~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From LA Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OPINION

Ft. Hood and the bugaboo of 'political correctness'

Look deeper at a killer and what do you usually find? An angry, crazy person.

by Gregory Rodriguez

November 23, 2009

The Ft. Hood massacre was not the first violent tragedy that conservatives have blamed on political correctness. But it might be the first one in which they actually have a point.

In March, commentator Glenn Beck suggested that Michael McLendon, the man who killed 10 people in the worst rampage in Alabama history, might have been "pushed to the wall" because he felt "silenced" by political correctness. (Conservatives, in particular, he said, are afraid to speak up because "you're called a racist.")

Ten years ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blamed the infamous Columbine High School massacre -- in which teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 13 people and injured 21 others -- on the cultural contamination caused by decades of "political correctness" that "undermined the core values in American history." He said the two teenagers probably never realized they were robbing their victims of the "inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" because their teachers never taught them about the Constitution.

Let's face it, ever since the term was brought into popular usage in the 1990s, political correctness has been a convenient bête noire for conservatives. The PC label makes fun of the absurdities of the self-righteous liberal language police, and the right has done a bang-up job of spreading it around.

But the joke congealed into something nastier. Political correctness is not a powerful and deadly force, as prominent right-wing commentary would have us believe. But the term has become a kind of code for an essentially racial struggle over what it means to be American.

Take the three examples above of conservatives blaming mad violence on political correctness. In each case, those wielding the term are arguing that "Americans" have either been hamstrung in their ability to root out the bad guys (Ft. Hood), or have been induced to become bad guys themselves (Columbine and Alabama) by a PC regime that contaminated their heritage. But who are these Americans whose heritage and hands have been so tightly bound?

To answer that, it helps to remember why and how the culture of political correctness emerged. At best, the term refers to the active avoidance of expressions or actions that could exclude or offend minorities. It was this "soft" political correctness that led to our generally harmless acceptance of ethnic labels such as Native American in place of Indian, gender-neutral terms such as firefighter in place of fireman, and generally made members of the majority (i.e. white Americans) aware that not all Americans thought alike.

At worst, political correctness became an attempt to limit language, ideas and what was acceptable in public debate or conduct. Campus advocates have bullied or sought to silence those with opposing views. Oversensitive cultural watchdogs have encouraged stilted, self-conscious interactions -- between races, classes, genders or any minority group and the majority -- presumably to ensure that nobody was ever offended, not one tiny bit . Finally, and this may apply to the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, workplace and legal regulations have made some bosses feel they could not fire even unsatisfactory minority employees for fear of being accused of discrimination.

For good or ill, political correctness was a response to the rapid diversification of the U.S. population and the perceived need to induce the majority population -- whites, or often more precisely white males -- to take into account the sensitivities and self-definitions of minorities of all kinds. That means the Americans who are considered to be victims of political correctness are members of the white majority. And the revolt against everything PC is driven by a sense that whites have bent over backward for -- and even sold out mainstream culture to -- minorities.

But is that true? Do blacks, women, Latinos, Native Americans or handicapped people, for that matter, have the United States in their proverbial pockets? Are the actions and lives of white people at large really impinged and shaped by the demands of these minority groups?

We do have an African American president, but can we even say members of that minority and others disproportionately hold seats of political or economic power in the country? White supremacist groups would say yes, but I don't think even Glenn Beck or Newt Gingrich would agree.

To be sure, the hazards of political correctness are not merely a figment of the right's imagination. In the case of Hasan, it may be that his problems and proclivities were ignored because his superiors feared they'd be accused of discrimination against a Muslim. And it's possible that his dangerous actions and behaviors were shrugged off as a matter of cultural sensitivity, or to provide the military with more strategic diversity.

But however PC things were during the major's career, what went wrong with him and the system surely can't be reduced to one bugaboo; it is deeper, broader and more complicated than that.

In any case, as conservatives should know, political correctness doesn't kill people -- angry, crazy people do.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez23-2009nov23,0,829204,print.column

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OPINION

Immigration reform, again

Obama and the Democrats want another crack at it, but nothing is certain.

by Jeffrey Kaye

November 23, 2009

If any one person embodies the complex politics of immigration reform, it is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. As governor of Arizona in 2007, she signed one of the nation's toughest state immigration laws, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which imposed harsh penalties on businesses that knowingly employed undocumented workers. Now, as the nation's top immigration official, she will be asked to weigh in on a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of that law. The case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court as Washington once again revives efforts to overhaul the nation's immigration laws.

