Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

Sen. Jack Reed: No "Blank Check" For War In Iraq

2008-07-26T18:34:13Z

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jack Reed says America can't afford the Republican strategy of continuing to write blank checks for the Iraq war.

"At a time when the war in Iraq costs $10 billion each month, Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, and our economy is struggling, we cannot continue down the path that President Bush and Senator McCain propose: writing blank check after blank check," Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said Saturday in his party's weekly radio address.

Reed said Democrats have outlined a better plan to carefully redeploy combat troops out of Iraq and give them missions such as counterterrorism and training Iraq's military.

"Make no mistake: This is a plan that seizes on the progress and sacrifices our troops have made in Iraq, and it recognizes the desire of the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny," he said.

Reed and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska accompanied presumed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on a six-day trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait that ended this week.

Obama says he will pursue a 16-month timetable for withdrawing combat troops if he is elected. That idea won conditional support on Monday from Iraqi leaders during talks in Baghdad.

"Our proposal to responsibly redeploy American troops out of Iraq will send a message to the Iraqi government that it must do more," Reed said. "And it will encourage more progress toward Iraqi self-sufficiency."

A West Point graduate and former Army Ranger, Reed emerged as one of his party's leading anti-war voices after he voted against authorizing the war. Reed, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is a potential vice presidential pick for Obama.

"Some of the soldiers and Marines we met in the field are on their third and fourth tours of duty," Reed said. "And they deserve a policy that is worthy of their sacrifice."

29 die, 88 wounded as blasts hit western India

2008-07-26T18:27:03Z

AHMADABAD, India — At least 29 people were killed and 88 wounded when a series of small explosions hit the western Indian city of Ahmadabad on Saturday, a top official said, a day after seven similar blasts struck a southern city.

Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat state where Ahmadabad is located, said at least 16 bombs went off Saturday evening in several neighborhoods of the busy city.

Modi called the blasts "a crime against humanity," and said the state government would cover the medical costs of all those wounded in the attacks.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for either set of blasts, and it was not clear if they were connected but Modi said that the attacks appeared to be masterminded by a group or groups who "are using a similar modus operandi all over the country."

Distraught relatives of the wounded crowded the city's hospitals and television channels showed video footage of police officers and sniffer dogs scouring the areas that were hit.

There also were images of a bus with shattered windows, destroyed roadside stalls, twisted bicycles and charred vehicles. Most of the blasts took place in the narrow lanes of the older part of Ahmadabad, which is crowded with tightly packed homes and small businesses.

Prithviraj Chavan, a junior minister in the prime minister's office, called the explosions "deplorable" and said they were set off by people "bent upon creating a communal divide in the country" _ language officials usually use when blaming Islamic militants believed to be behind bombings that have repeatedly hit India's cities in recent years.

"Anti-national elements have been trying to create panic among the people of our country. Today's blasts in Ahmadabad seem to be part of the same strategy," federal Home Minister Shivraj Patil told reporters in New Delhi.

Patil provided no details about the explosions.

The latest attacks came a day after seven synchronized small bombs shook Bangalore, India's high-tech hub, killing two people and wounding at least five others.

On Saturday, police found and defused an eighth bomb near a popular shopping mall in Bangalore, said Srikumar, the director general of police in Karnataka state, where the city is located. Like many Indians, he uses only a single name.

As in past bombings in India, suspicion for both sets of explosions quickly fell on Muslim militants blamed for attacks such as the July 2006 bombings that ripped through Mumbai's commuter rail network, killing nearly 200 people.

Those fears were amplified by the history of Ahmadabad, a crowded and historic city that in 2002 was the scene of one of worst incidents of rioting between India's Hindu majority and its Muslim minority.

The violence killed about 1,000 people, most of them Muslims. It was triggered by a fire that killed 60 passengers on a train packed with Hindu pilgrims. Hindu extremists blamed the deaths on Muslims and rampaged through Muslim neighborhoods, although the cause of the blaze remains unclear.

Stefan Sirucek: Obama in Berlin: Walking the Walk

2008-07-26T18:26:03Z

Even before the star arrives the event feels more like a rock concert than a speech. With people milling around sipping beer and two opening bands warming up the crowd the atmosphere is happy and relaxed.

Ironically, the bag-strapped legions of press, of which your correspondent is a bewildered member, are separated from the rest of the crowd by ... a wall. With the day getting hotter and hotter and limited space for movement, there is little for the reporters to do in the hours before Obama's speech but to loll around and try to interview people across the fence.

In the shade of a tent set up for the bigwigs of the traveling press corps I run into Lucas, a 21 year old German volunteer who is enjoying a sausage and a smoke.

