Facebook Slider
Optional Member Code
Get News Alerts!
Guest Commentary

Guest Commentary (4838)


    When the wheels are coming off, it doesn’t do much good to change the driver.

    Whatever the name of the commanding general in Afghanistan, the U.S. war effort will continue its carnage and futility.

    Between the lines, some news accounts are implying as much. Hours before Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s meeting with President Obama on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that “the firestorm was fueled by increasing doubts -- even in the military -- that Afghanistan can be won and by crumbling public support for the nine-year war as American casualties rise.”

    It now does McChrystal little good that news media have trumpeted everything from his Spartan personal habits (scarcely eats or sleeps) to his physical stamina (runs a lot) to his steel-trap alloy of military smarts and scholarship (reads history). Any individual is expendable.

    For months, the McChrystal star had been slipping. A few days before the Rolling Stone piece caused a sudden plunge from war-making grace, Time Magazine’s conventional-wisdom weathervane Joe Klein was notably down on McChrystal’s results: “Six months after Barack Obama announced his new Afghan strategy in a speech at West Point, the policy seems stymied.”

    Now, words like “stymied” and “stalemate” are often applied to the Afghanistan war. But that hardly means the U.S. military is anywhere near withdrawal.

Helpful 411 Regarding The Latest Republican Fiasco

by Tony Peyser


Joe Barton apologized to Tony Hayward;

Startling and odd and creepy.

Why? Well, Joe once worked for ARCO,

Which was later bought by BP.



The offshore oil drilling catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico brought to
us by BP has overshadowed its central role over the past century in
fostering some other disastrous events.

BP originated in 1908 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company—a British
corporation whose name was changed to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company
two decades later.  With exclusive rights to extract, refine, export,
and sell Iran's rich oil resources, the company reaped enormous


According to a June 18 AP article, Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano has defended monitoring Internet communications as a “civil liberties trade-off the US must make to beef up national security.” In addition, she said “it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.” Unfortunately, it is incomprehensible how “beefing up” national security can be both a civil liberties trade-off and not a sacrifice of liberty. This contradiction betrays the sad reality that the Obama administration has followed the lead of the Bush administration in escalating the abridgment of civil liberties in the US to protect “national security.”

According to Napolitano, there have been an increasing number of homegrown terrorists who have used the Internet to “reached out” to Islamic extremists for training and inspiration; and the AP article points to the recent Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and accused Fort Hood Texas shooter Major Nadal Hasan as possible examples.

It is not clear, however, how a relatively few instances of homegrown terrorists who may have been influenced by their online activities to become radicalized can warrant government abridgment of the privacy of millions of Americans. However, it is not hard to see how easily such a principle could be expanded to include any private activities that may possibly be linked to radicalization. Thus, the communications that may occur inside a Mosque may be deemed grist for the mill of government monitoring. And the same logic could well be applied to private communications in the homes of Americans because there may possibly be plans afoot by a few homegrown, would-be terrorists.


If you value this BuzzFlash commentary, please help us keep the lights on by contributing at the BuzzFlash Progressive Marketplace.

            In surveying the environmental damage unleashed from the BP oil spill, could we be missing the 800-pound gorilla in the closet?  While oil poses undeniable ecological risks, methane (CH4) could prove daunting as well.  As it turns out, crude which is destroying the Gulf of Mexico contains about 40 percent methane which may suffocate marine life and create vast “dead zones” where oxygen becomes so depleted that nothing is allowed to live.

              Methane is a colorless, odorless and flammable substance which forms a major component in natural gas.  It is used to heat people's homes, and gets burnt off from crude before oil is shipped to the refinery.  Though BP has sought to do just that as it captures crude from its breached well, some of the gas has escaped containment efforts and has wound up in the water.  As small microbes living in the sea feed on oil and natural gas, they consume large amounts of oxygen which they require in order to digest food. 

            That in turn exerts an unfortunate ripple effect: when oxygen levels decrease, the breakdown of oil can’t advance any further.  What’s more, most life cannot survive under such conditions.  To make it more concrete, think about the plight of the enigmatic giant squid.  Living in deep waters, the squid will be severely disrupted by lower oxygen levels.  That in turn stands to have an effect on the food chain, since giant squid provide the meal of choice for endangered sperm whales. 

            While many will focus on methane’s impact upon local wildlife, the compound, also known as marsh gas, also stands to affect climate.  Indeed, though some of the methane from the Gulf will dissolve in the water, other parts will be emitted to the Earth’s atmosphere.  That is a problem, since methane is already contributing to our global warming dilemma.  Once in the atmosphere, methane absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation that would normally move into outer space. This phenomenon can contribute to atmospheric warming, which is why methane is considered a greenhouse gas. 


Effective activism's a long-haul process, not "save the Earth in 30 days, ask me how." But there are some principles that seem to reoccur for people addressing every kind of challenge from the Gulf Oil spill to inadequate funding for urban schools to how to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq. They give us clues on how to reach out to engage our fellow citizens and help us get past our own barriers, not to mention burnout and disappointment. When I was updating my Soul of a Citizen book on citizen activism, an activist rabbi who was teaching the book at a Florida university suggested I gather together a Ten Commandments for effective citizen engagement. Calling them Commandments seemed presumptuous, but I did draw together ten suggestions that can make engagement more fruitful. Some I've already explored in various Soul of a Citizen excerpts. I'll flesh out others in coming weeks. But pulling them together in one place seemed useful.

