Political Rapids and Current Events

"23rd District Seat: About to be Wide Open..."

2009-06-18T14:43:00.021-04:00

Rep. John M. McHugh / Danny M. Francis

Update (July 8, 2009): This update address the GOP's movement to "nominate" a candidate as reported by the local newspaper, the Watertown Daily Times [click here].

Extract: Nine Republican hopefuls for the 23rd Congressional District seat on Tuesday evening trekked to the southern end of the Adirondack Park for the first of four regional meetings with party faithful. [and] the common theme among the candidates at Speculator, the lone village in Hamilton County, was appreciation for the open candidacy process.

Update (July 8, 2009): McHugh's nomination is now official since the White House forwarded his nomination to the Senate for the upcoming confirmation hearing [click here].

The GOP side (see top update article):

Meanwhile, NY State Senators Griffo and Valesky have said "No" as did NY State Assemblyman Barclay.

The DEM side (to date): Me and a field that is expected to be long and wide ... but more on that later as "candidates" announce their intentions. Right now, besides me, the only other one is the 2008 nominee, Mike Oot, who has said he's in. Others are pending, but may be a moot point, depending the 'behind-the-scenes' DEM actions that no one [yet] knows anything about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: President Obama nominated Rep. John M. McHugh (R) as the new Secretary of the Army.

I am ready to replace him.

Mr. McHugh has been in the seat since 1993. I opposed him in 1994 (and lost in that Gingrich revolution).

I intend to work hard for the "nomination" this time, too, in the upcoming special election. It's an open seat and I hope the process is open as well; no backroom deals and certainly no picks without a fair, open, public and spirited debate about issues and qualifications for the seat. Anything short of that would not be fair to the people of this vast district.

If anyone doubts that a fair and open and public match is not needed for this process, and not more power politics and tons of money, just look at Albany today.

I want the job. I am ready for the rigors of the job. If given the chance, I will do an excellent job for everyone in this district.

I need plenty of help — please join me, and let's do this right, together.

— dmf

"Hey, NewsMax: We voted in Nov. '08..."

2009-06-11T10:48:00.005-04:00

This "Obama Socialist?" VOTE HERE NOW Ad by NEWSMAX.com was on the page of this AP article [click here]. If this Ad does not pop up with that link, fear not, I'm sure you've seen it other places, and it's not apt to go away soon. That's the nature of the GOP and their rightwing base these days whether it's with or without the aid of any media-friendly outfit or not.

My assessment of the GOP since November 2008 is this; but, it is not the starting point of their downfall. It goes something like this:

The GOP is out of fresh, rational ideas. They have no sound plans or proposals to help solve this great economic crisis we face. They try to claim the high ground as the party of “sound rational economic policies” all the while forgetting it was they who drove us off the cliff.

They continue to resort to old tactics that prop up old failed policies built on fear and hype. They try hard to put the blame squarely on the Dems, who are trying anyway possible to get us out of the economic ditch that the GOP drove us into.

However, I will give the GOP credit when credit is due, and especially to their rabid conservative branch. That branch is long and led mostly by Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, most Talk Radio "hosts," and a string of former and now out of office types we can't seem to get enough of (especially thanks to 24/7 cable "news" like FOX and other outlets, i.e., Liz Cheney and you know who?).

I give them credit for the “talent and skill (if you can call it talent and skill)” for being better fear and hype generators than the DEMS. The GOP has this knack to finesse and piss everyone off at the same time

with their nasty, biased, uneducated, unfounded and rabid partisan rhetoric that if explored in detail, means zilch, has no substance or foundation and, yet continues to rally their narrow and fast-shrinking base.

They then turn around and dredge up a weak poll or two, or a few worn-out pundits to say otherwise. But, again, once a closer look is applied, one can see right through them and everyone around them who is upset and pissed off about their nasty, biased, uneducated, unfounded and rabid partisan attacks what offer nothing. Everyone can see their shortfall except them?

I have to admit, however, that they are good at that sort of stuff. The trouble is, it's leading them and us nowhere except perhaps down a path that only they can claim to be the "right" path or high ground.

They are quickly becoming the masters at an old game: The propaganda game.

They would have us believe that the choice is simple and simply between socialism (under OBAMA) vs. good-old trickle down (started under Reagan and sustained under BUSH and the GOP)? The truth of that premise is pretty simple: Reagan and Bush are both gone and they took the trickle with them!

The view from my foxhole.

"Insured and Backed by Uncle Mao????"

2009-06-08T15:58:00.004-04:00

HEADLINES TODAY from the Telegraph (UK) [click here].

The head of China's second-largest bank has said the United States government should start issuing bonds in yuan (Chinese money), rather than dollars (U.S. money), in the latest indication of the increasing importance of the Chinese currency.

Well, let's ponder a few facts: (1) American companies relocate to China at record levels; (2) Chinese imports to the U.S. at record levels; (3) Chinese restaurants growing faster than a gas station on every 4-way corner in America; (4) Chinese business about to challenge Wal-Mart (just my hunch); (5) and the United States owes more to and borrows more from, you guessed it, C h i n a ...

So logic (from the bankers' point of view, or from big businesses' and lenders' points of view), since the U.S. is indebted to China so much, hell why not flood the world with their money and save us all a lot of trouble?

If this were to happen, which I doubt it will (but, hey in these troubling times, one never knows), I would poke any sitting politician in the nose if I ever heard them say again: "Buy American, protect our values, our system, our way of life, our children's future, and our ... yada, yada, yada, whatever."

I know change happens; old products are improved or fall by the wayside as others take their place; new gadgets are invented to replace old gadgets; things are made easier by cheap labor (until the workers catch on and the boss looks to other placed for even cheaper labor!); and old ways give way to new ones (witness GM, Chrysler and a ton of others before them in the leather, electronics, clothing, and food industry - all gone from our shores).

Most of us know those things. A lot of us hate protectionism, huge import or excise taxes that stymie business and free trade on one hand, but a lot of us also hate to see our country dismantled and relegated to second place or worse.

I'm not one to cry wolf, or shout fire in a crowded theatre, either, but headlines like this disturb me, and they should you, too.

Change can be good but not when it changes the basic roots or fabric of one's country. We need to slow down.

My greenbacks are as good as gold (I think we still have lots of gold, right); so, to our trading partners and others in China I say, use your money as you choose, but so will we. Then let's compete.

"Hoa?" (ok)?

"Torture: Who knew what and when????"