He discovered Obama while visiting Iowa last summer, before his energizing win in the caucuses. "It's amazing how he can motivate people", he says. "If Merkel were speaking no one would be here."

"He's like a mixture between a politician and a spiritual leader", he adds.

I hunker down for some food next to a photographer from the Bild tabloid (Germany's New York Post) who says he'd be happy if Obama won but doesn't think rural America will vote for a black man. A TV cameraman sits down next to us with a piece of cake and complains that we're not allowed eating utensils because someone could get stabbed with a plastic fork.

As it gets within a half-hour of the speech, anticipation starts to build.

I notice a reporter from Politico. She has a shiny laminate press badge, which makes me slightly jealous. Mine is paper and already has a slight tear.

A man in an off-white suit approaches the podium and situates a bottle of water -- clearly an important signal.

The crowd gets very quiet.

People look around breathlessly, wondering where Obama will appear.

A dark helicopter hovers in place high above the Victory Column. Will he be arriving by parachute?

After a few long minutes the tension fades and the crowd begins to mutter. "Come oooon", groans a girl next to me.

And suddenly he's there.

Stepping down the bright blue catwalk with his long hand in the air and a smile on his face is the man of the hour, or at least of the next 27 minutes.

The speech is a brisk, affecting affair. There are big cheers when Obama talks about nuclear disarmament and dealing with climate change, while the crowd's response to "defeating terror" is noticeably muted, either because it's vocabulary clearly meant for the viewers in the United States or because of its implications for German troop commitments in Afghanistan, which the senator goes on to talk about. For the most part, however, he hits all the right notes.

Later, when the crowd begins to disperse I notice a scattering of individuals who didn't come to cheer: a few people with a sign protesting the death penalty, a woman wearing a "Troops out of Afghanistan" t-shirt and, of course, the guy with the McCain umbrella.

Nevertheless it's basically a love-fest, with occasional shouts of "I love you Obama!" from people near the front of the crowd. When Obama acknowledges that he doesn't look like the previous American presidents who have spoken in Berlin, a woman behind me murmurs "Better." It makes sense though, among an estimated 215,000 attendees, many of who are Americans, that those who waited hours to get near the podium would be of a particularly dedicated sort.

The cheering is energetic but not raucous. Even so, when Obama leaves the stage and descends for some face-time with the mortals, polite admiration transforms into wild enthusiasm. In fact, a stage-dive wouldn't have been out of place. As he reaches into the crowd people surge forward, yelling and jostling each other for the chance to photograph and touch him.

I talk to David, a former airman from Philadelphia who now lives in Europe. He's made the 600 kilometer trip from Munich to see Obama speak and wears a t-shirt that reads "The World for Obama 08'".

Why does he think people in Europe are so worked up by the whole Obama thing?

"Because they all witnessed the whole Bush thing."

Good point.

At a time when everyone is looking for something different, Obama emerges as the most contrasting choice. If Bush is oil, Obama is solar power. His charisma, his aura, are remarked on again and again by those I speak with, as is his ability to inspire. To his supporters Obama isn't just an agent of change - he's the 007 of change - strong, cool-headed, charming and capable - a leader, in other words.

After eight years of bridge-burning, arrogance and cultural illiteracy from the White House, people see Obama, and what they see is as straightforwardly and emblematically different as it gets. They see someone intelligent, internationalist and inspirational. They see someone different. The fact that he is, literally, a politician of a different color, only adds to the power of that impression.

No one knows what Obama will do in office if he is elected. No one knows how much change he'll bring or how effective he'll be. But we see how things have already changed -- when 200,000 people in a foreign city come to hear an American politician talk about unity and freedom-- we see how effective he already is.

Greg Mitchell: Pentagon Admits More Electrocutions in Iraq -- KBR Denies Blame

2008-07-26T18:13:00Z

As some may know, I have been following for months the scandal of the high number of American soldiers electrocuted in Iraq. I have focused on the saga of Cheryl Harris, who I have come to know and assist, whose son Sgt. Ryan Maseth was electrocuted in January (the military at first blamed him for carrying an appliance into a shower room), causing her to launch her own heroic probe. Since then she has inspired congressional, military and media probes (such as last week's front-page New York Times piece by James Risen).

Her senator, Bob Casey, has helped her, and his office has kept me abreast of his activities, including yesterday's big meeting with a KBR -- the contractor targeted in much of this -- rep.

Until yesterday 13 electrocutions had been admitted by the military. Yesterday, surprisingly, came news of more.

Now we learn that 16 American troops have died from accidental electrocutions in Iraq, the Defense Department said Friday. They include 11 Army soldiers and five Marines.

The disclosure came after KBR Inc. Chief Executive William Utt met with Sen. Casey,on Capitol Hill Friday.

Casey said there have also been dozens of injuries and hundreds of fires from faulty electrical work and that there have been reports of problems with people being shocked as recently as three weeks ago. "It leads to hundreds and hundreds of questions that Congress must ask," Casey said.

KBR has said it has not found a link between electrical work it did and the electrocutions.

AP reports:

At a hearing earlier this month, former KBR electricians said KBR employees with little electrical experience supervised work done by subcontractors and foreign electricians who could not speak English. Company electricians who raised doubts about the work were allegedly fired.
Utt told Casey that in February 2007, the contract was switched from "Level A" to "Level B." That meant the Army took primary responsibility for preventive repairs and that KBR "only repairs items the Army directs us to repair," KBR spokeswoman Heather Browne said in an e-mail.

Casey said he planned to send letters to the Defense Department and KBR seeking more clarification on who was responsible for the electrical work. A hearing on the electrocutions is also scheduled for Wednesday in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Cheryl Harris is suing KBR.
*
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. He is editor of Editor & Publisher.

Obama's Private Talk With Tory Leader David Cameron Caught On Mic: "You Should Be On The Beach. You Need A Break"

2008-07-26T18:02:33Z

LONDON — Barack Obama endorses making time for thinking in the White House.

As the Democratic candidate for president chatted with Tory Leader David Cameron at the Houses of Parliament on Saturday, a boom microphone used by reporters caught their discussion. It was unclear whether Obama and Cameron knew how much of their conversation others could hear.

Obama and Cameron talked casually about the demands of high office, according to a transcript provided to reporters.

CAMERON: You should be on the beach. You need a break. Well, you need to be able to keep your head together.

OBAMA: You've got to refresh yourself.

CAMERON: Do you have a break at all?

OBAMA: I have not. I am going to take a week in August. But I agree with you that somebody, somebody who had worked in the White House who _ not Clinton himself, but somebody who had been close to the process _ said that, should we be successful, that actually the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be ...

CAMERON: These guys just chalk your diary up.

OBAMA: Right. ... In 15 minute increments and ...

CAMERON: We call it the dentist waiting room. You have to scrap that because you've got to have time.

OBAMA: And, well, and you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel ...

CAMERON: Your feeling. And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions.

OBAMA: That's exactly right. And the truth is that we've got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know 10 times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante, but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you.

(This version CORRECTS to show their chat took place amid pool coverage and that Obama and Cameron were aware of reporters nearby.)

Dr. Peter Breggin: From FDA to GSK: The Dangerous Partnership between Government and Big Pharma

2008-07-26T17:54:38Z

Go to GSK.com and click on "Latest Press Releases" and then click on "Dan Troy appointed Senior Vice President and General Counsel for GlaxoSmithKline." It's dated July 22, 2008. Above the press release you'll see an ad with four people dancing ecstatically with their legs and arms flailing in all directions -- presumably because GSK makes joyful drugs. Really, it's a picture of GSK executives in a rite of greed celebrating the inclusion of attorney Dan Troy into their inner circle. The press release explains the reason for such a celebration at the pharmaceutical giant: "Dan was formerly Chief Counsel for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he served as a primary liaison to the White House ... "

Right now GSK is being bombarbed with product liability suits, many claiming that the company hid data on Paxil causing suicide. As I described in an earlier blog, the FDA has been going to court on behalf of drug companies like GSK to claim preemption -- the principle that a company cannot be sued for negligence in the development of a product if the product has been approved by the FDA. The principle will soon be tested in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court upholds preemption, it will become impossible to hold drug companies responsible for their rampant negligence in the developing and marketing of their products. The public is already kept in the shadows when drug companies withhold data about the risks of their drugs; the public will be kept wholly in the dark if the companies cannot be sued and forced to reveal their hidden data.

Guess who was the architect of preemption? Yes, the same Daniel Troy when he was at the FDA, acting as Chief Counsel for the FDA with a special role as White House liasance. From FDA Chief Counsel to GSK General Counsel! Life rewards some people. As one blogosphere commenter declared, "It's hard to keep a bad man down."

As true as the "bad man" designation may be, the bad system is even more important. The FDA is not so much a watchdog agency as an active member of the psychopharmaceutical complex working on behalf on the drug industry. Sometimes the agency gets pushed by public outrage into finding fault with the drug companies, but it always responds with one thing in mind--how to minimize the financial damage to its pharmaceutical industry partners.

For years, the FDA official most responsible for the approval of psychiatric drugs was Paul Lieber. What did he do when he left the FDA after years of devoted service to the drug companies? He became a consultant to the drug companies. It wasn't much of a change in role.

Troy has always been a drug company advocate. He's against the regulation of drug company advertising directly to the consumer and at the FDA he discouraged the issuing of warning letters about adverse drug effects.

Meanwhile, GSK is facing some tough tests. The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating GSK's handling of its antidepressant Paxil. The Senate Finance Committee is also probing GSK's conduct in the deveopment of Paxil.

Oh, by the way, Troy didn't go directly from the FDA to GSK. He stopped along the way at a D.C. law firm where he represented drug makers and trade groups on issues concerning the FDA and government regulation.

Danial Troy can be described as a poster boy for how to succeed in the current regulatory climate: Go to work for a government regulatory agency, such as the FDA; do a lot of favors for the group you're supposed to be regulating, such as the pharmaceutical industry; and then get a great job in industry when you leave. This "revolving door" has a long history, but there's hardly a more egregious example than Dan Troy going to work for GSK. And there's hardly a more opportunistic company than GSK.

GSK is famous for its direct to consumer advertising. In promoting Paxil, it likes to suggest that depression "may" be caused by a biochemical imbalance. There's no truth to it. It is Paxil that causes biochemical imbalances. Increased suicidal behavior is one result of these drug-induced biochemical disruptions. The company itself has admitted that the suicidality is increased by more than sixfold in all ages of depressed patients taking Paxil compared to the same or similar patients taking a sugar pill in controlled clinical trials.

Hats off to GSK! What a coup to get Dan Troy. But then ... they've been cultivating each other for years.

In all fairness, I've not only been involved for many years as a medical expert in product liability suits against GSK, I was the first one to discover and to blow the whistle on the how the company has been hiding and distorting data confirming that Paxil causes suicidality. You can find the data in my earlier blogs, on my website, in my published scientific articles (available on my website) and in my latest book published this month, Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications (St. Martin's Press, 2009).

Meanwhile, what is the public to do? This is a political problem extending over decades and administrations -- the way our government increasingly supports its most financially powerful constituents, and the pharmaceutical industry is probably the most powerful lobby of all. You could begin by supporting Senator Chuck Grassley's attempts to probe GSK.

You might also wonder if you should be using the products of companies like GSK, in particular psychiatric drugs like Paxil that do more harm than good. But there's a problem in stopping psychiatric drugs as well as starting them. For years, GSK hid the reality that Paxil causes severe withdrawal reactions including painful shocking sensations in the head, severe dizziness and imbalance, irritability and aggression, and potentially crushing fatigue depression. Withdrawal symptoms can begin within a day or two of stopping the drug.

The company literally has trapped millions of people into feeling compelled to take Paxil or to endure horrific withdrawal reactions. Withdrawal from Paxil needs to be done slowly with experienced clinical supervision and a support network. In Medication Madness, in addition to describing how psychiatric drugs can drive people in bizarre and dangerous behaviors, I also describe how to more safely withdraw from psychiatric drugs.

It's time to wake up to the dark reality that drug companies, and especially those manufacturing psychiatric drugs, cannot be trusted to provide the truth about the risks associated with their products. Sadly, you cannot trust your doctor any more than you can trust his or her sources of information -- the drug companies and the FDA. Your life depends on becoming an educated, skeptical and even distrusting consumer.

McCain More Conservative Than Bush

2008-07-26T16:32:02Z

President Bush and Senator John McCain have long been in agreement on major elements of American foreign policy, particularly in their approach to the "axis of evil" countries of Iran and North Korea, and their commitment to staying the course in Iraq.

But now the administration's agreement to consider a "time horizon" for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party's foreign party establishment say.

Iran Now Has 6,000 Centrifuges For Uranium: Report

2008-07-26T15:35:39Z

TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in the number of uranium-enriching machines in its nuclear program, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

The new figure is double the 3,000 centrifuges Iran had previously said it was operating in its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

"Islamic Iran today possesses 6,000 centrifuges," Ahmadinejad told university professors in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

The assertion that Iran has reached that goal is certain to further rankle the United States and other world powers. Washington and its allies have been demanding a halt to Iran's enrichment out of fear it is intent on using the technology to develop weapons.

Iran vehemently denies those allegations and says it is interested in enrichment only for its nuclear power program.

The White House said that Iran's pronouncement does not facilitate a resolution to the nuclear standoff.

"Announcements like this, whatever the true number is, are not productive and will only serve to further isolate Iran from the international community," said White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. "We have offered a generous incentives package to the Iranians, we urge them to suspend enrichment and accept the package. If they don't, more sanctions are the next step."

Ahmadinejad made the announcement a week after the U.S. reversed course by sending a top American diplomat to participate in negotiations with Iran, prompting hopes for a compromise.

