MikeLigalig.com

And beyond

It's common sense, really. If you keep avoiding alcohol you'll continue to see more benefits. If you're enjoying Dry January, there's no reason to stop. One month sober doesn't have to be the end of your journey. And if you're concerned about your relationship with alcohol, there's no harm in extending your break from the booze.

Doing Dry January might make you reflect on how much you drink and why. The reality is that while Dry January can absolutely make a difference, some of us may need to commit to sobriety more fully. Dr Campbell says: 'Dry January makes many people pause and think about their drinking habits, and where they do most of their drinking – after work, at office functions, at home. As a concept, it's partly based on the premise of social contagion. You'll find more people not drinking in January than at other times. That herd mentality can be supportive.

'But if people have a serious alcohol problem, being 'dry' for just one month doesn't cut it. Very often, if men and women 'white knuckle' it through January not drinking, they are back on the booze with a vengeance afterwards. They are not looking at the impact on their work, their relationships. 'I know compulsive drinkers who have stopped for several Januarys in years gone by, but just counted the days until February. They are drinking enough to affect their lives and for people around them to notice – a work colleague, a spouse, a friend. That's the test. 'They think 'because I have stopped, I can stop anytime'. It's rarely the case.

Week four: Better skin, improved liver function, and weight loss

Making it to the end of Dry January (although this doesn't have to be the end of your sobriety) will mean you actually notice some differences in the way you look and feel. Dr Campbell explains: 'Your boosted hydration levels will have a positive effect on your skin. As more water will have been absorbed rather than wasted, you are likely to have more hydrated-looking skin, as well as reduced dandruff and eczema.

'Removing alcohol from your diet for four weeks can also help to improve your liver function, as your liver will start to shed excess fat. If your liver function is not too badly affected by alcohol, it can recover within four to eight weeks. 'By the end of Dry January, you are likely to have reduced your calorie intake by 3,840 for the month if you used to drink six glasses of 175ml wine a week, or 4,320 calories over the month if you used to drink six pints of lager a week.' You'll also have saved quite a bit of money and your sex life will have improved.

By the end of the month you will have saved money.

Week three: Reduced blood pressure

After three alcohol-free weeks, your blood pressure will start to reduce. This is a pretty major deal, as high blood pressure – also known as hypertension – is a key cause of stroke and heart attack. Heavy drinking is linked to hypertension in all genders, so reducing your intake or quitting entirely can do a world of good.

Week two: Better digestion and less irritation

Within a fortnight of Dry January, along with better sleep and more hydration you may also notice a reduction in tummy pain, nausea, and digestive issues. Alcohol is an irritant to the stomach lining, so ditching it will give your body time to heal. Dr Campbell also says by week two you'll start losing weight thanks to giving up alcohol's empty calories. She says: 'If you were to stop drinking six 175ml glasses of wine per week, you would have saved 1,920 calories at this point, and 2,160 if you'd stopped drinking around six pints of lager.'

Week one: Improved sleep, better hydration, and more energy

Priory Group's addictions expert Dr Niall Campbell explains that within a week of ditching alcohol, your sleep will improve. This is because getting drunk means you typically fall straight into a deep sleep and skip the important rapid eye movement (REM) phase, giving you one to two cycles of REM sleep rather than the recommended six to seven cycles a night.

It's worth noting that in the first week of Dry January you might find it harder to drift off – but while you might get fewer hours of rest they'll likely be of a higher quality. Alcohol use influences sleeping patterns and it can take time to adjust to a normal sleep cycle that isn't induced by booze. Plus, withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety and restless legs may keep you up at night.

It's vital to try to get through the first week without depending on alcohol or other medication for slumber so you can tackle the issue of insomnia rather than masking it, then go on to enjoy the benefits of improved sleep that comes with sobriety.

Along with better sleep, your first week sober will see your body become more hydrated. Dr Campbell says: 'When drinking alcohol, you lose around four times as much liquid as what you actually consumed. 'Giving up alcohol can help you stay hydrated, which is beneficial for your brain. Your mood and concentration will be more stable, and headaches are likely to decrease. 'You also won't suffer from effects of dehydration such as lack of motivation and increased fatigue, so will have more energy throughout the day.' You can expect an improvement in sleep quality within a week.

Ellen ScottFriday 3 Jan 2020 10:31 am
https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/03/dry-january-health-benefits-see-ditching-alcohol-week-week-11994992/



It's easy to think of Dry January – a time when people give up alcohol for a month – as something that can't make a real difference to your wellbeing. It's just a month, after all. How much can change? Quite a lot, it turns out.

Taking a month off from alcohol poses major benefits for your wellbeing, even if you don't plan to keep up your sobriety once the month is done. In fact, you can see benefits just a week into the challenge. Here's the good you're doing by committing to Dry January, week by week.