2009-05-30T20:59:00.003-04:00

"A nation can survive its fools - even its ambitious - but it cannot survive lies from its government.” — Cicero

“Those who can make us believe that torture is acceptable, can make us believe that any absurdity is acceptable.” — Dan Francis

Update (June 6, 2009): My letter to the editor (Letters to the People) addressed this topic in more detail [click here]. Like so many cases before when I tried to get the public focused on this topic during my failed congressional primary attempt in 2008, the media was reluctant to give me or this story much space - but now it's all over the headlines. Perhaps people will become engaged and focus on this critical topic... it goes to the very core of our foundation as a country and people, in my view.

Of course now Mr. McHugh has been nominated by President Obama to be the next Secretary of the Army. One has to wonder, however, whether this kind of thing might or could cause him any problem or embarrassment? Probably not. It was Mr. Obama after all who said we must look forward and not backwards on t his issue.

Update (May 30, 2009) (Original Post:March 2, 2009): I have moved this issue back to the top of the heap where is belongs right now.

The Story Background: The CIA destroyed nearly 100 interrogation tapes of terror suspects. That is a number far greater than was previously acknowledged by the agency. The agency "can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed" [stated a letter from government attorneys to the judge presiding over the case] that number was put at "92 videotapes were destroyed" the letter said [click here].

The tapes purportedly show CIA agents using harsh interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding. The Obama administration has condemned that technique, with Attorney General Eric Holder calling it torture during his confirmation hearing.

More Background (April 16, 2009): President Obama recently stated publicly that those individuals who actually carried out the torture techniques would not be prosecuted since they believed their orders were legal based on DOJ/OLC secret memos [click here].

More recently (May 5, 2009): Both President Obama and AG Eric Holder stated that the DOJ/OLC lawyers who drafted those opinions (John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury, and possibly others) who gave the okay for the harsh techniques were okay, if the CINC (then President Bush) said so may not face prosecution, but could be disbarred [click here].

Then on May 8, 2009, the CIA leaked documents detailing the dates and names of members of Congress who were given explicit briefing by the CIA on those "enhanced, or harsh techniques." A total of 65 House and Senate Intelligence Committee members attended those briefing [click here].

Significantly, at least at one of those briefings (Briefing #35, held on January 16, 2008) details the videotape destruction included the entire House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) which included Rep. John M. McHugh, our member of the House. The briefing included topics of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), and that included water-boarding.

Meanwhile almost straight across the board, the GOP is lock-stepped against the release of any memos about any interrogation techniques, and especially the ones regarding water-boarding, which has been illegal, unlawful and a war crime for decades, and the United States knows it, too. Keeping secrets is understandable, but not secrets about war crimes or law breaking - that is not only un-American and illegal, but it is just plain wrong. By 2008, there should not have been one member of the House or Senate who did not know that water-boarding or any other form of "enhanced" interrogation was not illegal and unlawful and a war crimes.

In my humble opinion, Mr. McHugh has a lot of answering to do to the citizens of this district on this topic.

With this post and others at my "torture Blog" [click here], I hope to generate more questions as I seek timely answers on the issue. We can't seem to get any rational responses from government.

This kind of runaway government must end, and with your help I will work to stop it or greatly slow it down. That in turn will enable us to return to decency and honesty in government as we return to some sort of normalcy: Government of, by and for the people. The way it should be.

"The GOP: Ready for 2010 and beyond???"

2009-05-21T19:43:00.007-04:00

Credit for "Nono, the Goposaur" comes from barbinMD [click here], or from Jed Lewison [click here] - I'm not sure who used Nono first?

Anyway, Nono is very apropos these days as the GOP has dumped the ever-popular and previously-effective Dumbo, the Elephant for a dinosaur. A dinosaur fits nicely as the GOP soul searches for a new identity and refined set of "family values."

According to barbinMD, since its inception, the National Council for a New America (NCNA), the latest effort by the GOP to re-brand their shrinking, sinking - Lewison's part of this story, by uniting mostly worn out, angry white men, has added another name to their all-star lineup: Newt Gingrich, another angry, white spokesman. Gingrich joins John McCain, Jeb Bush (like that outta work: another Bush?), and Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman and current Gov. of Mississippi.

One can agree, or not, that the GOP since losing big in 2006 and even bigger in 2008 is not out of gas, out ideas, out of proposals, and out of the majority, but you'd never know by watching Dick Cheney perform on TV. Cheney's like Chicken Man: "He's everywhere, he's everywhere."

For a man with his health problems and who was silent except at selective times and places (mostly Rightwing outlets) in the past, and one who has been very secretive, very secretive, he's now worse than Chuck Schumer trying to get to an open mic. Get out of the way or get run over. It's like he has be recognized, compelled even, to be the new voice of the GOP for 2010 (the congressional midterms) and 2012 against Barack Obama.

So, will he succeed; will he run; what is the outlook for him and Nono over the next few months and years? We shall see, but oil production & dinosaurs come to mind (Cheney and Halliburton)? Um ... or maybe not.

"Maverick scientist Thomas Gold in his book Power from the Earth: Deep Earth Gas, Energy for the Future, presents the startling hypothesis that oil and natural gas may not be fossil fuels after all. Gold think or supposes, I guess, that in other words, oil and gas may not derive from the decaying remains of prehistoric critters such as dinosaurs, as scientists have long thought, but rather are the result of inorganic joy juice bubbling up from deep in the earth's crust."

"If true, there's probably a lot more of the stuff around than was previously believed in particular, a lot more natural gas. That means good-bye energy crisis, sayonara OPEC, and toodaloo to nukes, air pollution (natural gas burns very cleanly), acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and just about every modern ill except herpes and ho-hum mouth."

But, I digress. This little tidbit of humor supplied from Straight Dope [click here]. The article is a bit dated, 1986, but the lead in to the question is still funny, and I wanted to end on a funny note (as if Nono the Goposaur weren't funny enough)?

— dmf

"Serve in Iraq: Die while taking a shower!!!"

2009-05-20T09:31:00.008-04:00

I previously posted about this story, and now it's back in the headlines again; at least the Halliburton-KBR connection. It is noted that Blackwater back in early 2009 changed its name to "Xe (pronounced Z)." Whatever that means remains a mystery (Xe officials will only say it has no special meaning). But, that is a story for a different time. I want to concentrate on the KBR story in this post. This update comes from Reuters [click here].

Other reports date back to this from ABC News on March 20, 2008 [click here], and here on March 19, 2008, regarding an investigation by the House and reported this way in the Army TIMES: "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked the Pentagon on Wednesday to provide details on 12 deaths in Iraq since 2003 that are believed to have been caused by electrocution [click here]. So, this story has been around for awhile.