But those talks fizzled when Iran refused to consider a revised deal that involves suspending enrichment, and the six negotiating powers _ the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany _ gave Iran two weeks to respond positively or face a new round of sanctions.

Iran already is under three sets of U.N. sanctions for its refusal to suspend enrichment.

In April, Ahmadinejad said Iran had begun installing 6,000 centrifuges at Natanz. His reported comments Saturday provided the first public assertion that Iran has reached that goal.

Ahmadinejad asserted that Iran's interlocutors had agreed to allow it to continue to run its program as long as it was not expanded beyond 6,000 centrifuges, state radio reported.

"Today, they have consented that the existing 5,000 or 6,000 centrifuges not be increased and that operation of this number of centrifuges is not a problem," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying on Saturday.

A report by the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency that was delivered to the Security Council in May said Iran had 3,500 centrifuges, though a senior U.N. official said at the time that Iran's goal of 6,000 machines running by the summer was "pretty much plausible."

Uranium can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or as the core for atomic warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment.

The workhorse of Iran's enrichment program is the P-1 centrifuge, which is run in cascades of 164 machines. But Iranian officials confirmed in February that they had started using the IR-2 centrifuge that can churn out enriched uranium at more than double the rate.

A total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program that could churn out enough enriched material for dozens of nuclear weapons.

Iran says it plans to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment that ultimately will involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Ahmadinejad called the U.S. participation in the latest round of nuclear talks "a victory for Iran."

In a major shift in the Bush administration's policy, Undersecretary of State William Burns joined envoys from the five other nations in Switzerland at talks July 19 on Iran's nuclear program.

In the past, the U.S. said it would join talks only if Iran suspends uranium enrichment first.

"The presence of a U.S. representative ... was a victory for Iran, irrespective of the outcome. ... The U.S. condition was for Iran to suspend enrichment but they attended (the talks) without such a condition being met," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in the state radio report.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad praised the U.S. participation at the talks as a step toward recognizing Tehran's right to acquire nuclear technology.

The negotiating powers _ the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany _ have offered a package of technological, economic and political incentives in return for Iran's cooperation to suspend uranium enrichment or at least not to expand it.

The revised deal delivered last month _ which Iran refused to consider at the talks July 19 _ envisions a six-week commitment for Iran to stop expanding enrichment. In return, the six nations would agree to a moratorium on new sanctions for up to six weeks.

That is meant to create the framework for formal negotiations that the six nations hope would secure Iran's commitment to an indefinite ban on enrichment.

Seth Greenland: Rocky Mountain Why?

2008-07-26T15:20:17Z

Here is an IM chat I had with my wife Susan in the lead up to yesterday's meeting between John McCain and the Dalai Lama in Aspen.

10:39amSusan
Hey Seth, did you see McCain is going to visit the Dalai Lama in Aspen? Do you think he's a seeker?

10:40amSeth
I think he wants to discuss the four noble truths, and how he can use them to beat Obama.

10:42amSusan
But were it not just political expediency, what would that conversation be like?

10:43amSeth
I think McCain would ask him where Tibet was.

10:44amSusan
And if the Dalai Lama brought up interconnectedness?

10:47amSeth
McCain would ask if it was covered by Medicare.

10:47amSusan
And compassion?

10:51amSeth
I think McCain is for it except when it comes to torturing prisoners. Then he's against it. So he's nuanced on the issue.

10:53amSusan
I can't imagine what that conversation would be like -- the Dalai Lama and McCain on torture. The Dalai Lama and anyone on torture, but with McCain, I'd like to be a fly on the wall.

10:55amSeth
I bet the Dalai Lama's against it. If it would get him votes, do you think McCain would pose with the Dalai Lama in Buddhist robes?

10:57amSusan
He'd probably do it anyway. Politics aside, McCain seems pretty loose.

10:59amSeth is offline.

10:59amSeth is online.

10:59amSeth
I can envision McCain grilling burgers for the fawning press -- who still think he's a maverick -- at his Sedona pad, dressed like a monk. I think I might vote for him if I saw that picture.

11:00amSusan
Shaved head?

11:01amSeth
He'd be the first monk with a comb-over.

11:02amSusan
Ok so let's get serious, maybe McCain'll be the next president of the US -- stranger things have happened; look at our current president -- what message would you want him to leave this meeting with -- what would you like the Dalai Lama to say?

11:03amSeth
Vote for Obama?

Diane Dimond: Prisoner's Children Are Punished Too -- Part Two

2008-07-26T14:57:37Z

Warden Ralph Logan, a man the inmates used to call Idi Amin for his stern attitude, had an epiphany one day while entering the Eastern Correctional Institution in Westover, Maryland.

He saw a little five or six year old girl wearing a beautiful Sunday-best pink dress, obviously there to visit her incarcerated father. As she stepped up to go through the metal detector Logan watched as she automatically reached up to take off the religious medals hanging around her neck.

"I thought to myself this little thing knows how to clear a metal detector!! What are we doing when our babies know this -- and do it without even being prompted!?" Right then and there Logan told himself things had to change to make real rehabilitation work.

In prisons across the country as many as 75% of the inmates are parents. Some won't admit it. Men fear their failure to have paid child support will add time to their sentences, women fear the welfare system will take away their kids -- forever. So estimates of how many kids they left behind vary tremendously, from two to 10 million American children.

Imagine, millions of kids growing up with the stigma of a criminal parent. Study after study reports these kids are often profoundly affected. They suffer from combinations of shame, anxiety, fear, sadness, low self-esteem or aggressive behavior. Their grades often suffer, they can become anti-social, join gangs and many turn to drugs or alcohol. The number is in dispute but various reports conclude these children are seven to 10 times more likely than other kids to enter the criminal justice system themselves.

A weekend for most youngsters means sports or cheerleader practice or going to the movies. But for these kids it all too often means getting on a bus or cramming into a car along with others to visit a parent in prison. The worst part is -- they think it's normal.

Back before the events of September 11, 2001 rocked our nation Warden Logan teamed up with the Urban Family Institute to adopt a program called Salisbury's Promise. Logan and UFI founder, Kent Amos, believed in the program so deeply they cobbled together government and corporate funding to make it a reality. The college designed curriculum was intended to nurture the kids, to give them quality study and face time with their incarcerated parent. The program kit provided age appropriate interaction cards to guide both parent and child in reading, studying and social skills -- a different take-away card for every day so the lessons continued in between the one-on-one visits.

Logan says the misbehavior rate among participating inmates "went down to almost nothing" because they didn't want to be frozen out of this precious time with their children. And the prison itself was made more hospitable to visiting children and their mothers. Kids left with smiles on their faces instead of tears.

It was a program that truly made a difference and was practiced in at least 24 facilities nationwide. But funding dried up after 9-11.

The good news is that today programs like this are cropping up at prisons all over America helping both the criminal and the child see that the future is worth planning for. The Justice Department and The Girl Scouts of America initiated a mother-daughter visitation program called Beyond Bars that now operates in 37 prisons, servicing hundreds of young girls and their mothers. One chapter, in Ohio, takes girls to visit their incarcerated fathers too.

The Boy Scouts aren't so active but there's a troop in Gig Harbor, Washington that takes boys to visit their Moms at the women's prison there. Daughters also get visitation during what are, in effect, troop meetings behind bars.

The Peanut Butter and Jelly program in Albuquerque not only delivers children to see their incarcerated parents, they also offer the kids therapeutic counseling before and after the visit.

In New York the Osborn Association gets private donations to put kids and parents together even if it means flying children to far flung state prisons. Lutheran services in Pennsylvania set up video visitations so children can see their parents while talking to them on the phone.

These programs don't cost much money, many services are donated. It's all about thinking outside the box. They are win-win ideas. The child gets real life lessons in right and wrong while keeping the parental bond. The inmate learns discipline and the pleasure of accountability. Sometimes there are disappointments but these pairs often form a new union and goals for the future.

It's all about helping people step up to the plate and be responsible for their actions. Once they learn to do that maybe the generational revolving door at our prisons will slow down.

Obama defends tour, says McCain shifting on war

2008-07-26T13:49:08Z

LONDON — Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama brushed aside Republican criticism of his overseas trip on Saturday and stood outside the famed 10 Downing Street to say that both President Bush and Sen. John McCain were moving his way on the key issues of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hours before flying home, Obama also suggested his poll numbers might dip in the coming days, adding: "We have been out of the country for a week. People are worried about gas prices and home foreclosures."

At the same time, he said the journey to two war zones, the Mideast and Europe was important because "many of the issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad."

Republicans have criticized Obama throughout his trip, and McCain's campaign said recently the Democrat was taking a "premature victory lap" with more than 100 days remaining in the presidential campaign.

But Obama sought to turn that back on his critics. He said McCain had earlier been "telling me I was supposed to take this trip. He suggested it and thought it was a good idea."

"John McCain has visited every one of these countries post-primary that I have," he said. "So it doesn't strike me that we have done anything different than the McCain campaign has done, which is to recognize that part of the job of the next president, commander in chief is to forge effective relationships with our allies."

