Survey: 1 in 5 U.S. Adults Face
Mental Illness


Government Research Finds 45M Americans Experienced Some Form of Mental Illness in 2009; Most Didn't Get Treatment

(AP) The government says 1 in 5 American adults suffered from mental illness during the past year. Most didn't receive treatment.

A survey being released Thursday by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that 45 million experienced some form of mental illness in 2009, from major depression to more serious problems such as suicide attempts. Fewer than 4 in 10 received treatment for their mental health condition.

The survey found a strong link between mental health problems and alcoholism and drug abuse. Mental illness was also more likely among the unemployed, young adults and women. Overall, more than 8 million had serious thoughts of suicide, and 1 million tried to carry them out.



The greater the disparity in wealth between the very rich and everyone else, the more unstable an economy becomes. Our nation has now created a larger gap in the distribution of wealth than the massive chasm that helped fuel the Great Depression. In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001% of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90% of the nation’s citizens. Today, the top .001% of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90%. This is not sustainable, and makes for a very volatile economy. It would appear that the American empire is about to crash.

Food Stamp Usage Soars

This dire economic situation just didn’t happen by accident either. The wealthiest 1% reaped 2/3 of the economic benefits from Bush’s tax cuts. Cheney’s war-profiteering stock options continue to skyrocket, while many of us are now unemployed, just struggling to eat and pay rent. States across the country are reporting staggering increases in food stamp usage. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, last year the national increase was 18%; California’s food stamp usage has risen 30% since 2007.

Half of all kids will be dependent upon food stamps at some point during their childhood.

UC Berkeley Professor of Economics, Emanuel Saez, has been researching the growing disparity in income inequality in the United States for years. His work was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics; it provides in-depth analysis and useful insight into just how extremely economically polarized and desperate our country has become.


処で最近音楽紹介をしていませんでしたので、今日は(Pablo Milanes)パブロ ミラネスです。(Silvio Rodriguez)シルビオ ロドリゲスと並び(Nueva Trova)ヌエバ トロバと呼ばれる新しいキューバンミュージックのジャンルを70年代に始めた有名なキューバのミュージッシャンです。

にほんブログ村 海外生活ブログ アメリカ情報へ

にほんブログ村 英語ブログ 時事英語へ
にほんブログ村 英語ブログへ
にほんブログ村 ニュースブログ 海外ニュースへ



“Obama’s Wars”: The Real Story Bob Woodward Won’t Tell
“オバマの戦争”:ボブ ウッドワードが語らない事実。


Posted By Russ Baker On September 30, 2010

Just one year before the publication of “Obama’s Wars,” Bob Woodward became a player in his own book-in-progress. He morphed into his true identity: Warrior Bob. Actually, there’s an even deeper persona, Agent Woodward — but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
(ボブ ウッドワードの)“オバマの戦争”の出版のホンの1年前、著者ボブ ウッドワードは彼自身の本の登場人物となっていた。ボブウッドワードは真実の彼自身に変態していたのだ。闘士としてのボブである。実を言うと------話は飛ぶのだが-----“諜報員ウッドワード”としてもっと深いパーソナリティーが(彼自身には)存在するのだ。

In June of 2009, Woodward traveled to Afghanistan with General Jim Jones, President Obama’s National Security adviser, to meet with General Stanley McChrystal, then the commander of forces there. Why did Jones allow this journalist to accompany him? Because Jones knew that Woodward could be counted on to deliver the company line — the military line. In fact, Jones was essentially Woodward’s patron.
2009年6月ボブ ウッドワードは当時アフガニスタンの軍司令官だったスタンリー マッククリスタル将軍に面会する為にオバマ大統領の国家機密保全庁顧問のジムジョーンズ将軍と共にアフガニスタンを訪れた。如何してジムジョーンズ将軍は此のジャーナリストに同行を許可したのだろうか?何故ならジム ジョーンズ将軍はボブ ウッドワードがジム ジョーンズ将軍の仲間の----軍部の----意志を報道する事を信頼出来たからだ。実を言うとジム ジョーンズ将軍はボブ ウッドワードのパトロンなのである。

The New Republic’s Gabriel Sherman wrote [1] at the time that
雑誌“ザ ニュー リパブリック”のガブリエル シャーマンは当時下記の様に書いていた

…Jones was a guest of Woodward at his wife Elsa Walsh’s fiftieth birthday party held at Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee’s house. He and Elsa were glued to Jones at the cocktail party before the dinner started…
---------ジョーンズ将軍はサリー クインとベン ブラッドリーが催したボブ ウッドワードの妻エルサ ワォルッシュの50歳の誕生日のパーティーのゲストだった。ボブ ウッドワードと彼の妻エルサは夕食が始まる前のカクテルパーティーでジョーンズ将軍に糊の様に張り付いていた。---------

In September of last year, McChrystal (or someone close to him) leaked to Woodward a document that essentially forced President Obama’s hand. Obama wanted time to consider all options on what to do about Afghanistan. But the leak, publicizing the military’s “confidential” assertion that a troop increase was essential, cast the die, and Obama had to go along. Nobody was happier than the Pentagon — and, it should be said, its allies in the vast military contracting establishment.
The website Firedoglake chronicled the developments in a pungent essay [2]:

ウエッブサイト“ファイアー ドッグ レイク”は刺激的なエッセイで事の発展を年代的に記録している。

Apparently General McChrystal and the Petraeus cabal aren’t willing to wait for their Commander in Chief to set the strategy. Prior to the President’s interviews, McChrystal’s people were already telling journalists that they were “impatient with Obama” as Nancy Youssef reported [3]. This “Power Play [4],” as I mentioned last night, included a veiled threat that McChrystal would resign if he didn’t get his way.
マッククリスタル将軍とぺトレイアス将軍の秘密結社は彼等の最高司令官(大統領)が戦略を練るまで待つ気持ちは無かった。ナンシー ユーゼフが報告した様に大統領のインタヴュー以前マッククリスタル将軍の仲間達は既にジャーナリストに“彼等は大統領に対して苛々している”と語っていた。


And sure enough, just hours after the Commander in Chief was on the airwaves, somehow McChrystal’s classified report hit the Washington Post [5] … compliments of Bob Woodward no less.
そして案の定、最高司令官(大統領)のスピーチが放送された数時間後に、如何言う訳かマッククリスタルの機密報告がワシントン ポストに現われたのである。--------驚くべき事に此の話はボブ ウッドワードからなのである。


Wow, what a coincidence!

This episode highlights a crucial aspect of Bob Woodward’s career that has been ignored by most of the media. Simply put, Woodward is the military’s man, and always has been.
此のエピソードは殆どのメディアが無視しているボブ ウッドワードの経歴の重要な部分に光を当てている。簡単に言うとボブ ウッドワードは軍人であって常にそうだった。

For almost four decades, under cover of his supposedly “objective” reporting, Woodward has represented the viewpoints of the military and intelligence establishments. Often he has done so in the context of complex inside maneuvering of which he gives his readers little clue. He did it with the book Veil, about CIA director William Casey, in which he relied on Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, a rival of Casey’s, as his key source. (Inman, from Texas, was closely identified with the Bush faction of the CIA.) The book was based in part on a “deathbed interview” with Casey that Casey’s widow and former CIA guards said never took place.
殆ど40年間彼の“客観的”報道と思われている変装によりウッドワードは軍部と情報機関の支配集団の視点を代表して来たのである。彼は多くの場合読者には殆ど説明しない複雑に関係している内部事情に通じている人々のコネクションを操って彼の報道を為して来たのである。ウッドワードは米情報局長官ウイリアム ケイシーについての彼の著書“ヴェイル”でケイシーのライヴァルだったボビーレイインマン海将を重要な情報源として使うウッドワードの御馴染みの同様の手段を用いた。(テキサス出身のインマン海将は米中央情報局のブッシュ派に非常に近い存在として認識されている。) 此の著書は部分的にケイシーの妻と米中央情報局警備員がその様なインタヴューはなかったと言っているウイリアム ケイシー長官との“死の床”でのインタヴューが基にされていた。

Typically, Woodward uses information he gets from his main sources to gain access to others. He then gets more secrets from them, and so on down the line. His stature — if that’s the word — as a repository of this inside dope has been key to the relentless success machine that his media colleagues have perpetuated. The New York Times review [6] of his Obama book laid out the formula:
典型的にはウッドワードは彼の主な情報源(情報提供者)によって得られた情報を使い他の情報源に接近する。そしてウッドワードは彼の情報提供者達からもっと多くの秘密を得、そして其の後同じ事が繰り返される。間抜けな内部情報提供者による情報の容器としての彼の存在-----若し其れが適切な言葉であるなら-----は彼のメディア界での同僚が永遠化してしまった容赦の無い成功を成し遂げる機械の重要な鍵である。ニューク タイムズのオバマについての著書の評論は此の方式を示している:

“In Obama’s Wars, Mr. Woodward, as usual, eschews analysis and commentary. Instead, he hews to his I Am a Tape Recorder technique, using his insider access to give readers interested in inside-the-Beltway politics lots of granular detail harvested from interviews conducted on background, as well as leaked memos, meeting notes and other documents. Some of this information is revealing about the interplay of personality and policy and politics in Washington; some of it is just self-serving spin. As he’s done in his earlier books, Mr. Woodward acknowledges that attributions of thoughts, conclusions or feelings to a person were in some cases not obtained directly from that person, but from notes or from a colleague whom the person told — a questionable but increasingly popular method, which means the reader should take the reconstructed scenes with a grain of salt.”

And then, thanks to all this attention, and even with that grain of salt, the book went to #1.

But might there be more to Woodward and his oeuvre than just questionable work practices? Well, let’s see. Woodward granted former CIA director George H.W. Bush a pass by excluding him from accounts of Iran-Contra, which occurred while the notorious intriguer was vice president under the notoriously hands-off Ronald Reagan. (When I asked Woodward about this for my book Family of Secrets, he replied, “Bush was…What was it he said at the time? I was out of the loop?”) Later Woodward got exclusive access to H.W.’s son. He spent more time with George W. Bush than did any other journalist, writing several largely sympathetic books about his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan before playing catch-up with prevailing sentiment and essentially reversing course.
然しウッドワードと彼の全著作物には単に疑問のある彼の手段以上の物が有るのではないだろうか?一寸待てよ----如何だろう。ウッドワードは元中央情報局長官ジョージH.W.ブッシュをイランコントラ事件から除外する事で彼の言い分を認めた。其れは当時陰謀者として悪名の高いブッシュが人任せで悪名の高かったロナルド レーガンの副大統領だった時期に起こった。(私の著書“ファミリー オブ シークレット”の為に此の事についてウッドワード氏に訊ねた時彼は『ブッシュは-----当時彼は何て言ったかなあ?私は当時其の事には関係していなかった---?』) 後にウッドワード氏はジョージH.W.ブッシュの息子との単独インタヴューの機会を得た。(イラク、アフガニスタンに対する米国民の)一般的な感情に同調し基本的にブッシュに対する同情的立場を転換する事になる以前、ウッドワード氏は他のどのジャーナリストよりも多くの時間をH.W.の息子のジョージW.ブッシュと過ごし、ジョージW.ブッシュのイラクとアフガニスタンの扱いについて専ら同情的な幾冊かの著書を著した。

Now, for a bit of cognitive dissonance. Woodward’s signature achievement - bringing down Richard Nixon - turns out not to be what we all thought. If that comes as a surprise, you have missed a few books, including bestsellers, that put pieces of this puzzle together. (Family of Secrets has several chapters on the real Watergate story, but there are others that present detailed information, including those by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, James Rosen, Jim Hougan and others.)
そうすると話が一寸違う様な気がするだろう。ウッドワード氏の最も有名な業績----リチャード ニクソン大統領を大統領の座から引き摺り下ろしたと言う-------は最終的には我々皆が考えていた様な話ではなかった。若し此れで驚く様なら貴方は此のパズルの断片を継ぎ合わせたベストセラーも含めた数冊の本を見逃していると言う事になる。(私の著書“ファミリー オブ シークレット”はワォーターゲイト事件について幾つかのチャプターを割り当てているがレオン コロドニー、ロバート ゲットリン、ジェイムス ローゼン、ジム ホーガンや他の著者達も含め他にも仔細の事実を提供している著書が存在する。)

Here’s the deal: Bob, top secret Naval officer, gets sent to work in the Nixon White House while still on military duty. Then, with no journalistic credentials to speak of, and with a boost from White House staffers, he lands a job at the Washington Post. Not long thereafter he starts to take down Richard Nixon. Meanwhile, Woodward’s military bosses are running a spy ring inside the White House that is monitoring Nixon and Kissinger’s secret negotiations with America’s enemies (China, Soviet Union, etc), stealing documents and funneling them back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They then give what they stole to columnist Jack Anderson and others in the press.
此れが其の話だ:最高機密を扱う海軍将校のボブ ウッドワードは軍務期間中にも拘らずニクソン ホワイトハウスで働く為に送り込まれる。そして其の後特筆すべきジャーナリストとしての資格が無いにも拘らずホワイトハウスの人員達の後押しでワシントン ポストに職を得、其の後間も無くボブ ウッドワードはリチャード ニクソン降ろしを始めた。その間ボブ ウッドワードの軍部の上司達はホワイトハウス内でスパイ網を張りニクソンとキッシンジャーのアメリカの敵国(中国、ソ連、等々)との秘密協議の動向を見張り、記録書類を盗み統合参謀本部に漏洩していた。そして彼等は彼等の盗む出した情報をコラムニストのジャック アンダーソンや他のジャーナリスト達に与えていた。

That’s not the iconic Woodward of legend, of course — so it takes a while for this notion to settle in the mind. But there’s more — and it’s even more troubling. Did you know there was really no Deep Throat, that the Mark Felt story was conjured up as yet another layer of cover in what became a daisy chain of disinformation? Did you know that Richard Nixon was loathed and feared by the military brass, that they and their allies were desperate to get Nixon out and halt his rapprochement with the Communists? That a bunch of operatives with direct or indirect CIA/military connections, from E. Howard Hunt to Alexander Butterfield to John Dean — wormed their way into key White House posts, and started up the Keystone Kops operations that would be laid at Nixon’s office door?
此の話は偶像化された伝説のボブウッドワードではない------勿論だ----だから此の認識がシックリ来るまでには時間が掛かるのである。処が(驚くことは)もっと有り、そして其れはより困惑する様な話なのだ。知ってるかい?ディープ スロートは実は存在しなかったのだ。マーク フェルトの話は雛菊の花輪の様に繋ぎ合わされた又別の層の隠蔽工作としてでっち上げられていた?知っているかい?リチャード ニクソンは軍上層部から忌み嫌われ恐れられていて軍上層部と其の仲間達はニクソンをホワイトハウスから追い出すのに躍起になっていた。そして共産主義者の国々との国交回復を中止させようとしていた?E.ハワードハント、アレクサンダー バターフィールド、ジョン ディーン等の米中央情報部と軍部との関係を持つそれらのスパイ達はホワイトハウスの重要な地位に潜り込みキーストン コップスの様な活動をはじめ(其のドタバタ喜劇は)ニクソン執務室のドアの前で上演されるのだった?

Keystone copsキーストン コップス:サイレン トムービー時代に有名だったドタバタ喜劇の警察隊。

Believe me, I understand. It sounds like the “conspiracy theory” stuff that we have been trained to dismiss. But I’ve just spent five years on a heavily documented forensic dig into this missing strata of American history, and I myself have had to come to terms with the enormous gap between reality and the “reality” presented by the media and various establishment gatekeepers who tell us what’s what.

Given this complicity, it’s no surprise that when it comes to Woodward’s latest work, the myth-making machine is on auto pilot. The public, of course, will end up as confused and manipulated as ever. And so things will continue, same as they ever were. Endless war, no substantive reforms. Unless we wake up to our own victimhood.
此の複雑性を考慮に入れてボブ ウッドワード氏の最も最近の著書について述べるなら伝説をでっち上げる組織はオートパイロットで機能していると言う事は驚くにはあたらない。一般市民は当然以前より一層混乱し操られる結果となるのである。そして事物は---------若し我々が我々自身が被害者であると言う事に目覚めなければ--------引き続き以前と同じ状態が続くのである。終わりの無い戦争、実質の無い改革、等々------。

Article printed from WhoWhatWhy: http://whowhatwhy.com
URL to article: http://whowhatwhy.com/2010/09/30/%e2%80%9cobama%e2%80%99s-wars%e2%80%9d-the-real-story-bob-woodward-won%e2%80%99t-tell/
URLs in this post:
[1] wrote: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/bob-woodward-jim-jones-and-obama-book
[2] essay: http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/21/mcchrystals-afghanistan-report-leaked-attempts-to-push-obama-to-escalate-war/
[3] Nancy Youssef reported: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/75702.html
[4] Power Play: http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/20/mcchrystals-power-play/
[5] Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html?hpid=topnews
[6] review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/books/23book.html

続きを読む »


Choking on Its Contrived
Objectivity, the Media Refuses to
Take a Stand on Sanity

Arianna Huffington アリアナ ハフィントン
Posted: October 14, 2010 09:13 PM


We finally found out the real problem with the mainstream media: They're agnostic on sanity.

Agnosticism不可知論 agnostic不可知論者とは認識は不可能と考える人々。
That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the refusal of mainstream-media organizations to allow their employees to attend Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity on Oct. 30 in Washington, D.C. That's right, in a showdown between nonpartisan sanity and partisan madness, the traditional media have boldly decided to... not take a stand.
其れが(正気について知ろうとしないメディア)ワシントンDCで10月30日に行われるジョン スチュワートの“正気を取り戻す集会”に参加する事をメインストリームメディアが其の社員達に禁止した事から引き出される唯一の帰結なのです。其の通りなのです。党派の(争いの)無い正気と党派的な狂気の間の(戦いの)大詰めで伝統的メディアは態度を明快にさせない事を堂々と決定したのです。