At the time she signed the bill, Napolitano, citing the failure of congressional leaders to take action, insisted that "states like Arizona have no choice but to take strong action to discourage the flow of illegal immigration." Under the law, businesses that willfully hire illegal immigrants can be shut down temporarily or, for a second offense, completely -- a "business death penalty," as Napolitano called it.

"Arizona has taken the most aggressive action in the country against employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented workers," she wrote. The measure was one of hundreds of immigration laws passed across the country, largely as a reaction to the stalemate over the issue in Washington.

The Arizona statute came under immediate attack from disparate groups rarely found on the same side of the table. Legal briefs opposing the law were filed by farmers, contractors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The opponents' key legal argument has been that immigration policy should be set by the federal government, not by state and local jurisdictions.

Now that she's exchanged her state hat for a federal one, it will not be surprising if Napolitano opposes the measure she made law. As a governor who grappled politically and fiscally with the consequences of a massive influx of illegal immigrants, she asserted the authority of her state. But that was then. Now, as the Obama administration's point person on the issue, Napolitano is likely to reflect the position her boss took as a candidate, supporting "comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands."

Napolitano's attitudes toward immigration have hardened over the years. First elected governor in 2002 with support from the Latino electorate, she opposed a 2004 Arizona ballot measure that sought to bar illegal immigrants from receiving some public social services. The following year, voicing skepticism about the effectiveness of Bush administration plans to improve fences at the border, she famously proclaimed, "You show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder." However, since becoming chief of the Homeland Security Department, the agency responsible for the border fence, she has promised to complete the unfinished portions and has stepped up immigration audits of employers.

Similarly, as officials from Napolitano's agency and the White House work with bipartisan congressional staff to prepare immigration bills that most likely will be introduced in December and January, the consistent theme has been toughness. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who as chairman of the Senate's immigration subcommittee will take a lead role in drafting legislation, has said that a bipartisan immigration bill is doomed "if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that Democrats are serious about enforcement." Schumer even denounced use of the term "undocumented workers," suggesting that it conveys legitimacy and signals that the government "is not serious about combating illegal immigration."

In a speech this month laying out the need for reform, Napolitano emphasized a "three-legged stool" approach -- regulating the flow of immigrants, dealing with those who are already here, but beginning, she said, with "fair, reliable enforcement."

Immigration reform advocates trying to build momentum to produce a new law point to favorable poll results on immigration and a desire by both parties to be responsive to Latino voters. But proponents will face stiff obstacles, particularly if a bill includes provisions for what business lobbyists call "future flow" -- allowing employers to bring in foreign workers. Unions worry that without safeguards, imported labor will displace American workers.

The larger stumbling block will be the "tough and fair pathway to earned legal status," as Napolitano put it. It was the legalization aspect of her speech that garnered most news media attention, even though it basically restated President Obama's campaign pledge to bring "the millions of illegal immigrants in this country out of the shadows . . . [by meeting] a number of requirements -- including registering, paying a fine, passing a criminal background check, fully paying all taxes and learning English."

History shows that anti-immigrant sentiment is generally highest during economic downturns, and groups favoring immigration restrictions, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, are already citing high U.S. unemployment as a reason to oppose immigration bills. FAIR is joining with the "tea party" crowd that emerged during the healthcare debate, a loud and angry coalition that will be unswayed by the efforts of Napolitano, the Obama administration and their congressional allies to decorate immigration reform packages with law-and-order ribbons.

Jeffrey Kaye is a journalist and the author of "Moving Millions: How Coyote Capitalism Fuels Global Immigration," to be published in April. jeffreykaye.net

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kaye23-2009nov23,0,2794170,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

A missing woman and the law's lost compassion

The disappearance of Mitrice Richardson after being released from a sheriff's substation underscores the need for better procedures to ensure suspects' safety.

November 23, 2009

Twenty-four-year-old Mitrice Richardson of South Los Angeles walked out of the Malibu/Lost Hills sheriff's station in the wee hours of Sept. 17 and has been missing ever since . Sheriff Lee Baca insists that deputies followed procedures to the letter: Richardson, who was accused of refusing to pay her bill at a high-end Malibu restaurant and possessing a small amount of marijuana, insisted on leaving after being booked and released, despite invitations to spend the night in an empty cell or in the station's lobby. Deputies at the station had declared her safe to go because she didn't appear to be a threat to herself or anyone else. Nevertheless, the fact remains that she was 40 miles from home in the dead of night with no purse, cash or cellphone, no buses available for hours, and her car locked in a garage she couldn't pay.

If that's following procedures to the letter, something's wrong with the procedures. Even if deputies acted as reasonably as Baca asserts, the implication is that the department's responsibility to "safely" release people it takes into custody ends the moment they leave its property.

That's certainly a pragmatic stance. As Baca's report to the Board of Supervisors notes, deputies process 180,000 prisoners a year for release -- that's nearly 500 a day -- and detaining someone for too long carries "tremendous liability." Special steps are taken only for those "deemed to have medical or mental disabilities." But as Richardson's disappearance demonstrates, the department's blithe lack of concern about people after they walk out the door may be creating new and unnecessary dangers.

The Orange County sheriff's approach may not be a model for L.A. County, given the differences in size, but it's still instructive. Rather than taking people to the closest station to be booked and released, Orange County deputies bring everyone to a jail with easy access to public transportation. And unlike their counterparts in L.A., they have health department workers on hand around the clock to look people over before release. That might have been useful in Malibu, considering reports that Richardson had sounded “crazy” and was acting erratically.

The Sheriff's Department can't be a taxi service, and the people it arrests have to be responsible for their own welfare once they're released. Yet the department shouldn't ignore the difficulties imposed on those it hauls off for booking. Policymakers should explore ways to ensure that people booked after hours with no way to get home, like Richardson, have options -- for example, a shuttle to a public transportation hub or easy access to their car. In limited cases, such as when witnesses see signs of mental illness, it may even be wise to hold suspects until morning. A few extra hours of inconvenience is a reasonable trade-off for avoiding tragedy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-sheriff23-2009nov23,0,6261810,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Washington Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9/11 defendants eye platform

by Karen Matthews ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK | The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the attorney for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the attorney for terrorism suspect Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks, but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Mr. Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States would face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Mr. Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Mr. Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has not spoken with the others, but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Mr. Fenstermaker was first quoted in the New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Critics of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past."

The attorney general said he does not think holding the trial in New York -- at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent decades -- will increase the risk of terrorist attacks there.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/23/911-defendants-eye-platform//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Investigators knew of Hasan's e-mails to radical cleric

by Pamela Hess and Anne Gearan ASSOCIATED PRESS

The government intercepted at least 18 e-mails between the Fort Hood shooting suspect and a radical Muslim cleric, and a key senator says there could be more communications that might have tipped off law enforcement or military officials.

Federal investigators say they intercepted the messages between the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric. They were passed along to two Joint Terrorism Task Force cells led by the FBI, but a senior defense official said no one at the Defense Department knew about the messages until after the shootings. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence procedures.

Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, said last week after a briefing from Pentagon and Army officials that the Senate Armed Services Committee, which he chairs, will investigate how those and other e-mails involving Maj. Hasan were handled and why the U.S. military was not made aware of them before the Nov. 5 shooting.

Mr. Levin said his committee is focused on determining whether the Defense Department's representative on the terrorism task force acted appropriately and effectively.

Mr. Levin also said he considers Maj. Hasan's shooting spree, which killed 13 and wounded many more, an act of terrorism.

"There are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism, but there is significant evidence that it is. I'm not at all uneasy saying it sure looks like that," he said.

He said his committee will also look into whether military members have the ability to report suspicious behavior evinced by colleagues.

FBI and military officials have provided differing versions of why Maj. Hasan's critical e-mails to Mr. al-Awlaki and others did not reach Army investigators before the shooting.

FBI officials have said a military investigator on the task force saw the e-mails and looked up Maj. Hasan's record, but finding nothing particularly worrisome, the investigator neither sought nor got permission to pass the e-mails on to other military officials.

But the senior defense official has countered that the rules of the task force prevented that military representative from passing the records on without approval from other members of the task force.

The Pentagon may reconsider rules governing participation in extremist organizations that some lawmakers say appear outdated and too narrow in light of the shooting rampage at the Army base in Texas.

The Pentagon wrote regulations on "dissident and protest activities" in response to soldier participation in skinhead and other racially motivated hate groups. The current rules were written in 1996 and last updated in 2003.

The rules prohibit membership or participation in "organizations that espouse supremacist causes," seek to discriminate based on race, religion or other factors or advocate force or violence. Commanders can investigate and can discipline or fire people who "actively participate in such groups."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/23/inquiry-knew-of-hasans-e-mails-to-radical-cleric//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bare necessities top wish lists this holiday season

by Andrea Billups

Forget buying a ton of gifts. A week before Thanksgiving, the holidays are shaping up as a season of no frills.

And for some, the joy of family time and gift-giving has been replaced this year by a quest for basic necessities as more jobs are lost and unemployment benefits start to expire.

Michigan, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation at 14.8 percent in September, has a food crisis going into the holiday season.

"We have people coming to the food bank who said they were donating to us last year, but who are now out of work and in need themselves," said Alison Bono, who coordinates marketing for the Mid-Michigan Food Bank in Lansing.

She said that close to 1,000 people stand in line for produce handouts each week as they seek to supplement food stamps with fresh fruits and vegetables.

A little more than week before Thanksgiving, food bank supplies that used to be enough to last for six to eight weeks are now down to 10 days, said Ms. Bono, who calls the current seasonal needs extreme.

Some corporations and businesses, she said, are canceling holiday celebrations and donating the money used for parties to help charity groups.

They are running ads in the local newspapers' holiday supplement on Sunday with envelopes for donations as the situation turns ever more dire.

"We have, compared to last year, 15 percent more people looking for food. They are frantic, and many of them are people who have never had to apply for food stamps or seek assistance, but whose unemployment benefits have run out. ... We're calling this season a crisis of catastrophic proportions."

In certain areas across the nation, the Salvation Army, seriously hard-hit for money this year, has posted its traditional bell ringers and red kettles early in an effort to respond to what it sees as a historic need this holiday season.

"Many communities, particularly heavily in the Midwest, started kettle campaigns on Nov. 1, which is the earliest start we have ever seen," said George Hood, the national community relations secretary for the Salvation Army, which this year allows donors to give at cyber-kettles online. "This is obviously a reaction to the economy and slow periods we have seen since the summer."

Demand for services, Mr. Hood said, "has just gone through the roof."

"We are getting reports of a 300 [percent to] 600 percent increase in some communities, and it's frightening," he said. "The demand for short-term emergency care -- for food, shelter, clothing, utility assistance and rent support -- it's just really rough out there. This is a very nervous time."

Even at minimum wage, manning the Salvation Army's collection kettles -- up to 25,000 nationwide on busy days -- for charity is looking like solid seasonal work for many, with unemployment numbers nationwide hovering at more than 10 percent heading into Thanksgiving.

In certain hard-hit states, however, those numbers are even higher -- Florida (11.2 percent), California (12 percent) and Nevada (13.5 percent), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Despite growing demand for help, just 38 percent of Americans said they would be giving to charity this holiday season, according to a poll released this month by Harris Interactive. That figure represents a significant drop from last year, when 49 percent of U.S. adults said they would be contributing to the less fortunate. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which tracks giving, said U.S. fundraising groups expected, on average, a 9 percent dip in income this year, according to Associated Press reports.

Acknowledging the economic crisis, Ford Field and the MAC football conference are offering 10,000 free tickets to the college championship game, set for Dec. 4 in Detroit, to those who can show proof of unemployment. The free football game seats also will be given to members of the military and union workers who have been hard-hit by the manufacturing crisis in the state.

As retailers strategize and brace for what could be the darkest of Black Fridays, many consumers may be planning popcorn tinsel for the tree and homemade gifts like cookies as they feel the lingering pinch of the recession, which has some with a heart for giving feeling more like the venerable Grinch.

Economists forecast that consumers will spend about $740 on average for gifts this season, down from $801 reported by the Gallup organization in the same period for 2008.

The National Retail Federation's annual survey of consumer intentions and actions found a slightly lower spending figure of nearly $683, on average, which they note marks a 3.2 percent drop over 2008.

"This holiday season will be a bit of a dance between retailers and shoppers, with each group feeling the other out to understand how things have changed and how they must adapt," NRF President Tracy Mullin said in a statement announcing the association's holiday trend report.

The economy, said the NRF, is expected to impact two-thirds of U.S. families this season, with spending on family members expected to fall 2 percent and gifts for friends and co-workers dropping off in double digits.

More than a third of consumers plan to purchase more practical gifts, with 17 percent buying joint gifts for children and parents and 16.7 percent planning to make their own gifts. More than 28 percent of Americans say the down economy will keep them from traveling or cause them to travel less during the 2009 holiday season, according to the NRF's study.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/23/bare-necessities-top-many-wish-lists-this-season//print/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Wall Street Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Early Data Suggest Suicides Are Rising

Reports Indicate 2008 Uptick Is Similar to Those Seen in Past Recessions, Though Cause Is Unclear

Early signs suggest the number of suicides in the U.S. crept up during the worst recession in decades, according to a Wall Street Journal survey of states that account for about 40% of the U.S. population.

Available data, still incomplete, suggest that this recession, like past ones, coincided with an uptick in suicides. The data from 19 states find an increase in suicides in the recessionary year of 2008 from 2007. Those states historically account for about half of annual suicides in the U.S. Calls to suicide hotlines are rising. And suicides in the workplace and the military -- a small sliver all of self-inflicted deaths -- were up in 2008.

Official data on suicides in the U.S. lag, and a 2008 national tally isn't yet available. In 2007, there were 33,185 suicides, according to preliminary estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, compared with an average of about 32,800 in the previous three years.

A Journal survey of the 33 largest states by population found 19 have data for 2008. In all, those 19 reported a total of 15,335 suicides in 2008, up about 2.3% from the previous year.

Thirteen states, accounting for 30% of the U.S. population, reported more suicides in 2008. In Florida, for instance, suicides were up 6%, in Georgia, up 2.3%, and in North Carolina, up 7.8%. In six smaller states, which account for about 9.5% of the population, the number of suicides fell.

Suicide and Recession

A Wall Street Journal survey of big states finds more suicides in the recessionary year of 2008 than in 2007. See details.

• More interactive graphics and photos

The precise reasons for the rise in suicides aren't yet known. But suicide rates have historically risen during tough economic times, when unemployment is high, suicide experts say.

William Parente, a New York lawyer, killed himself as well as his wife and two daughters in Towson, Md., in April amid allegations that he was involved in a Ponzi scheme. "He, through fraudulent transactions, basically collapsed the savings for several of his clientele," said Cpl. Michael Hill of the Baltimore County Police Department. "Even though we cannot say concretely that the cause of some suicides, even with a background of financial situations, are related to the economy, it is rare that we normally see this many" suicides that appear to be related to finances, Cpl. Hill said.

Calls to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a government-funded number (1-800-273-TALK) linked to a network of crisis centers, are on pace to reach about 630,000 in 2009, according to officials there. That is up about 15% from last year on top of a 36% increase in 2008 that Lifeline officials attribute, in part, to a promotion of the hotline by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

"We're hearing from people who might not have sought help before," said John Draper, project director. Some crisis centers note that financial problems outpace depression as reasons for the calls, he said. "There's a lot more anxiety and fear related to paying bills and finding a job. Certainly there's some hopelessness about the future."

The suicides of two businessmen this year are among those that occurred against a backdrop of financial strain. Colleagues of David B. Kellermann, the 41-year-old acting finance chief for mortgage giant Freddie Mac, said he seemed overwhelmed by his job as he dealt with investigations into the company's accounting and finances. Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet, 65, co-founder of an investment firm that lost $1.5 billion in the Bernard Madoff scandal, killed himself in his New York office in December.

Tough economic times alone don't push most to suicide. About 90% of those who kill themselves have a mental-health disorder, experts say, most often depression or substance abuse. An economic downturn can exacerbate them, said Paula Clayton, medical director for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

A survey released in September by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that nearly 8.3 million adults had serious thoughts of suicide in 2008. Of them, 1.1 million, or 0.5% of adult Americans, attempted suicide. It is the first survey of its kind, so there is no comparable earlier data.

The number of suicides tends to rise with a state's unemployment rate, said Christopher J. Ruhm, an economist at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, who has studied the health effects of recessions. His research suggests that for every one percentage point increase in a state's unemployment rate, the number of suicides increases 1.3%, "What I actually find is there's an effect pretty quickly," Mr. Ruhm said, "but that effect builds a bit over time."

That was the case during the Great Depression. Despite cartoons of people jumping from windows during the 1929 stock-market crash, the suicide rate rose sharply only in subsequent years, Ms. Clayton noted. The U.S. recorded 15.3 suicides per 100,000 people in 1929, rising to 17 in 1930 and 18.6 in 1932, according to U.S. Vital Statistics reports from those years. Data before 1933 don't include all states and weren't collected uniformly, however. The suicide rate in 1933, when unemployment was nearly 25%, was higher than any year since. The suicide rate in 2007, based on preliminary estimates, was 10.8 per 100,000.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125892118623059701.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories#printMode

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the FBI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.