The trip was designed by the campaign to show Obama on an international stage in a way that aides hoped would reassure voters who have doubts about his ability to become commander in chief or chart a course for American foreign policy. Jews at home were an audience of particular concern, reflected in his two-night stay in Jerusalem.

McCain has long opposed Obama's call for a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq. On Friday, though, McCain said, "I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should _ or horizons for withdrawal," echoing a phrase Bush used in recent days. "But they have to be based on conditions on the ground."

At his news conference, Obama jumped on that to say there was now some convergence "around a proposal that we have been making for a year and a half."

He also said McCain supports sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, "and the Bush administration acknowledges that as well. I have been talking about that since last year," he said.

The senator also said he had canceled a planned trip to visit wounded members of the armed forced in Germany after officials told him a retired two-star general who is an adviser was considered campaign staff and "it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but wasn't on the Senate staff."

He said that as a result, he scrapped the trip to avoid injecting wounded troops into a political controversy.

Obama's final day in Europe included meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the official residence at 10 Downing Street and with Conservative Party Leader David Cameron in the opposition party's offices in Parliament. Brown's government is unpopular, and his party recently lost a local election that underscored its weakness.

Still, Obama said he had no advice for Brown. "You are always more popular before you are actually in charge of things. And then, you know, once you are responsible then you are going to make some people unhappy, and that is just the nature of politics," he said.

He also breakfasted with former Prime Minister Tony Blair, now a Middle East envoy.

William Fisher: Obama Should Re-Think His Faith-Based Agenda

2008-07-26T13:39:04Z

In his speech in Berlin, Barack Obama spoke of many walls that need tearing down. By the count of New York Times columnist David Brooks, Obama used the word "walls" 16 times, and in 11 of them, he was talking about walls coming down.

Now, I haven't talked with anyone, of any political persuasion, who's not in favor of those walls coming down, as unlikely as that may turn out to be.

But there's one wall that Barack wants to pull down that I think needs to be affirmatively left in place, or, to be more precise, reconstructed. That's the wall between church and state.

That wall was demolished by George W. Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The Constitution notwithstanding, the Bush Administration installed faith-based programs in the White House and in a dozen government departments and agencies. The president was forced to use Executive Orders to get this program started, because Congress refused to allow prospective recipients of taxpayer funds to practice religious discrimination in hiring.

We all know how the Bush Administration cynically used its faith-based initiative to solidify its relationships with the Christian Right, a critical part of its base. Now, in an embarrassingly obvious pander to these so-called "values voters," Senator Obama has proposed his own version of a faith-based initiative. It's true that Obama's version contains major differences from Bush's program. As Jim Wallis points out, Obama's proposals contain necessary protections for religious liberty, pluralism, and constitutional safeguards.

But we are still stuck with the central (and unanswered) question: Why is the federal government involved at all? Doesn't the First Amendment to our Constitution make it clear enough that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I hate to sound like one of those "government should just get out of the way" conservatives, but I have to say that this seems to me to be one of those instances where federal intervention should be just plain unnecessary.

I want to be crystal clear. I am very much aware of the fantastic work done by many faith-based groups, both at home and abroad. These groups work at the grassroots. They work to help real people with real problems. They work on issues ranging from housing to poverty to homelessness to literacy to social justice to prison mentoring. Abroad, in my development work, I have over many years seen firsthand the totally professional work done in many disciplines by organizations like Catholic Charities -- without even the tiniest hint of proselytizing.

Yes, there have been some pretty outrageous breaches by a few religious organizations -- like the outfit that distributed King James Bibles to Muslims who had just lost everything to the Tsunami. Or the charity that used our tax dollars to run an "abstinence only" family planning program.

But that's not the point. By and large, the work of these groups has been exemplary, necessary, and often far less expensive and far more efficient than government efforts. The disastrous governmental response to Katrina would have been immeasurably worse without the tireless no-strings-attached help provided by unpaid volunteers from churches and church-related groups, large and small, from all over the world.

The point is that the major players in the faith-based community are awash in money and they ought to be encouraged to share it with their smaller and often struggling brothers and sisters.

I'm talking about the multi-billion-dollar faith-based rock-star empires amassed by people like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, James Dobson, and many, many others.

Not that I would want this megaclergy to take on the role of grant-makers. Heaven forfend! That would surely lead to the total politicization of good works.

I am suggesting that, in the best spirit of peace on earth and goodwill toward men (and women), those with much should share it with those who have little save the desire to help their fellow human beings.

I am suggesting that the megaclergy commit to contributing in perpetuity part of their annual revenues to finance the kinds of projects now paid for by tax dollars. And I am suggesting that they should do that under the watchful aegis of some professional, ecumenical, credible, non-partisan, non-governmental organization, perhaps the Interfaith Council, or one of the great foundations such as MacArthur, Rockefeller, Pew, or Ford.

Let that outfit make its own rules without interference from donors. Or from the government. Let it develop its own priorities, its own criteria for awarding grants, its own monitoring and evaluation systems to measure effectiveness, its own plans to ensure lawful behavior, ethical conduct and real accountability.

It could start with only a few immutable principles: No proselytizing. No partisan politics. No ideological or scriptural agendas. Just help for those who need and deserve it.

As to the issue of employment discrimination, there shouldn't be any. In the unlikely event that some staunch right-to-lifer wants to work for Planned Parenthood, let him/her! And what could be more instructive than a practicing Muslim working for the Southern Baptist Convention! And my advice to orthodox Jews who are only comfortable working with other orthodox Jews, or Muslims with Muslims, or Catholics with Catholics: get over it!

At a practical level, I doubt that such a non-discriminatory employment policy would deter many faith-based groups from applying for grants. The reality might just be that people at polar opposites could actually learn something if they stopped talking past one another and worked together to accomplish important things.

It would be naÃ¯ve to underestimate how hard it will be to get the Pat Robertsons of the world to sign on to this new kind of no-strings-attached philanthropy.

But that's exactly the guidance the Bible gives. Consider Deuteronomy 15:11: "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."

And if that unambiguous Biblical injunction happens to fall on deaf ears, perhaps there is a role for government after all. The bully pulpit of the White House gives the president a powerful weapon - which even the likes of Pat Robertson will find it difficult to ignore.

Whichever works, it will then be time for the government to, as they say, get out of the way.

Huffpollstrology: Candidates' Horoscopes, Polls And More For July 26

2008-07-26T04:31:42Z

Polls have come to dominate the media's horse race coverage of political campaigns. Pundits and reporters constantly use them to tell us who's hot and who's not -- but skip over the fact that plummeting response rates and variables like undecided voters and margins of error and often render these polls useless as anything other than lightweight diversions on par with horoscopes and political betting lines. Our HuffPollstrology chart helps keep you up to date on the latest poll results, along with the latest horoscope predictions, and the latest online political betting lines - and will hopefully help the polling junkies in the media keep polls in the proper perspective.


Mccain vs obama in the General election
mccain	41% Gallup Daily	VIRGO August 29, 1936 On a mental level you could find yourself consciously consigning certain thoughts to a mental dust-bin which proves to be healthy. This could also coincide with someone suggesting that it's time you stopped carrying around emotional baggage which has no function whatsoever - other than making you unhappy. You are likely to be on the go all day today either running around after children or absorbing yourself in some creative activity.	33.0% chance of winning
obama	47% Gallup Daily	LEO August 4, 1961 You have a lot of energy today, which is great news because you are going to need it. Practical tasks are going to be coming in thick and fast. Someone close may have mislaid an important piece of paper – containing some vital, possibly confidential information. Another possibility is that a set of keys has gone missing. Your memory may be playing tricks on you: or it could be that someone's enjoying teasing you.	63.2% chance of winning

weather report
East		New York, NY 88 degrees (F), 20% chance of rain. Winds SSW at 10 to 15 mph.
south		Dallas, TX 102 degrees (F), 10% chance of rain. Winds SSW at 10 to 15 mph.
midwest		Chicago, IL 87 degrees (F), 40% chance of rain. Winds NW at 5 to 10 mph.
west		Los Angeles, CA 81 degrees (F), 0% chance of rain. Winds SSW at 5 to 10 mph.

Sources:

General Election Poll: Gallup Tracking Poll

The general-election results are based on combined data from July 22-24, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,641 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is +/-2 percentage points.

Horoscopes: horoscopes.co.uk

Weather: Weather.com

Betting Lines: Intrade Prediction Markets

McCain On Obama's Iraq Plan: "I Think It's A Pretty Good Timetable" (VIDEO)

2008-07-26T03:50:30Z

In an interview with CNN Friday, John McCain said that he thinks Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq is "a "pretty good timetable." ABC's the Note points out that this is quite a reversal from where the candidate was months ago:

Back in January of this year, John McCain pilloried Mitt Romney for encouraging President Bush in April 2007 to develop a private "series of timetables and milestones" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"Timetables was the buzzword for those that wanted to get out," McCain scolded Romney at a Jan. 30 debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

How the (time)tables have turned.

During a Friday interview with CNN, McCain called a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq "a pretty good timetable."

Watch the segment:

Military Blocks Photos Of US Dead

2008-07-26T03:17:41Z

The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war.

Zoriah Miller, the photographer who took images of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of the country. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq.