Showing posts with label parents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parents. Show all posts

Friday, June 27, 2014

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

Report:BoweBergdahl’sfatherwasworkingonraising

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

posted at 11:21 am on June 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

So there was a ransom in the works. Fox News heard whispers about that soon after Bergdahl was released. So did the Free Beacon, from an intel official who speculated that a criminal syndicate like the Haqqani Network would have been much more interested in cash than prisoners.

If you believe BuzzFeed, though, it wasn’t the U.S. government that was considering a ransom, it was Bergdahl’s father. And it’s unclear if it was a pipe dream or something he might have actually pulled off.

Robert Bergdahl, the soldier’s father, did not return calls for comment. However, David Rohde, an American journalist who was himself held hostage by the Taliban in 2008, communicates with the family regularly and asked the father about the second channel of negotiations described by the two sources. The father, he said, acknowledges setting up “multiple channels” to the Taliban, because he was willing to try anything to free his son. But the father, a retired UPS worker, insisted that he did not take this effort seriously, that there was never an actual ransom price discussed, and that he never raised money for a ransom

It’s unclear how much, if anything, the U.S. government knew about this channel. One former American official involved in the formal negotiations was dismissive of the father’s outreach. “There was nothing serious about those efforts,” he said. “They were not plausible. There is always background noise in things like this. It wasn’t serious enough to merit attention.”

So it was a pipe dream. Or … was it?

[In the fall of 2013] the Taliban negotiated on both fronts, for the cash on one hand and for the prisoners on the other, as if hedging their bets.

The cash, at least to the two sources familiar with this channel, seemed to be winning out. “These financial negotiations were more advanced then the prisoner talks,” one source said. “They were really close to getting this done,” said the other.

But there were still plenty of unknowns, including how Bergdahl’s father would have raised the ransom money if a deal had been reached. One theory is that a friendly government in the Middle East would have contributed the cash. And even if the deal were struck, could the actual release have gone through?

So it wasn’t a pipe dream? I’m confused. But this is important news if the White House knew about it. One of BuzzFeed’s sources claims that Bob Bergdahl kept his ransom negotiations “close to the vest” — but obviously not so close to prevent a story like this one from coming out. Also, Bergdahl’s parents reportedly had “extraordinary insider access” to the military’s hunt for their son, replete with video conferences involving senior commanders and White House and State Department officials. Hard to believe Bergdahl’s father wouldn’t have mentioned the ransom option to his government liaisons at any point, especially given the potential risk to his son from any miscommunications. If government negotiators had been close to freeing Bowe and then Bob Bergdahl surprised them by swooping in with a ransom offer out of the blue, the Taliban might have gotten confused or suspicious and backed out altogether. It was in his interest to let the White House know.

And if the White House did know, the question arises: Why’d they go ahead with the prisoner swap for the Taliban Five if Bergdahl’s captors would have taken cash from private sources instead? Both are unpalatable options; arguably the ransom would have been harder to sell politically to Americans than a prisoner swap would, since the former feels like pure appeasement while the latter has some military tradition. Apparently, though, it was on the table, and it would have kept five bad actors from returning to the battlefield had it gone through. So why’d they do a trade instead? One possibility, as BuzzFeed notes, is that the White House regarded the swap as a confidence-building measure that would hopefully bring the Taliban around on broader peace talks. But that’s goofy, if true: The U.S. has been reaching out for talks for years and has been rebuffed at every turn. The other possibility is that Obama really was and is hellbent on closing Gitmo, and only a prisoner swap would accomplish that goal. If he (or a Sunni ally) had paid the $10 million, he’d still be stuck with figuring out what to do with the Taliban Five. A straight-up exchange solved his problem while the ransom didn’t. Go figure that the exchange won out.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

Report:BoweBergdahl’sfatherwasworkingonraising

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

posted at 11:21 am on June 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

So there was a ransom in the works. Fox News heard whispers about that soon after Bergdahl was released. So did the Free Beacon, from an intel official who speculated that a criminal syndicate like the Haqqani Network would have been much more interested in cash than prisoners.