Suggestion #1: Start where you are. You don't need to know everything, and you certainly don't need to be perfect.

Suggestion #2: Take things step by step. You set the pace of your engagement. Don't worry about being swallowed up, because you'll determine how much you get involved.


Nile TV International and Israel Today Magazine are pushing a story that Obama admitted he is a Muslim to Egypt’s Foreign Minister, and U.S. conservatives – especially AtlasShrugs.com’s Pamela Geller -- are running with it

You’ve heard the charges many times; President Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim; Obama wasn’t born in the United States; Obama is anti-Israel. Now, for the first time, two news outlets, Nile TV International and Israel Today Magazine are reporting that there is definitive proof that Obama is a Muslim.

How can they be so certain? Because Obama admitted it. That’s right, according to these outlets, Obama evidently straight out admitted he is a Muslim in a conversation with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

According to journalist Dennis Avi Lipkin (alias Victor Mordecai), Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."


In 2003 I wrote, "If George W. Bush had run for president on a platform of making the world uninhabitable for humankind, he could scarcely have done better at starting us down such a path."

His first nail in the, um, platform was to allow Dick Cheney to select himself as vice-president. His second was in elevating Cheney to the status of co-president almost immediately. In his second administration--two wars and a million deaths later--Bush demoted Cheney, but by then it was too late. Cheney had unleashed forces that will haunt the world for decades if not centuries.

Even now oil gushes from a hole in the bottom of the sea, thanks to Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and BP.

Don’t get me wrong. Obama is not absolved. He’s been worse than disappointing in this crisis. It would’ve been heartening to see him direct an armada of ships from many nations into the Gulf of Mexico to suck up oil and otherwise contain the damage. It would’ve been wonderful to see him in boots and protective gear leading armies of volunteers and actual soldiers to scoop oil off beaches and clean feathers of sea-gracing birds. It would’ve been marvelous to’ve beheld a panel of actual scientists telling us what was really going on and rapidly assessing options proposed by everyone from actor Kevin Costner to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Thursday, 17 June 2010 02:53

Does the Pink Viagra Work?


Despite diehard urban legends in the 1960s about Spanish Flies, "nymphomania," and the proverbial "girl on the gearshift" (who everyone swore they knew), drugs to boost women's libido are not recent. They date all the way back to Roman times when the wife of Augustus Caesar dosed her guests to liven a party and Marquis de Sade did the same, seventeen hundred years later.

Now a new female libido drug, dubbed the Pink Viagra, has husbands, boyfriends, and Wall Street cheering, if not its intended patients.Pink Viagra Cartoon

On June 18 an FDA advisory committee will consider approval of flibanserin, manufactured by Germany-based Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, for "treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women."

Flibanserin was rolled out at the European Society for Sexual Medicine's annual meeting in Lyon, France last November as an exciting new treatment for libido-impaired women. Volunteers reported the number of "satisfying sexual encounters" they had on the drug increased from 2.7 to 4.5 times a month in pooled data from placebo-controlled Phase III studies in the U.S. and Europe. Placebo worked too, with women reporting satisfying sexual experiences increased to 3.7 a month. (Evidently just thinking about sex, rather than "England," stokes desire.)

To participate in trials, women had to be "in a stable, monogamous, heterosexual relationship" for a year, free from depression and parenting, eldercare, and income stress -- but who does that leave? --  and "willing to try to have sexual activity" at least once a month.

Like Pfizer's 12-year-old Viagra, which was meant as an angina drug until its erectile effects appeared, flibanserin was groomed to be an antidepressant until its effect on female sexual desire surfaced during the study and trial participants didn't want to return their unused pills according to Medpage. It wasn't effective as an antidepressant despite 15 years of forced swim, "learned helplessness," and stereotactic experiments in animals.


February 6, 2011 is the 100th anniversary of the birth Ronald Reagan. While the official Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission is planning its festivities, conservatives will try to turn it into a full-year of celebrating, honoring and capitalizing politically on the legacy of a decidedly mediocre president.     

 Earlier this year, the brothers Reagan (Michael, the older one, a conservative radio talk show host, Ron, the younger, a progressive radio talk show host), had a spirited, civil, and public disagreement. They weren’t facing off at a University of Oxford Debate nor did they spend some time with Oprah; in fact, it wasn’t even face-to-face (although a holiday dinner might be quite an event). Rather, through the magic of an assortment of media platforms, the two brothers discussed how their father, Ronald Reagan, might have responded to the Tea Party Movement. 

Michael insisted that his dad “would say ‘hear, hear’ to those people who in fact [are] out there rattling their sabers if you will to wake up Washington, D.C.,” he said in an early-February interview with the Business & Media Institute.  In another venue, Michael said he believed that his father “would embrace the tea party movement if he were alive today.”  

Page 220 of 346