Criticising the US and Israel while ignoring the crimes of others, however, does no good for the people on the ground bearing the brunt of geopolitical battles between these global and regional powers. Crying "World War III is coming" every time the US engages in aggression also ignores the fact that millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, where US, Israeli and also Iranian, Russian and Chinese intervention have stirred conflict, are already living the realities of such a war.

Being truly anti-war would mean opposing aggression by all and condemning all those accused of war crimes - whether Qassem Soleimani or Eddie Gallagher.

The debate around Soleimani and al-Muhandis' assassinations has served to illustrate, once again, the inconsistent perception by a segment of the "progressive" left of what constitutes "imperialism". They readily brand US and Israeli actions as imperialist; yet aggression by others - whether Russia, China, Iran or their allies - which causes equal damage and civilian deaths, is ignored, downplayed, or wrapped in "anti-terror" narratives (rather similar to the ones the US and Israel use).

Thus, US and Israeli attacks on the Iranian forces or the Assad regime have been decried as acts of imperialism while the mass killings of Syrian civilians by occupying powers Iran and Russia have been ignored, questioned or presented as terrorist deaths.

Only US imperialism exists?

There has been much noise about US' breach of Iraqi sovereignty, but there has been little said of Iranian and Russian actions violating sovereignty in the region. The constant presence of Soleimani in Iraq to issue orders to Iraqi officials and forces is just one of many sings of Iran's lack of respect for Iraq's sovereignty. By the admission of these same leftists, Soleimani was intervening in Iraq to "fight" US intervention.

In Syria, what these self-proclaimed anti-war activists see as Iranian and Russian deployment at the invitation of a legitimate president, Syrians see as an occupation allowed by a dictator who they never elected in free and fair elections.

These same leftists who proclaim concern about foreign intervention, refuse to acknowledge the Iranian intervention in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, when the people of those countries rebelled against authoritarianism, corruption, sectarianism, and socio-economic collapse. When protests broke out in 2018 and 2019 in Iran against the Iranian authorities, they once again framed them in the foreign-sponsored regime-change narrative.

The constant need to defend the Iranian government, even against the protests of Iranian people who have suffered under this government, is an exercise in mental gymnastics. This is the same segment of leftists that equates criticism of Iran with being an ally of Israel, which is highly problematic given both Iran and Israel are committing the same crimes in the Middle East.

However, it is hard to cover up the crimes Iran and its regional proxies have committed over the past decade. Iran has backed and even advised on the brutal crackdown by the Syrian regime on opposition protests and later its mass killing of civilians through areal bombardment and merciless sieges; it has also sent Afghan refugee children to fight on its behalf in Syria. It has sent both military equipment and personnel to the Houthis in Yemen, who just like their enemies, the Saudis and the Emiratis, have been accused of committing war crimes in the Yemeni conflict. In Iraq, they have supported and directed militias which have committed various crimes against Iraqi civilians.

In this sense, it is hardly surprising that Syrians who have gone through the trauma of losing friends and family in the siege of Aleppo and the insult of seeing images of Soleimani marching through their city (which they may never be able to return to), are celebrating his demise. It is also hardly surprising that Iraqi protesters, who have had to drag the bodies of friends shot in the head with Iranian military-grade gas grenades during attacks by Iranian-backed militias on their demonstrations, would now be cheering the demise of al-Muhandis who had been accused of directing the crackdown.

Regional reactions in context

The assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis gave some Middle East residents a sense of relief that they have finally been rid of two militia commanders who have brought much suffering to their communities.

But when Syrians, Iraqis, Yemenis and other Arabs posted celebratory comments on the assassinations of two commanders they perceive as war criminals, Iran's defenders immediately criticised these people, resorting to insisting they didn't know anything about their own countries, claiming they are pro-imperialism.

In so doing, these self-identified leftists and "anti-war" activists once again downplayed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the region. For them, the only civilian deaths that can be acknowledged are those caused by the military intervention of the US, Israel or their allies.

Trump's 2017 and 2018 airstrikes on Syrian regime targets did nothing to prevent the sustained campaign of extermination Damascus has led against its own population. They also did not result in World War III or war with Russia that some leftists were predicting on social media.

In fact, throughout his term, Trump has been playing both camps - the right-wing hawks and the left-wing "anti-war" crusaders - with his constant shift of rhetoric between withdrawal and disengagement from the Middle East and aggressive action.

He "pulled out" of Syria, but sent back troops to "guard the oil". He promised tough action on Iran after attacks in the Gulf, but did not retaliate the way his allies wanted.

It is about time that both sides admit Trump makes domestic and foreign policy decisions based on his ego and what suits him, not based on standing up for "our people" or some diabolic imperialistic plot.

This rhetoric might help him improve his ratings ahead of his re-election bid in November, but it is simply a lie that Soleimani's assassination will make the world a safer place. In fact, none of Trump's interventions in the Middle East has been of any consequence to the security of the region, contrary to what many on the right have claimed.

People in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere where Soleimani's Quds Force has been active will continue to suffer the consequences of Iran's foreign interference. Al-Muhandis' death and the limited attacks the US has carried out on the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMFs) will not disband the militia, which is heavily entrenched in Iraq.

Similarly, the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or ISIS) did not make the region any safer from terrorism. ISIL attacks have continued, and Russia and the Syrian regime have also continued to use the excuse of "anti-terror operations" to step up their military campaigns against civilians opposed to Bashar al-Assad's rule, killing hundreds and displacing hundreds of thousands.

Trump's motives

With an upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate, more Americans disapproving than approving of his presidency, and an election coming up, Trump is trying to cement his position in US politics and play to his base. His term has been marked by no clear domestic or foreign policy agendas, frequent golfing trips that spark ethical questions about how federal dollars are being spent, and Twitter meltdowns that often do not have anything to do with reality. In short, when Trump ordered the assassinations, his presidency wouldn't necessarily be described as successful.

While it is clear the US president was motivated by domestic considerations, in the aftermath of the attack, he claimed that he ordered it in the name of fighting global terrorism and that Soleimani's assassination meant his reign of terror was over.

Much of the left in the West (the same ones who describe themselves as progressives) also viciously attacked people in the Middle East who celebrated the deaths of Soleimani and al-Muhandis. While it is wrong to praise Trump's decision to assassinate the two commanders as a "noble deed", framing what happened within the old, tired leftist narrative of US imperialism erases the regional context and the suffering of millions of people in the Middle East at the hands of other powers.

Indeed, it is important to expose Trump's recklessness and political opportunism, but it is inexcusable to ignore the crimes of both Soleimani and al-Muhandis and those who they served.

Soleimani is no anti-imperialist hero
And Trump's reckless decision to assassinate him will not result in 'World War III'.



by Malak Chabkoun
https://www.aljazeera.com/



Anti-war protesters gather near the White House to condemn the US air strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, in Washington, on January 4, 2020 [Reuters/Jan Wolfe]


Immediately after news broke of the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, some leftist circles in the West proclaimed with great confidence - yet again - that World War III is around the corner. Previously, these same warnings of global doom were evoked when US President Donald Trump ordered rather toothless strikes on empty military targets in Syria and escalated his rhetoric against North Korea's Kim Jong-un.

And just as a world war did not break out on these previous occasions, it will not break out now either.

Bwahaha!

Hendricks' supporters say the accusers invented the charges, angry the priest stopped financially supporting them. The priest's lawyers dismiss any talk of guilt.

Numerous priests and brothers and a retired bishop who oversaw Hendricks either declined comment or did not respond to repeated messages.

In Cincinnati, the archdiocese has acknowledged Hendricks received some financial support from its missionary office but added a note to its website declaring, "Fr. Hendricks is not, nor has ever been, a priest of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati."
___

Associated Press reporters Dan Sewell in Cincinnati and Jim Gomez in Manila, and investigative researcher Randy Herschaft contributed to this report.

Plenty of villagers there now mourn for him.

"I don't understand why they say these things about Father Pius," says Edrich Sacare, a 37-year-old from an impoverished family who spent nearly a decade living with Hendricks, working as an altar boy and at the church. Hendricks, in turn, sent Sacare to school. He insists he never saw Hendricks behave improperly.

The accusations have divided the village, cutting through friendships and families and isolating the accusers, who say the benefits Hendricks brought — status, money, jobs — blinded villagers to his crimes.

Yet the church has done little to reckon with its role in what investigators now say was years of his abuse.
The Rev. Romulo Espina, a top official in the Diocese of Naval, where Hendricks served, insisted no diocesan leaders saw any signs of sexual abuse.

But he also quickly made clear that if Hendricks did anything wrong, the church bears no responsibility.

"If it is true, was he told to do it? No," Espina said. "You cannot attach the behavior to the institution. It is the devil."

For a poor village like Talustusan, having a its own priest — particularly an American one — meant a financial boost, with donations to rebuild the chapel, and jobs as drivers and clerks. Hendricks became the center of his own small economy, doling out jobs, loans and gifts.

Hendricks said he loved the village but he never learned to speak Bisaya, the primary local language, and never fit in fully. His sharp tongue was intimidating. "Crazy Filipino people!" he would snap when frustrated.

Then there were the boys.

They stayed at Hendricks' house, rode in his car and walked with him through Talustusan, residents say.

"All of us knew about Pius and his boys," said a former Catholic clergyman who worked with Hendricks for years, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation from the church.

Hendricks, who was born working-class Cincinnati in 1941, became a Franciscan brother by his early 20s, taking the name Pius.  His assignments ranged from the St. Catherine Indian School in Santa Fe, New Mexico to a Cincinnati neighborhood where he helped run a youth boxing club.

His branch, the Province of St. John the Baptist, declined comment on his work, saying in a statement that it was "fully cooperating with the authorities."

Residents say Hendricks was still a Franciscan when he found his way to Talustusan. It was a quiet place with dirt roads and a time-worn chapel. He left the Franciscans around 1986 and was soon ordained as a priest by the local diocese.

The 23-year-old from Talustusan said he might not have come forward without encouragement from an American visitor to the village, the boyfriend of a woman related to an accuser.

Finally, fearing his younger brother could become a victim, he told his family, then local authorities, about the alleged abuse.

Even then, the case may not have gone anywhere without intervention by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The agency started its own probe of Hendricks under a statute that allows the U.S. government to prosecute child sexual abuse by American citizens anywhere in the world.

On the island of Bohol, the priest Joseph Skelton serves mass, more than 30 years after the then-seminarian was convicted of sexual misconduct with a 15-year-old boy. Local news reports reveal even more working clergyman: the priest who continued to recruit young men for the priesthood after admitting  to sexually assaulting teenage boys; the priest who moved into a bishops' residence after being accused of raping a 17-year-old girl; the composer of sacred music accused of sexually abusing boys as young as six.

Prosecutions of accused priests are exceedingly rare here, and it's unclear if a priest has ever been convicted of child sexual abuse.

By comparison, the group BishopAccountability.org says that since 1990 more than 400 priests have been convicted in the U.S. on child sexual abuse charges.

On Biliran, the island where Hendricks spent nearly half his life, his fondness for boys had been widely discussed for decades among villagers, local officials and, according to a former Catholic brother, members of the clergy. While many people had long believed he was a pedophile, almost nothing was said openly.

That's how it happens across the Philippines. Silence continues to shield priest after priest.

For nearly two decades, the Philippine church has vowed to confront a looming shadow of clergy abuse.

In 2002, the Philippines' national conference of bishops ended years of silence to admit that the church faced "cases of grave sexual misconduct" among the clergy. It promised change.

But in a country home to more than 80 million Catholics, such promises have long disappeared into a haze of tradition, piety and clerical influence.

Hendrick's arrest was a sudden fall for a priest who had presided over the community for nearly four decades, rebuilding its chapel, pressing local officials to pave the village road, paying school fees for poor children.

But the case also reflects just how long allegations of clergy abuse can stay submerged in the Philippines, where sexual crimes by priests rarely lead to official actions by church officials or government authorities.

"It's a culture of cover-up, a culture of silence, a culture of self-protection," said the Rev. Shay Cullen, an Irish priest who has spent decades in the Philippines and works with victims of child sexual abuse.

Soon after, local authorities arrested Hendricks, 78, and charged him with child abuse.

Since then, investigators say, about 20 boys and men, one as young as 7, have reported that the priest sexually abused them. Investigators say the allegations go back well over a decade — though many believe the abuse goes back for generations — continuing until just months before the arrest.

Hendricks is from Cincinnati and regularly returned to the area, federal prosecutors said.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati previously told The Enquirer he was a Franciscan Brother at the St. Anthony Friary in Mount Airy in the 1960s and would therefore have been supervised by his religious order, rather than the archdiocese. He left the Franciscans around 1986 and was soon ordained as a priest by the local diocese.

The young man later told The Associated Press he was 12 when Father Pius Hendricks first took him into the bathroom of the church's little rectory and sexually assaulted him.

"'It's a natural thing,'" he says the priest told him, "'It's part of becoming an adult.'"

The abuse continued for years, he says. But he told no one until a village outsider began asking questions about the priest's generosity with local boys, and he feared his brother would be the next victim.

In November, he went to the police.

A priest from Cincinnati, a Philippine village, and decades of secrecy
Tim Sullivan, Associated Press
Published 7:55 a.m. ET Sept. 9, 2019



In this Feb. 19, 2019 photo, Philippine National Police, National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) agents escort Catholic priest Father Pius Hendricks to be served five additional arrest warrants at the Regional Special Operations Unit at Camp Bagong Diwa in suburban Taguig, east of Manila, Philippines. Investigators say about 20 boys and men, one as young as 7, have accused the priest of sexual abuse at his parish in Talustosan village, Naval township, Biliran province in central Philippines. (AP Photo) (Photo: AP)


TALUSTUSAN, Philippines  — The American priest's voice echoed over the phone line.

"Happy days are gone," he said in the 2018 call, recorded by a young man whose accusations would shake this little island village and reveal how allegations of sex crimes by priests are still ignored, sometimes for decades, in one of the world's most Catholic countries. "It's all over."

Nyahaha! 

Brayt pood...