Update Highlights from Today:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. Army paid "tens of millions of dollars in bonuses" to KBR Inc., its biggest contractor in Iraq, even after it concluded the firm's electrical work had put U.S. soldiers at risk, according to a source close to a U.S. congressional investigation. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee plans to hold a hearing on Wednesday to examine KBR's operations in Iraq, and question why the Army rewarded the Houston-based company ... the company denies responsibility for any of the electrocutions, saying it is proud of its work and that its employees make great sacrifices to get the job done. KBR was part of Halliburton Company until two years ago ... [as of today, May 20, 2009], the Army had no immediate comment when asked about the bonuses.

FYI: I posted this in response to a local Blog, "Political IV" on March 21, 2009, verbatim, re: "Atta Boy, Johnny Mac" was the topic/post title:

I posted: "Atta boy, John? Give me a break ... as bad and awful as the AIG bonus scandal is, when will the next big bonus paid out with taxpayers' money, say like to the new Xe (old: BLACKWATER), or Halliburton (and their old: KB&R), et al be re-looked at and our tax dollars recouped for things like their murderous ways (faulty wiring that killed soldiers in their showers in Iraq, for example)? Will Rep. McHugh vote to tax them at 90% or 100%, too? Read my lips: GOPers will tax when it benefits them ... otherwise, it's open season on the DEMS ... and of course, GOPers don't call it taxes (i.e., revenue enhancements like Raygun called them) ... maybe we need an "Atta Boy" tax?" March 21, 2009 2:53 PM

And, here we are again on the same issue. This time investigators believe hundreds of other soldiers may have received electrical shocks. The Army is investigating. The company (KBR) denies responsibility for any of the electrocutions, saying it is proud of its work and that its employees make great sacrifices to get the job done.

I note: The sacrifices by KBR are NOT as great as our soldiers who fight in combat, then take and shower and are electrocuted to death.

A Couple of Closing Points: I have done an extensive House search on bills and speeches, and at Rep. McHugh's various sites, and I cannot find one mention of this issue from him. Maybe he has said something, but I can't find anything. Maybe you'll have better luck if you look.

Mr. McHugh is my Representative in Congress and I expect more from him and that's why I challenge his record and comments frequently on serious issues where I strongly disagree with him.

I recall that on May 2, 1996 [click here], Mr. McHugh said this about a move to ban porn magazines from Military Post Exchanges: "When it comes to First Amendment rights, there is a different standard for the military. Just because you have a right to read it does not mean I have an obligation to sell it to you."

That attitude reminds me of the days when we debated service in the military at age 18, about going to war, yet still unable to vote.

In all fairness to Mr. McHugh who has never worn the uniform, or served in the military, or had to pack his bags and go on a long deployment overseas, or off to war, where many soldiers, I assure you, would like to take a Playboy mag with them, he just does not get the military mindset. As an adult soldier shouldn't they have that right to buy and read what they want at discount prices through the PX - a benefit of service?

Mr. McHugh doesn't think so. Fair? Hardly —that word seems inappropriate.

On another critical issue, "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," Mr. McHugh is pretty mum. Fox News in July 2008 [click here] said this: "The top Republican on the [House Armed Services] Committee, Rep. John McHugh, R-NY, didn't stake out a position, but said that judgment on "don't ask, don't tell" must "ultimately rest on matters of military readiness morale good order and discipline."

I wonder if he knows exactly what that means? Has any gay soldier ever died in combat, been highly decorated for bravery, or labeled a hero? I wonder if Mr. McHugh can not answer that question. I doubt that, too. This Air Force TIMES story from an Air Force Vet highlights a few gay heroes in uniform [click here].

I'm done for now, but I'm sure there will be plenty more later.

~ dmf

"Police GPS Tracking: Valid, Legal, & Why???"

2009-05-19T10:36:00.006-04:00

Credit the "hand and 'device' photo by way of DailyTech.com [click here].

The Scene: Many of us saw the 24 episode where the CTU chief asks one of her assistants to "plant a tracking device on so-and-so's car to follow them" (in this case, the trackee is Audrey Raines, Jack's girlfriend). The agent goes outside, puts the device under the fender of Raine's car and bingo — the car and supposedly Ms. Raines are about to be tracked. A bit later, Raines finds out (Chloe O'Brian tells her). She stops at a gas station, finds the device, removes it, and attaches it to a nearby DPW truck. She then drives off as the agent continues on to track the "wrong" person/vehicle.

Nice show, nice theme, nice plot, but what's my point? Simple. It may be already happening in your local New York State neighborhood?

Part of the Story: "Privacy advocates are shocked. They say that by monitoring the movements of people, many of which are likely innocent, police departments across the country are committing a Big Brother-esque invasion of privacy. And one state Supreme Court is on their side. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be obtained to justify such invasions of privacy. However, other state supreme courts -- including New York, Wisconsin and Maryland, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago -- have declared that warrants are not needed."

My point: NYS says it's okay and without a warrant! I wonder why? Let's examine this closer.

Question: Do the police want to track the vehicle or the person?

1. If the police want to track the vehicle: What if the son, daughter, wife, or friend is driving the car? Do they now become the target? Or, were they the target anyway?

2. If they police want to track the person: How do they know that person is driving the car? And, now that the news is out about this, what if the person they want to track knows it and they rent a car? Are they still being tracked? If yes, how? Even a dumb terrorist or other criminal could figure that out, right?

What's the point: One point is that I don't hear our members of Congress speaking out on this issue. Thus, I assume that they don't know much about it; or they don't care much about it if they know about it; or, they are on the side of the police or others who employ this method to track you and/or your car for whatever reason they deem necessary. And, as we now know, in NYS without a warrant is just fine and dandy. But, in my view, without due or just cause seems, well... just plain wrong. I think I read that someplace. But, NYS apparently thinks it's okay. Thus, hunches now take the place of less privacy (again)?

Okay, listen up Mr. and Mrs. Bad Guy: "If you didn't know about this program before, you do now. If you are in NYS, be careful. If you are up to no good, then just rent a car and continue on with your Recon mission, or whatever you're up to." /signed/ Your Loose-Lipped Government.

Have a nice day, and drive safely.

"I flew to NYC — all I got was this damn pink slip..."

2009-05-09T00:35:00.008-04:00

WASHINGTON – The White House official who authorized a $328,835 photo-op of Air Force One soaring above New York City resigned just weeks after the flyover sparked panicked workers to rush into the streets and flashbacks to Sept. 11.

Louis Caldera said in his resignation letter to President Obama that the controversy had "Made it impossible for me to effectively lead the White House Military Office. Moreover, it has become a distraction in the important work you are doing as president."

An internal White House investigation found missed messages and portrayed an out-of-the-loop Caldera, clearly the administration's fall guy. Caldera had been the Army secretary in the Clinton administration, but he said he didn't know Air Force One would fly at 1,000 feet during the April 27 photo shoot that had been planned for weeks. He also failed to read an Email message describing the operation and seemed unaware of the potential for public fear, the White House report said.

And, all he got for that NYC flyover was a "pink slip" — one that cost more than a lousy T-shirt (by some estimates nearly $330,000) ... what a deal?

Nice pic, though...

"A new, New Deal, or old Raw Deal???"

2009-05-07T10:17:00.005-04:00

The cover of TIME when President Obama took office — implies, "A New FDR" to the rescue? A lot of people "hope" so.

Extract from the AP story by ANDREW TAYLOR:

WASHINGTON – (May 7, 2009) — In twin strokes, President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to award generous budget increases to domestic programs while proposing relatively modest cuts to wasteful or obsolete programs that just won't seem to die. Obama's promised line-by-line scrub of the federal budget has produced a roster of 121 budget cuts totaling $17 billion — or about one-half of 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion budget Congress has approved for next year. The details were unveiled Thursday. White House budget director Peter Orszag said the president's plan for program cuts is just a start and that a lot more needs to be done to dig the government out of its fiscal hole, especially curbing the growth of the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and the poor. "But $17 billion a year is not chump change by anyone's accounting," he said. [emphasis added is mine].

I have asked myself one question during this entire process — a question I am sure you have been asking, too: "Where is the damn money coming from?"

I also wonder what exactly does "...curb the growth of Medicare and Medicaid mean" to help get us to that point (of a slimmed down government - which right now is an oxymoron)?

For example, we see people living longer with better and more readily available medicine for just about everything that ails us [which is good in my opinion]. So, with the growth, costs, and related longevity, how will "the growth (actually a buzzword for: Cost) be curbed I wonder out loud?

Uncle Sam is already deep into these two programs and has been since they started. Sam is also very deep into Social Security. Now, he (actually all of us) is into serious banking, auto, mortgage, Wall Street, and other traditionally private areas. What does that portent for the future?

Knock, knock, hello: Is anyone home? Does anyone know? I doubt it seriously. Plan, propose, adopt, implement, cross fingers, and hope it works.

If it works as planned (and hoped), what a deal! If not — ouch...

"GOP National Council Seeks "new" America..."

2009-05-04T17:12:00.002-04:00

Having the "Fox Nation" TV show promote this in addition to helping the GOP promote their NCNA (National Council for a New America), may not be the best way to promote anything.

This image was screencapped from Fox Nation, Fox News' month old conservative opinion site [Washington Post's take on this new show] and comes to us from RawStory [click here].

Many in the GOP actually have the audacity of hope and unmitigated gall to believe that they do not have any real root problems in trying to "renew or reconnect" with Americans to once again "re-grow" the GOP into a viable party for 2010 and beyond.

I have two words for them: THINK AGAIN.

"The DEMS are in Charge: Hee Haw..."

2009-05-02T12:41:00.012-04:00

[Dems in charge after kicking their way into power as a weakened GOP exits stage right]

Pick any metaphor or cliché you like, or sit on the side you like and you are likely to reach the same clear conclusion as many have: The GOP is on their way out and the Democrats are in charge.

However, the DEMS can no longer whine, whimper, complain, gripe, moan, groan, blame, or point fingers at the now very weakened and fading GOP. They can basically do whatever they want and they have the votes to prove it, but they cannot blame gridlock, stalemate, or rabid partisanship as reasons for not getting anything done in DC.

At the same time, DEMS need to hang a huge mirror on every wall in the House and Senate and in every one of their offices. Then they need to glance in them once a day (not to primp themselves before appearing on a closed circuit TV camera) to see the real cause for any nonsense in government hence forth. Not only is this my long-held view, but it is the view of many government watchers.

A very good piece with three partner articles are linked below.

The main article, "The Democrats have no more excuses" is written for Salon.com by David Sirota [click here]. At the bottom of his fine article are three related articles; one from Joan Walsh [click here], one from Mike Madden [click here], and the third from Glenn Greenwald [click here].

There are plenty of folks commenting on the Sen. Arlen Specter "switch" to the DEMS - a move he made after he served as a GOPer for 45 years and in the U.S. Senate nearly 30 years. But, that aside, people in PA have to draw their own conclusions as they vote next year to keep Specter as a DEM, or turn him out to pasture (he will be 80 next year and yes, he has had some serious health issues) and put in someone else.

I for one kinda like Sen. Specter, mostly for his moderate-to-left views on many issues. Having said that, his fate in the Senate and survival as a DEM is not up to me. We will have to wait on the PA jury on that part.

Then we'll have to wait and watch the DEMS-in-Charge. That should be more fun than watching Arlen Specter go back and forth on issues between now and November 2010 anyway?

"Yipee: Retiree$ get a $hare of the $timulu$..."

2009-04-29T11:19:00.003-04:00

GREAT NEWS (sorta): For each and every retiree who now receives a Social Security check (some 50 million): Here is an extra $250.00 for you as our thanks for your help in these troubled times as your government works to bail out "who-knows-who-any-more; we've lost track" lousy managers of their businesses, all the while we may have raise more taxes to help with that tab as it grows ... but, you have our sincere thanks. /signed/ Your Government in DC.

THE DEAL: These payments are part of the $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts that was enacted back in February (designed to help boost the economy).

The $250.o0 will go to people in four categories. Those who receive: (1) Social Security, (2) Supplemental Security Income (SSI), (3) Railroad retirement, or (4) Veteran's disability benefits.

The deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Mary Glenn-Croft, told a congressional panel recently that the payments are intended to inject more than $13 billion into the economy while helping beneficiaries in those four program areas meet everyday living expenses.

FOOTNOTE: The payments are meant for people who did not qualify for the new "Making Work Pay" tax credit that provides up to $400 to individuals and $800 to couples. Taxpayers who would otherwise qualify for both will have the $250 payments deducted from their tax credits.

Now, that 's good news and a good deal, too, right? Um ... we shall see. I'd not bet on it being such a good deal when all is said and done, however. Just my hunch; but, you know how these "government give-a-ways" tend to work right?

They (our government) uses our scarce tax dollars to pay for lots of things including now, all these bailouts. So, we help by paying a lot of taxes and in return (for our investment as it were), we get back a few bucks to show how much government cares for us, too? Is that the way I read this thing?

But, hey your $250.00 will now go for, um, let's see. Just how far will $250.00 really go anyway these days (especially with gas prices creeping back up 30 cents or so in the past month)? Not far, I surmise. But, keep in mind, "You are doing your part," and I'm sure GM, Chrysler, and all those banks appreciate every billion they get - I know I will cherish my $250.00!

Am I Angry about not getting enough? No ... not at all. But, I am upset about helping poor business managers get billions for being poor business managers. Aren't you?

"Symptons of a serious political illness..."

2009-04-28T19:40:00.004-04:00

GOP Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Arlen Specter, former (R), now (D-PA)

Headlines today, at least from one source [click here] shows the plight of the national GOP, and maybe of the local GOP, too?

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said that Sen. Arlen Specter's abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party." Sen. McConnell, GOP leader in the senate said the switch is, "Dangerous to the country."

Wow, what strong statements they have against a sitting GOP senator who has been up till this point a loyal Republican; but, not more. I wonder what was said in private? Ouch...

But, stories like this has more than one side: the right side, left side (political aisle sides) and of course the real side... like views: your view, mine and that which is correct.

I heard and watched Specter's speech about the reasons why he was leaving the GOP ... all are good reasons and all make perfect [political] sense.

The bottom line is of course is that he does not want to give up power and he knows by his own internal numbers that he would lose reelection in 2010 in PA where some 200,000 GOPers left the party for the DEMS in 2008, and that's why Obama carried PA so soundly.

Of course the DEMS welcome him with open arms — it puts them closer to a 60-vote margin and on par with the House, who has a solid majority.

Two things concern me about this: (1) The DEMS might welcome Specter with open arms and give him a committee chair due to his seniority, which I guess he is entitled to, even though he's NOT been a DEMS for nearly 30 years, and, (2) the DEMS also need to change their attitude about citizen DEMS who disagree with them on such matters to include party policies and politics that play the insider game pretty much the way the GOP has for years.

I like Specter, but this move raises serious questions about the raw politics played in DC ... thus it's no wonder why much is not done for the people — because those in office are too busy protecting each other's asses and their power bases to be much concerned about the folk back home, despite their words otherwise.

In my humble opinion.

"Stand Against Fast Track of Health Care..."

2009-04-24T20:27:00.006-04:00

In this Chinese painting, artist unknown, we see a chaperone tending to two lovers in a nearby bed.

It reminds me of the forthcoming move in the Senate to fast track the nation's health care problems as recently reported [click here] in this story.

Highlights from the story:

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats reached a tentative agreement to use a parliamentary procedure that would prevent Senate Republicans from blocking President Barack Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system, congressional aides said. The agreement calls for the same procedure, known as reconciliation, to be used to try to pass Obama's proposal to cut federal subsidies to private providers of student loans, the aides said today. The tactic would allow the measures to pass the Senate with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes that would be needed to overcome stalling tactics by Republicans. Democrats control the chamber with 58 votes.

With reconciliation, Democrats could approve the health care and education policy changes this year without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress.

It further reminded me of how the last major fast track move ended up failing the country: We call it NAFTA.

This painting further reminded me that "We, the People" are the chaperones, as the Senate enjoys itself at our expense. In other words, we just sit watch by and watch them do their thing just like we basically did during the so-called "debate" over NAFTA, and look at those results. Now, they want to do it with the largest expenditure (health care) and again, with little or no debate?

I say no. What about you?

This may be a poor analogy, but it's all I had on such short notice. At least the painting is good, you have to admit?

"H.Con. Resolutions: Political point making."

2009-04-19T11:52:00.010-04:00

Empty Capital Hill

Definitions first: We hear a lot about H. Con. Res, or S. Con. Res. What are they, and what do they stand for, if anything? Most of them are empty as this parking lot in DC at the Capital!

A concurrent resolution (Con. Res.) is a formal statement passed by both houses of the Congress, stating the opinion of Congress or permitting some action that does not require the President's approval.

A concurrent resolution must pass both the House and Senate in the same language, but because it does not have the President's signature, therefore, it does not have the force of law. Instead, Congress uses concurrent resolutions (designated as H. Con. Res. or S. Con. Res. and number) for such housekeeping functions as creating joint committees, authorizing the printing of congressional documents, setting the date for Congress to adjourn, or voicing an opinion [mostly along partisan lines] or concern about a bill that is going to pass that they don't like, but can't stop from passing anyway, in most cases.

Concurrent resolutions express the sense, or opinion, of Congress on many matters of foreign and domestic policy (mostly when they are p.o.'ed at the president of the other party and can't have any impact on his decisions or actions).

In other words, they are mostly "toothless dogs" with a lot of PR, but not much power behind them.

Case in Point: H.Con. Res. 49, in the House, is a resolution with some 170 co-sponsors and two in the Senate's version. The list includes our own Rep. McHugh, who is getting lots of local mileage about being a co-sponsor of this expression, supports "The Local Radio Freedom Act." In other words they want to stop any bill moving through Congress ... Side note: Mr. McHugh was never a co-sponsor of the new GI Bill, isn't that interesting? But, I digress.

"[... that ...] Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings."

So, rather than working to defeat a bill, some members express their outrage at a bill that is not passed yet, not law, but one they still fear enough to express a view and outrage over; hoping, I suppose that it will sound alarm bells and head off passage of the bill and gain a few brownie points back home for reelection?

The mechanics of government at work for you (sorta).

"Long-awaited GOP alternative budget = Zilch in context."

2009-04-01T17:36:00.009-04:00

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House GOP Minority leader and the GOP's 10-year alternative budget.

The document comes in two versions, one long version (62 pages) and one shorter version, 19 pages [click here] that they call "The Road to Recovery."

That road to recovery? Pretty much the same old pot-hole filled road that runs from Crawford, TX to Dallas, TX via the last 8 years of failed GOP-Bush policy in the White House.

Their main selling points:

* A promise to simplify the tax code and cut income tax rates to 10 percent for people making $100,000, or less on down to $50,000.

* A promise to cut domestic spending below current levels [trouble is they don't say whether they are exempting Social Security and/or Medicare].

* They would reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful programs and redirecting savings from the phaseout from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* They would expand access to health care by providing tax incentives for people to sign up for coverage and would allow them to shop in other states for policies.

* They plan for cutting taxes at all income levels and would reduce the capital gains tax.

* They plan to increase domestic energy production by allowing more drilling and refining of oil and building more nuclear reactors.

* Their plan differs dramatically from the budget proposed by Democrats, which increases taxes and government programs and would tax U.S. oil and gas production as well as carbon emissions.

* On spending, the Republican plan lists specific objections to Democrats' plans, but proposes only that the GOP would "cut overall non-defense spending by reforming or eliminating a host of wasteful programs deemed ineffective by various government entities."

* Their tax proposals would be lower and they promise a "simple and fair tax code" with a 10 percent tax rate for incomes up to $100,000 and 25 percent thereafter, as well as "a generous standard deduction and personal exemption."

* They would "allow any individual or family satisfied with their current tax structure" to pay those rates, though it would drop the two lowest brackets by 5 percent. Rates currently range from 10 percent to 35 percent.

* They would open the Arctic Coastal Plain to energy exploration, while making it easier to build new nuclear reactors.

* And, they would work to ease financial industry turmoil by discouraging bailouts and creating a climate of "certainty and economic growth."

Overall, it is nearly impossible to determine the projected deficit based on what they offer, but GOP "leaders" promised they would issue more details over the next few weeks.

I suspect, but I have no way to know that whatever they offer will benefit the same old, same old GOP cronies at the top and naturally at the expense of the rest of society without them ever saying it does.

Get out the spoons, or scoops and prepare to be spoon fed a whole bunch of freshly cooked GOP pablum, or hogwash. The party of no new ideas proves once again that they still have plenty of old ideas on hand.

"No April Fool's Joke: GM = Uncle Sam = Gen. Mgr."

2009-04-01T09:52:00.010-04:00

Side-by-side in failure: Congress is breaking the bank; Chrysler going Italian (Fiat); Uncle Sam is becoming GM's General Manager.

From Reuters: “U.S. plans to ease GM into bankruptcy: report” [click here for story].

Highlights (My emphasis is added): “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration is seeking to ease General Motors Corp into a "controlled" bankruptcy by persuading some creditors to agree to a plan that would divide the company into two pieces, the New York Times reported on Wednesday. Citing people briefed on the matter, the Times said the plan is to push GM into a structured bankruptcy "somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos," using taxpayer financing for leverage.”

My concerns: (1) Ease GM into a controlled bankruptcy, (2) Persuade “some” creditors, (3) Chop up GM in two pieces, (4) “Push” GM, and (5) Use taxpayer bucks [which, I guess, are NOT in short supply?]

I worked in government service for over 40 years (active duty in the military and as DOD/Army civilian), and seldom did I ever see government be this aggressive, or on a crusade to ease anything for anyone, to force anyone this much, to divide up anything, or to be this anxious to spend scarce money to “help a private company” up and out of a hole that they obviously dug themselves into over so many years.

Yes, we must “save” GM, Chrysler, and Ford (who apparently right now doesn't need or want tax dollars) in order for us to have a viable American automobile industry... I'm just not sure this is the way to do it. In fact, I don't think anyone is sure about that or anything else with all this “new” government oversight, or as some would say, interference.

Time will tell. But, I believe most foreign car manufacturers and yes, even those who built in the U.S., will be licking their collective chops hoping for our failure as they further expand their products. They have left U.S. companies in the dust for a long time ... and that in part is why U.S. car producers are in this pickle because they never stayed up with the Japanese, Koreans, or Germans (and a few others). That's how we lost the edge in that industry as well as in the electronics industry, leather industry, steel industry, and so many other industries: We never kept up in spite of the rhetoric otherwise as our competitors left us behind.

Now, we have to sit and wait and hope that the historical change we are witnessing is the right formula or mix for positive change that we all want!

"We, the People: Oppose or get screwed..."

2009-03-31T10:38:00.008-04:00

By iron fisted, I mean: "Be firm in our loyal opposition, use peaceful dissent, work the system we have, speak out, write letters, send Emails, make phone calls, send Faxes — do whatever it takes to voice your opposition to this bill" that is now making its rounds in the House.

The context of the bill follows. My emphasis is added to show the areas that I believe we must oppose.

House Bill H.R. 1664 — the entire bill can be seen at the official House site in .pdf form [click here].

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

(a) Prohibition on Executive Compensation Not Based on Performance Standards- Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5221) is amended by re-designating subsections (e) through (h) as subsections (f) through (g), and inserting after subsection (d) the following:

... “(e) Prohibition on Executive Compensation Not Based on Performance Standards –

... “(1) PROHIBITION – No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement --

... “(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2); or

... “(B) includes any bonus, retention payment, or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).”

My view: This is over the line or edge, depending on your view. Why do I say this?

Who in government, even the Secretary of the Treasury in this case, can set or say what private company or corporation “performance standards” for a job in the private sector should or can be set and followed, or what salary, or benefit, or bonus is unreasonable or excessive? Perhaps a contract has already been entered into and legally binding? There are too many unanswered questions.

Even a private or public sector company or corporation that needs, or receives tax dollars, should NOT in my view, be micro-managed this way.

What an employee's job standards and performance standards are, even for any government employee, should be set and managed by the employer, not by a government entity.

This is a very, very dangerous step. I don’t like it and my first gut reaction is that it is illegal, but if Congress passes it, then it’s legal, right? If it passes, would President Obama sign it into law, or would he veto it? And, if he were to veto it, would Congress override the veto?

This bill must NOT become law. I hope you will do what you can to oppose it and voice your opposition to your House member and two Senators. It's the right thing to do.

"Things to Come, or Back to the Future..."

2009-03-30T10:11:00.012-04:00

[click photo for larger view]

Update (March 31, 2009) -- Recall how Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) took a lot of heat over that AIG amendment about allowing the bonuses to go forward? He really got blasted good, including by me. And, today President Obama, also from me [see comments below] got a blast about forcing GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down. On that issue I must offer Sen. Dodd a great big kudo based on his statement on that exact same subject about Rick Wagoner stepping aside back in December 2008 while the Senate was debating the House version of the $15 billion bill which passed. Refer to paragraph nine of that story to see Dodd's remarks about Wagoner stepping down as GM CEO [click here].

To Sen. Dodd: If you happen to read this blog, I say, "Well done on that issue - well done, and very perceptive about Wagoner!"

Introduction: I've been a loyal Democrat all my adult life. I have supported my party when I, and not they, thought it was the right thing to do, including voting, contributing time and money, helping out in other ways to do whatever it took in an election year to win on ideas – and yes, I have even run for office myself. Many times I did that without much party support, but I always ran on principles that I thought were right and not necessarily what the party wanted. It may have not been the best way to have run a campaign, for sure, but I sleep well at night and feel comfortable criticizing my party and the opposition party whenever I see it as necessary. I believe that's what America is all about. I may be wrong and many people may disagree with that view, but it’s my view nevertheless.

Right now I am greatly disturbed by the news that the president of the United States, no matter who that president is, has the power to tell a private company or corporation CEO to take a hike, get out of town and leave his/her job. The example I speak of is Mr. Rick Wagoner at GM. National headlines and news today and I suspect for weeks to come, illustrate this new trend that many see as harmful.

1. “White House puts pressure on GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign and he does. Then GM can get more tax dollars to restructure and save themselves.”

2. “Chrysler to be taken over by Italian Fiat.”

The Fiat story is from the WSJ on-line [click here]. It says in part that the pact with Fiat could give Chrysler a stronger case as it seeks more loans from the U.S. government. Chrysler nearly ran out of money in late 2008, before the Treasury Department provided $4 billion in emergency loans, then it suffered a steep drop in sales.

This deal with Fiat remains Chrysler’s most viable business deal in order for them to qualify for an additional $3 billion in government aid that they say they need to survive.

My Q: Why doesn’t the Italian government and Italian taxpayers fit the bill for such a deal? How can our tax dollars go to an Italian company to save an American company? I am sure a lot of people just like me “don't get it.”

We could extrapolate on this subject of historical bailouts and government takeovers and proportion of the seriousness of this economic problem all day long. But the bottom line is “How far can or will government go to save a company, any company, by providing them the proverbial taxpayers' arm and leg to survive?” This is not an unreasonable question.

For example: Tax dollars go every day to local or state hospitals; to local or state chartered agencies, civic groups, or other private companies; to private construction companies for low-income housing, non-public schools, defense projects; to wholesalers and retailers; to fund a new ball field, sports stadium, or aquarium in some member of congress home district. People don't seem to care, or at least they don’t say so. They only get vocal about that kind of spending when a district or state gets more than they do.

I believe that a dangerous precedence is being set, and that a threshold is being crossed that the taxpayers do not want, but maybe haven’t thought through carefully enough to see the long-term impact.

What we see now may be “change” in the view of those at the top who are newly elected, or placed into high office, but their definition and application of “change” about how to revamp America may not match the view that I believe those living outside that circle of power and influence want!

I may be wrong in this view as well, but I don't think I am. Time will tell — it always does.

"Well-aimed and justified criticism..."

2009-03-27T20:05:00.013-04:00

Left: Top tobacco executives under oath in the House (April 14, 1994). Right: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Flashback: The public record from NPR [click here].

Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman (Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). Just before we go to my questioning, let me begin my questioning on the matter of whether or not nicotine is addictive. Let me ask you first, and I'd like to just go down the row, whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. I heard virtually all of you touch on it. Just a simple yes or no answer, please. Do you believe nicotine is not addictive?

Mr. [William] Campbell [President and CEO of Phillip Morris, USA]: I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes.

Rep. Wyden: Mr. Johnston?

Mr. [James W.] Johnston [Chairman and CEO of RJR Tobacco Company]: Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. There is no intoxication.

Rep. Wyden: We'll take that as a no and, again, time is short. If you can just -- I think each of you believe nicotine is not addictive. We just would like t o have this for the record.

Mr. Joseph Taddeo, President, U.S. Tobacco: I don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.

Mr. Edward A. Horrigan, Chairman and CEO of Liggett Group: I believe nicotine is not addictive.

Mr. Andrew H. Tisch, Charman and CEO of Lorillard Tobacco: I believe that nicotine is not addictive.

Mr. Thomas E. Sandefur, Chairman and CEO of Brown and Williamson Tobacco: I believe that nicotine is not addictive.

Mr. Donald S. Johnston, President and CEO of American Tobacco: And I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive.

Now, plug Sen. Gillibrand into the story: then and now. Story from NY Times (March 27, 2009) [click here].

Highlights from that story:

The Philip Morris Company did not like to talk about what went on inside its lab in Cologne, Germany, where researchers secretly conducted experiments exploring the effects of cigarette smoking.

So when the Justice Department tried to get its hands on that research in 1996 to prove that tobacco industry executives had lied about the dangers of smoking, the company moved to fend off the effort with the help of a highly regarded young lawyer named Kirsten Rutnik.

She now goes by her married name, Gillibrand, threw herself into the work. She traveled to Germany at least twice, interviewing the lab’s top scientists, whose research showed a connection between smoking and cancer but was kept far from public view.

She helped contend with prosecution demands for evidence and monitored testimony of witnesses before a grand jury, following up with strategy memos to Philip Morris’s general counsel.

The industry beat back the federal perjury investigation, a significant legal victory at the time, but not one that Ms. Gillibrand is eager to discuss. Now in the Senate seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton, she plays down her work as a lawyer representing Philip Morris, saying she was a junior associate with little control over the cases she was handed and limited involvement in defending the tobacco maker.

But a review of thousands of documents and interviews with dozens of lawyers and industry experts indicate that Gillibrand was involved in some of the most sensitive matters related to the defense of the tobacco giant as it confronted pivotal legal battles beginning in the mid-1990s.

Gillibrand worked at the Manhattan firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell from 1991 to 2000, eventually oversaw a team of associate lawyers working on Philip Morris cases, according to a colleague, and was a frequent point of contact between the firm and Philip Morris executives, etc. etc. etc.

Opinion: New York State and indeed the nation does not need a United States senator of this caliber. She flipped and flopped on guns and now this issue . . . one has to ask: "What is next for her or from her?" It appears that she is just like the rest of the insiders -- inside, well-funded, and well connected, and not very honest. We deserve better.

'Moment of enlightenment, or maniac on parade???"

2009-03-25T21:15:00.016-04:00

Left Cartoon credit to Olle Johansson from Sweden.

Kim, Jung-il continues to suppress his people while pressing the button on the nuclear issue. Kim, "Dear Leader" to his countrymen, is the son of the late former "Great Leader" Kim, Il-sung, who founded present-day North Korea. A better title for the younger Kim should be, "Great Oppressor."

July 5, 2006: THE UNITED NATIONS — After 10 days of debate, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution condemning North Korea's multiple missile launches. The council demanded that North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program" and re-establish a moratorium on missile launches. That resolution strongly urged North Korea to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program, which had been stalled since 2007. The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea, and from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang.

October 5, 2007: SEOUL (Reuters) — South Korean President Roh, Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim, Jong-il issued a joint statement signed in Pyongyang at the end of their three-day historic summit [click here].

And, now, here we are again with Kim and his threats to conduct more missile tests scheduled for early April.

March 25, 2009: MEXICO CITY – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned [click here] North Korea that firing a missile for any purpose would be a "provocative act" that would have consequences.

Today: Here sit on needles and pins [again] to see what happens [again] with Kim in North Korea. Let's hope there no more fancy food or trade deals with him in return for more of his broken promises not to do this or that again [again].

"Fighting two enemies: foreign and domestic..."

2009-03-23T08:55:00.012-04:00

The foreign enemy? The Taliban, al-Qaeda, or Hamas. These are the faces of terrorism and terrorists around the world that OUR troops are engaged in battle against — they are real and they are deadly.

The domestic enemy? As the old cliché says, "We have met the enemy and they are us."

These headlines are again back again: "Soldiers: Army forced us to deploy despite health woes." [click here]. Some highlights:

1. Specialist Mark Oldham was on a plane to Iraq by December 5, despite being declared unfit because he passes out during training and requires a 30-day heart-monitor exam [his medical records show].

2. Sergeant Jesse McElroy, a combat veteran who had shoulder surgery in last September and could barely move his arm [according to his medical records] was told to deploy or face charges for malingering.

3. Chief Warrant Officer Adisa Aiyetoro, a 19-year veteran who is stricken with active tuberculosis and unable to wear body armor because of back injuries [according to his medical and court records] refuses to go, and says, "I'm not getting on that plane.

Note: Chief Aiyetoro's court-martial on charges of disobeying an order and missing a deployment is scheduled for Monday, March 30, 2009 (in Fairbanks, AK - home of the Army's "Stryker Brigade").

A recent Army Inspector General (IG) report says the process for deciding a soldier's fitness for combat is so confusing that it increases the chance of sending ailing troops to war.

At Fort Wainwright (Fairbanks, AK), 80 soldiers with health issues were left behind when the Brigade deployed in September 2008 (said Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Allen, an Army spokesman), who added, "23 were later brought to Iraq to help maintain the Brigade's personnel strength, but only after their health improved."

Specialist Oldham and Sergeant McElroy were among those left behind; Oldham was among those later deployed.

This story is not the first, or the only report on this issue:

* Washington — January 22, 2009: Top Army officers are concerned that a growing number of soldiers are medically unfit to deploy to war, a development that could affect President Obama's campaign vow to increase U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan. At least 20,000 Army soldiers are on "non-deployable" status, a number that has grown by several thousand in the past six months, the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, told reporters recently [click here].

* From local media source — January 19, 2008, [click here]. (Note: the 10th Mountain Division is housed at Fort Drum near Watertown, NY).

The local member of Congress, Rep. John M. McHugh (R) had this to say about this story that Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been researching the claims for several months. McHugh then added, "It's not unheard of that soldiers that are less than combat ready are in fact deployed," however, he pointed out, those soldiers typically avoid combat situations and are given lighter duties.

McHugh, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee [as the ranking GOP member] said it would become a problem if unfit soldiers were knowingly being deployed to combat zones in order to meet troop requirements, and he said that would violate military policy and oversight rules, but then added, "There's nothing at this time to suggest this."

With the new data from Fort Wainwright (Fairbanks, AK - noted above), I wonder how much more info we need to see a problem, or do we just keep waiting on more stories, recruiting, and punishing those like Chief Aiyetoro (noted above) who is stricken with TB and unable to wear body armor because of back injuries according to his medical file?

This report on top of the increasing number of military suicides in recent years should give us all pause to reflect on the harm our soldiers face abroad and at home.

Injury and death has many faces just like the many faces of an armed enemy in combat. But, it can also be inflicted by bureaucratic harm at home — that's the worst kind.

"An ugly battle is brewing for the soul of our country..."

2009-03-22T22:37:00.009-04:00

Hope & Promise (Economic Cure) vs. Gloom & Doom (Economic Suicide)

Bookmark this article [click here] and keep it handy ... it could get very nasty and ugly over the next few months right into November 2010.

I say 2010 because that is the year we'll either be on firm economic ground and on the road to recovery, and the 2010 midterms will help shore up the Democratic even more in Congress, or we'll be broke, battered, and belittled as the GOP predicts. They will regain power, and we will "Go Back to the Future."

Along the way, we may witness the internal combustion of the GOP, if their predictions are true. They now predict "a doomsday scenario of crushing debt and eventual federal bankruptcy if President Barack Obama's massive spending blueprint wins passage." That is plain talk and it's darn bleak!!!

Overall, this is a high stakes political game. One side wants to win over the other side. One side wants to regain political power. One side wants to dig us out of this hole. We have lost tons of money, and it will take tons of money to get us out of this hole, otherwise the hole gets deeper and wider. Guess which party stands for less spending and long term residence in that hole?

Hint: Their initials are R.e.p.u.b.l.i.c.a.n.

"A.I.G. = def: (lat.) Greedius Mostus Wasteus

2009-03-18T12:58:00.008-04:00

Update (March 18, 2009 at 7:45 pm): This video [click here] of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) may shed some light on his amendment to stop AIG from awarding the bonuses ... or it may not. You judge for yourself. I think that Dodd is being keel-hauled for political purposes and it may only be over when the GOP and others think they have plenty of political mileage to drop it. I post - you decide.

Original Post:

Memo for AIG "top" notch executives (and a few others):

Subject: Bonuses

1. The Feds have approved our request for taxpayer support recovery money, and it has arrived in 36 dump trucks.

2. The money will be available at window number three in the basement after 4 pm today.

3. There is plenty of cash, and as stipulated in your contract(s), signed last year, don't be alarmed to see a little extra in there for you in spite of our huge, huge losses. We are started as AIG, we are still AIG, and we will always be AIG.

On a more personal note - enjoy your money, you earned it.

/s/ Those of Us at Very Top

P.S. For AIG consultants, who may have left the company but agreed to provide us with advise from time to time like that mentioned in this memo [click here] ... thank you for you long, dedicated service to AIG and continued support; we hope the $1 million a month for 9 months is sufficient to tide you over until you're back on a solid financial footing.

Oh, boy.

Now, that's my view - pretty jaded, I know, but what about your view of AIG - the company I finally figured out recently what AIG really meant, and it's not "American International Group, Inc" that we have been lead to believe. Base upon all we know now [or think it's all we now know], I think AIG stands for:

A in't * I t * G reat...

Now, what about our local Rep. (Mr. McHugh)? Seems he was angry that AIG went to a retreat and enjoyed themselves late last year [click here]. He signed a letter along with 85 other members of the House asking for an investigation. Nothing from him on this latest flap (bonuses), but his Press Person, Stephanie Nigro, said this about the retreat hanky panky:

"AIG needed cash to help them access some of the frozen credit markets, to fund daily operations. In return, the Federal Reserve is taking some AIG assets worth the same amount (part of what they call a bridge loan). Ultimately, AIG is going to sell down their company to pay back some of the loan, and sell to subsidiaries and other groups. So the Federal Reserve should ultimately get the money back," Nigro concluded.

Sure they will - just as soon as they sort through the bonus money flap.

"Let's play: Name that tune..."

2009-03-14T13:17:00.001-04:00

Choices: "Bee My Honey?" Nope. "I'd Walk a Mile for a Camel?" Nope. "Gang Busters?" Nope. Try again. Um... "Money from Heaven?" Bingo ... you got it.

Wall Street hangs in there for four straight days.

The people's money (from Congress) is finally sinking in (hopefully not another cesspool). Banks are reacting (hopefully more positive and responsible this time), and well ... let the good times roll!!! We may have turned the corner?

Happy Days Are Here Again

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again

Altogether shout it now
There's no one
Who can doubt it now
So let's tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again

Your cares and troubles are gone
There'll be no more from now on
From now on ...

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So, Let's sing a song of cheer again

Happy times
Happy nights
Happy days
Are here again!

"That was easy." ®