It started with Ellen Weiss, NPR's Senior Vice President for News, sending a memo to NPR employees forbidding them from attending the rally. The policy was clarified in a NPR blog post by Dana Davis Rehm. "Their rallies will be perceived as political by many, whatever we think," she wrote.
其れはNPR(ナショナル パブリック レイディオ:日本のNHKラジオの様な放送局)のニュース部門上級副社長エレン ワイスがNPRの職員達に正気を取り戻す集会に参加する事を禁じたメモを送った事から始まった

Heaven forbid! Clearly if someone is going to perceive something NPR does as "political," it's best not to do it -- even if it's not actually political. Better to let what's acceptable be defined by the most extreme elements than be perceived as "political" -- and to keep a pristine reputation by not taking a stand on sanity and reasonableness.

NPR was joined by the Washington Post, which sent out this statement to its newsroom managers:
ニュース編集室の主任達に下記の声明を送ったワシントン ポストがNPRに参加した。

Events, like those organized by Glenn Beck or involving Jon Stewart and Steven [sic] Colbert, are political, and therefore Post newsroom employees may not participate. By participate, we mean that Post newsroom employees cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause.
『グレン ベックや、若しくはジョン スチュワートとスティーヴン コルベアーが組織する様な催物は政治的である。そしてポストのニュース編集室の職員は参加する事が許されない。参加することによってポストのニュース編集室の職員は其の目的を支持(若しくは反対)していると受け取られる様な如何なる状況に自身を置いてはならないと言う意味である。』

Got that? Can't be seen supporting sanity, but must be seen drawing a ludicrous equivalence between Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart! The Post does say that it permits "observing... watching and listening from the sidelines." You know, just like the press -- with some very honorable exceptions -- did during the run-up to the Iraq War. Or the financial crisis. Or the housing crisis.
これ分りましたか?正気を支持している事が世間に見られてはいけないが、然しグレン ベックとジョン スチュワートの間に馬鹿げた同等性を見る事は世間に知られなければならない!ポストは確かにこう言っている‐--------“第三者の立場から観察する事、見る事、そして聞く事はポストは許可している”と。御分かりでしょう!イラク戦争に至る過程で--------幾つかの褒め称えるべき例外は別に-------メディアが全く同じ様にしたと同じ事なのです--------若しくは経済危機、住宅危機の時の様に。

Similar statements have been put out by ABC News, CBS News, AP, Politico and the New York Times.
同じ様な声明がABCニュース、CBSニュース、AP、ポリティコ、そしてニューヨーク タイムズによって発表されたのです。

Actually, this media groupthink explains a lot -- including why we find ourselves in a time and place in our country in which a rally to restore sanity is even necessary. The media didn't take positions on the most insane events of the last ten years, so, the thinking seems to be, why start now? It certainly explains why, as our political process becomes more and more insane, the media act like guests at a dinner party ignoring the fact that the guy sitting at the end of the table is proceeding to set it on fire. You want to say, "Uh, yeah, the wine is very good, thanks, but does anybody else notice that guy over there with the gasoline and the Zippo lighter?" But pointing out the insanity would be "partisan." Better not to rock the boat... even as it's sinking.


We've seen it again and again: In the name of "objectivity," the media pretend that every issue has two sides, and that both deserve equal weight. For the Pontius Pilate press, washing its hands of responsibility, the best route is to stand on the sidelines -- leaving the question of "what is true" to the public.

Pontius Pilate ポンティス パイレット(ポンテ ピラト)聖書に登場するジュデア地域の属州総監。彼については色々違った説明がされていますがキリストの死刑の原因になった事からの責任逃れをしようとしたと言う話の為此処ではメディアを彼の名前で呼んでいる?

It should go without saying: Not taking a stand is, in fact, taking a stand. Fortunately, more than 200,000 people have already pledged to take a stand, having signed up to attend at the rally's Facebook page.

We've known for a while that if we're going to pull ourselves out of the various messes we're in, the answers are not going to come from Washington. And now we know they are not going to come from the major media either. They'll be on the sidelines, just as they were as the fringe ideas and extreme rhetoric that have taken over our political conversation became more and more unhinged.

Taking a stand for sanity is not a partisan position. It's neither right nor left. It's reasonable. So stroll over to your window (no need to rush), open it, and, without shouting, repeat after me: "I'm sensible as hell... and I'm not going to take it any longer than is reasonable."

Jon Stewart Opens The Rally To Restore Sanity
ジョン スチュワート“正気を取り戻す集会”を開会

Jon Stewart's Final Speech at Rally to Restore
ジョン スチュワートの“正気を取り戻す集会”での閉会のスピーチ

続きを読む »