If you believe BuzzFeed, though, it wasn’t the U.S. government that was considering a ransom, it was Bergdahl’s father. And it’s unclear if it was a pipe dream or something he might have actually pulled off.

Robert Bergdahl, the soldier’s father, did not return calls for comment. However, David Rohde, an American journalist who was himself held hostage by the Taliban in 2008, communicates with the family regularly and asked the father about the second channel of negotiations described by the two sources. The father, he said, acknowledges setting up “multiple channels” to the Taliban, because he was willing to try anything to free his son. But the father, a retired UPS worker, insisted that he did not take this effort seriously, that there was never an actual ransom price discussed, and that he never raised money for a ransom

It’s unclear how much, if anything, the U.S. government knew about this channel. One former American official involved in the formal negotiations was dismissive of the father’s outreach. “There was nothing serious about those efforts,” he said. “They were not plausible. There is always background noise in things like this. It wasn’t serious enough to merit attention.”

So it was a pipe dream. Or … was it?

[In the fall of 2013] the Taliban negotiated on both fronts, for the cash on one hand and for the prisoners on the other, as if hedging their bets.

The cash, at least to the two sources familiar with this channel, seemed to be winning out. “These financial negotiations were more advanced then the prisoner talks,” one source said. “They were really close to getting this done,” said the other.

But there were still plenty of unknowns, including how Bergdahl’s father would have raised the ransom money if a deal had been reached. One theory is that a friendly government in the Middle East would have contributed the cash. And even if the deal were struck, could the actual release have gone through?

So it wasn’t a pipe dream? I’m confused. But this is important news if the White House knew about it. One of BuzzFeed’s sources claims that Bob Bergdahl kept his ransom negotiations “close to the vest” — but obviously not so close to prevent a story like this one from coming out. Also, Bergdahl’s parents reportedly had “extraordinary insider access” to the military’s hunt for their son, replete with video conferences involving senior commanders and White House and State Department officials. Hard to believe Bergdahl’s father wouldn’t have mentioned the ransom option to his government liaisons at any point, especially given the potential risk to his son from any miscommunications. If government negotiators had been close to freeing Bowe and then Bob Bergdahl surprised them by swooping in with a ransom offer out of the blue, the Taliban might have gotten confused or suspicious and backed out altogether. It was in his interest to let the White House know.

And if the White House did know, the question arises: Why’d they go ahead with the prisoner swap for the Taliban Five if Bergdahl’s captors would have taken cash from private sources instead? Both are unpalatable options; arguably the ransom would have been harder to sell politically to Americans than a prisoner swap would, since the former feels like pure appeasement while the latter has some military tradition. Apparently, though, it was on the table, and it would have kept five bad actors from returning to the battlefield had it gone through. So why’d they do a trade instead? One possibility, as BuzzFeed notes, is that the White House regarded the swap as a confidence-building measure that would hopefully bring the Taliban around on broader peace talks. But that’s goofy, if true: The U.S. has been reaching out for talks for years and has been rebuffed at every turn. The other possibility is that Obama really was and is hellbent on closing Gitmo, and only a prisoner swap would accomplish that goal. If he (or a Sunni ally) had paid the $10 million, he’d still be stuck with figuring out what to do with the Taliban Five. A straight-up exchange solved his problem while the ransom didn’t. Go figure that the exchange won out.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, April 21, 2014

Study: Middle-aged adults in California are increasingly moving back in with their parents

Study:Middle-agedadultsinCaliforniaareincreasinglymoving

Study: Middle-aged adults in California are increasingly moving back in with their parents

posted at 8:41 pm on April 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

This study from researchers at UCLA was first released back in February, but it looks like it’s just now come to the attention of both the LA Times and myself: While it’s unfortunately not unusual for young people to move back home with their parents during times of economic hardship, it appears that upper-middle-aged Californian adults have lately been moving back into their parents home at twice the rate of the under-30 crowd:

For seven years through 2012, the number of Californians aged 50 to 64 who live in their parents’ homes swelled 67.6% to about 194,000, according to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the Insight Center for Community Economic Development.

And, before you ask, the driving factor apparently doesn’t have nearly as much to do with caring for parents getting on in years as it does the continuing fallout from the economic recession:

The jump is almost exclusively the result of financial hardship caused by the recession rather than for other reasons, such as the need to care for aging parents, said Steven P. Wallace, a UCLA professor of public health who crunched the data.

“The numbers are pretty amazing,” Wallace said. “It’s an age group that you normally think of as pretty financially stable. They’re mid-career. They may be thinking ahead toward retirement. They’ve got a nest egg going. And then all of a sudden you see this huge push back into their parents’ homes.”

Many more young adults live with their parents than those in their 50s and early 60s live with theirs. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 1.6 million Californians have taken up residence in their childhood bedrooms, according to the data.

Though that’s a 33% jump from 2006, the pace is half that of the 50 to 64 age group. …

Long-term unemployment is especially acute for older people. The number of Americans 55 and older who have been out of work for a year or more was 617,000 at the end of December, a fivefold jump from the end of 2007 when the recession hit, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Wow. For what is supposed to be an unencumbered super-blue paradise, California certainly has some entrenched economic problems, including unemployment currently holding at above eight percent and worsening rates of poverty and downward mobility. I don’t know of any comparative studies from other states, but that is certainly not an attractive statistic — and the widespread trend of young adults moving back in with their ‘rents is certainly a national one in these times of ongoing economic weakness (and the same is certainly true recession-wracked Europe).


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Maine Supreme Court locks in transgender student bathroom rights

MaineSupremeCourtlocksintransgenderstudentbathroom

Maine Supreme Court locks in transgender student bathroom rights

posted at 3:31 pm on February 2, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

I’ve been to Maine quite a few times, dating back to my childhood. A couple of years ago I saw a moose there. Once, when I went there with my dad as a kid, we were pretty sure we saw a gray wolf. But I never saw anything like this.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday guaranteed the right of a transgender child to use the school bathroom designated for the gender with which he or she identifies.

It is the first time any court in the nation has ruled it is unlawful to force a transgender child to use the school bathroom designated for the sex he or she was born with rather than the one with which the child identifies, according to the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders of Boston, which represented the girl and her family.

“This sends a message to my children that you can believe in the system,” Wayne Maines, the father of Nicole Maines, the girl at the center of the case, said Thursday afternoon in a conference call.

An emotional Wayne Maines said that he was proud of his wife, Kelly Maines, Nicole Maines and her identical twin brother, Jonas Maines. The children now are 16. Wayne Maines live in Orono. Kelly Maines and the children live in southern Maine, where Nicole and Jonas attend private school.

At the Corner, Wesley Smith thinks this may cause more problems than it solves.

The focus on bathrooms is misplaced. In CA, a girl with a penis will have to be allowed to use the girl’s locker rooms and allowed on female sports teams, and vice versa.

It used to be that to have a sex change officially recognized, you had to undergo counseling and obtain a court-ordered change of birth certificate. That at least brought some structure to this very sensitive issue.

No more.

GLAAD advocates assert this will reduce bullying. Alas, I think the opposite is true.

Not to detract from what Wesley is saying, but isn’t childhood hard enough (and confusing enough) as it is? Yes, bullying is also a problem in schools (among both genders) and Smith has a point in saying that this can simply exacerbate matters. But all of these arguments seem to skip straight past what should, I think, be one of the larger questions. We’re talking about children here. They’re going through their formative years and facing a lot of changing, confusing things in their world where they should be not only supported, but guided and directed by their parents to the best of their abilities. (By their teachers too, assuming you can find teachers still interested in doing it.) The student in question is 16 now, but the case began in elementary school.

What person knows where the heck they are going in elementary school, say nothing of making “gender judgements” in fourth grade? This is also not an age appropriate conversation to be forced into having with the rest of the students at that age. And – again – what third grader has already concluded that they were born with the “wrong naughty bits” and need to work on gender reassignment absent picking that up from their parents? This just looks like a bad move. They’re kids! Let them just be kids!


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair