social Security benefits paid out generates about $2 of total output for the U.S. economy. 

In 2012, spending by Social Security beneficiaries, combined with the added spending by businesses, generated roughly $1.5 trillion in total economic output. 

This spending in turn supported more than 9 million jobs in the national economy. About 4 million of these jobs were created in just 10 industries. The largest impact was seen in the food services, real estate, health care and retail industries. 

Thanks to the benefits provided by Social Security, nearly 21.4 million Americans avoided poverty: 1.1 million children, 5.8 million adults under 65, and 14.5 million adults 65-plus.

 Of course despite this the Republicans party has been attempting to undermine Social Security since its very inception. And just like Medicare, and now the Affordable Care Act, these are programs that ultimately benefit not just the individual but also the country at large.

I look forward to the day when a report comes out detailing the incredibly positive benefits that Obamacare has had on the nation. Because eventually you KNOW it's coming.

President Obama orders release of classified information as America prepares military strike against Syria.

Courtesy of CBS News:

Obama ordered a declassified report be prepared for public release before any military strike commences. That report, top advisers tell CBS News, is due to be released in a day or two. 

There was no debate at the Saturday meeting that a military response is necessary. Obama ordered up legal justifications for a military strike, should he order one, outside of the United Nations Security Council. That process is well underway, and particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the evidence "is screaming at us" that chemical weapons were used in Syria, and he said President Obama believes "there must be accountability" -- the latest sign that the administration is getting ready for a possible military strike against the Assad regime. 

Kerry said he had looked again at the pictures we all saw last week of the victims of the attack -- many of them children -- and can't get them out of his head. 

"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry said. "It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and -- despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured -- it is undeniable." 

The words Kerry used and the force with which he delivered them left little doubt the U.S. will soon strike Syria. 

"President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who used the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," he said. 

Four U.S. Navy warships are already in position in the eastern Mediterranean, ready to launch cruise missiles within hours of receiving the order from Obama. A British submarine is also reported to be in position.

I am suffering such a debilitating case of deja vu that I can barely type this.

I cannot get over the feeling that something is just not right.

I heard a military expert raise an interesting point on MSNBC the other day. (I'm sorry I did not catch his name.) He said that it made little sense for Assad to launch a chemical attack since he had been killing his own people by the thousands, with impunity, and with little interference from the rest of the world.

Launching this kind of attack means that the United States HAS to respond, which ultimately means that Assad will be defeated and very likely killed or imprisoned.

So where is the rationale for launching it?

Like I said, something does not feel right.

Sarah Palin slams Time Magazine's choice of President Obama as the "Person of the Year," citing their ignorance in twice choosing HER as one of the most influential people.

Click on visage of obvious intelligence to play video.

So of course Fox News was all excited about the possibility of seeing the Benghazi inquiry report released yesterday, and then angered that it did NOT lay any significant blame on top officials in the Obama administration.

So in order to demonstrate how pissed off they were they invited the "Venomous Velociraptor of Vengeance" to attack the President and demonize the findings of the report.

Even though the report essentially vindicated the President, and as Mitt Romney learned to his eternal embarrassment on the debate stage, he did call the attack an act of terror right after it happened, Palin still thinks that his cautious approach indicates a deeper dishonesty:

For the president even to get out there on a national stage and tell Americans untruths about this situation in Benghazi really begs you to ask the question, what else does he say and do that would be deceptive? I believe it's many, many things that he would say and do being deceptive. 

Palin then goes on to accuse the President of lying about Benghazi in order to falsely send the message that HE had destroyed al Qaeda single handedly: 

Well, bottom line is during the campaign in those final days, Barack Obama wanted to keep that false narrative alive that he, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize-winning president of ours -- he pretty much squashed the terrorists' activities, if you will, of some of these Islamic countries that he was able to reach out and kind of stem the tide of that hatred and the violence coming from some of these countries as it pertained to relationships with Americans. And that's not true. 

I mean, they even told Americans that al Qaeda was on the run, and that is not true. Maybe they're on the run, but it's towards America, not away from America. And that played out in Benghazi. 

However perhaps her most outright comical attack on the President is over his selection by Time Magazine as 2012's "Person of the Year":  

But Time magazine, you know, I think there's some irrelevancy there, to tell you the truth. I mean, consider their list of the most influential people in the country and in the world, some who have made that list -- yours truly! That ought to tell you something right there regarding the credence that we should give Time magazine and their list of people. 

Okay, so Time Magazine's selection of Obama is irrelevant, because THEY are irrelevant, for picking the clearly irrelevant Sarah Palin as an influential person twice.

You know maybe I have been  listening to Princess Poisonous Pontification for too many years now, but I think she may have a point.

But worry not, just as soon as I was concerned that I was losing my mind, or Palin was finding hers, she pops off with this:

Oh, I think that those are some silly words chosen to describe Barack Obama. When I first heard that, first thing that popped into my mind was, What the heck has he done? Really, what has he done except drive us over a fiscal cliff, which we are over, and now it's time to feel the thud at the bottom of that cliff. It's just now a matter of degree of how hard we're going to hit bottom. 

But you know, other than that, really, what has he done to unify and make our nation a more perfect union? For the life of me, I don't know, Greta! 

Well of course he has done quite a lot! And obviously done it well enough to earn himself a second term in office where he will have the opportunity to accomplish even more.

And doesn't THAT just burn your wrinkled frostbitten ass Sarah?

Oh and by the way, how goes the negotiations on your contract renewal? I hear not too well. Tsk, tsk, tsk,

(To read the entire transcript just click here.)