Uninsured vets top 1.8 million
With the number of dead and wounded American service people now topping 30,000, the number of uninsured veterans has reached an all-time high of nearly 1.8 million.
The increase in veterans lacking insurance coincides with Bush administration policies aimed at limiting the number of veterans eligible for VA coverage, according to the study published online Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health.
In 2002 the administration stopped marketing veteran's health care and, in 2003, cut off insurance access to future veterans earning more than $ 30,000 annually.
**********
Defense industry cashing in on terror
Profits for the nation's largest defense contractors have risen at astronomical rates since the terror attacks of September, 2001. Is the majority of that cash being wasted on Cold War era weapons systems and technology?
**********
The only thing we have to fear...
An Islamofascist caliphate led by the evil Ahmadinejad and the all-powerful Iranian Revolutionary guard -- that's what we are now supposed to fear. The same Revolutionary Guard that got it's butt kicked by Saddam's army is our new Bogeyman. Does anyone really buy that? Fear for fear's sake -- the politics of terror.
**********
One thing we should be afraid of
The vast majority of the educated world may be coming around to the fact that we are experiencing the effects of global climate change, but that hasn't stopped the Bush administration from continued efforts to distort the findings of yet another scientific report citing the public health risks of global warming.
END OF POST
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Barking Back: Top Reader Comments
Frank in Florida on the GOP debate:
"Come now, do you actually think that a political party's nominating debate would reveal any point of view that is radically different from the ideology of that party? Nominees of a party are careful not to burn any bridges behind them, for obvious reasons. These intra-party debates are nothing more than cattle calls to showcase prospective nominees. Also, each party tolerates "outsiders", e.g., Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, etc. As exemplified by this debate, Ron Paul was basically ignored as an implied kook! Hopefully, the "Main Event" debates will be more substantive, informing and lively. Although, I would give my eye teeth, if I had any, to see a No Holds Barred Debate where the candidate may chose his or her weapons...who said it is not nice to hit a girl?"
Carter McCoy on another Gonzalez corruption case:
"Alberto Gonzalez -- He is like the gift to the Democrats that just keeps on giving. The last thing the GOP needs now is attacks from Reagan Republicans."
McLoud on $1 Trillion in war spending:
"How in the world to these crooks get away with this? Where is the backbone of the Democrats that were elected to stop this war spending? If they can't stop it, who can?"
END OF POST
Friday, October 26, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
Bush's $1 trillion war
Shortly before the outset of U.S. military action in Iraq, Bush Administration economist Larry Lindsey was fired for publicly questioning his bosses' estimates of a total cost to US taxpayers of under $50 billion to finance the war. His estimates of "at least $100 to 200 billion" were characterized as wildly off-target.
Lindsay's analysis came months after former Deputy Defense Secretary and key war planner Paul Wolfowitz's repeated assertions that the Iraq War would virtually pay for itself. "$1.7 billion -- that's it for the American taxpayer," said Wolfowitz. " "This is a country (Iraq) that can pay for it's own reconstruction."
Now four years later, we spend $2 billion every week to finance this continued folly, with the total price approaching a mind-boggling $1 trillion -- more than the total costs of 15 years of wars in Vietnam and Korea -- combined.
What exactly do we have to show for this expenditure? A secular puppet dictator, who we backed for years, ruling under crushing sanctions and a no-fly zone, has been replaced by an out-of-control civil war that has strengthened our real enemy in the region (Iran) and cost the lives of nearly 4,000 brave soldiers.
Meanwhile Saudi (like 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers -- none of which were Iraqi) Osama bin Laden -- the mastermind of the attacks that brought on all this madness -- continues to recruit more real terrorists while releasing more PR videos than a Hollywood movie studio.
END OF POST
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
The conduct of the Justice Department under Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was the centerpiece of another criminal investigation this week -- this time in Pennsylvania. None other than former Reagan and Bush 41 Attorney General Richard Thornburgh charged Tuesday that the Justice Department opened corruption cases against Democrats in the Keystone State for purely political reasons.
“The citizens of the United States must have confidence that the department is conducting itself in a fair and impartial manner without actual political influence or the appearance of political influence,” said Thornburgh. “Unfortunately that may no longer be the case.”
The AG for Ronald Reagan and the Prez's Dad doesn't trust these guys! For a Republican like Gonzo, that's gotta hurt. That's like a Dem getting slammed by Walter Mondale on behalf Jimmy Carter and the ghost of Jack Kennedy.
(Watch video of Thornburgh's Testimony)
END OF POST
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Beck: CA fire victims are "America Haters"
With the California wildfires in full burn and nearly a half-million citizens fleeing for their lives, CNN talking head Glenn Beck decided to aid the nation by describing the victims as "America Haters" on his syndicated radio show Monday night.
“I think there is a handful of people who hate America," Beck said. "Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.”
America Haters -- like the 200 retirees forced to flee from their nursing home in Ramona. Damn Commies. Thank God we have people like Beck looking out for us.
Listen to Beck's "brilliant" commentary here, and Keith Olbermann's response on last night's Countdown.
END OF POST
Monday, October 22, 2007
Barking Back: Top Reader Comments
Our features on Al Gore winning the Nobel, the troubles with the college football championship series, and the GOP debate produced some lively commentary.
On the debate, Carol in Portland said:
"It's not really true that ALL of the candidates were talking about nothing. Ron Paul continues to fight for the basic original core values of Republicans. His Libertarian principles of getting government out of our lives instead of on our backs and following the Constitution on all counts should resonate with everyone, but unfortunately they fall on deaf ears."
On Gore's Nobel, Terry G. said:
"While I agree that Gore has redeemed himself with his environmental work, I still don't know that he would make a great presidential candidate. He might be a great guy and very intelligent, but he is still a bit wooden, and his personality does not translate well in staged political settings. Unfortunately, that is what most of a campaign is made up of."
"I heartily agree. Al Gore finally did find his voice. It just proves what one can do without the political "machine" hanging around your neck."
On the trouble with the BCS, Trent M. said:
"There is NO WAY fans of the big conferences and their long tradition would go for such a proposal, even with it's many benefits."
Fred T. said...
"The television networks would have a field day with this system, but the conferences would never go for it. It's a shame, because the advantages of such a system, or any comparable idea, would surely outweigh what we have now."
END OF POST
Read More......
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
With wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, droughts ravaging the South, out-of-control energy costs and a national debt increasing by over $1 billion dollars-a-day, the Republican presidential candidates focused yesterday's debate on what matters most to their core constituents -- who is the most conservative conservative.
When not spending their allotted answer time making lame Hillary jokes, the GOP front runners continually jabbed each other over who would deliver more tax cuts to billionaires and who would be first to get us into another war with Iran.
The debate came only a day after the so-called Values Voters (all other voters evidently have no values) Conference, where each of the candidates gave pious, pandering speeches explaining how they would protect conservative (mostly southern) Christians from the evils of the other ninety-percent of us godless heathens.
END OF POST
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The NCAA Solution that will never happen
By Rick Shade
The real college football season has started. Not the one that's been going on for the past two months on campuses around the country, but rather the yearly debate season pitting those in favor of a championship playoff system against proponents of the Bowl Championship Series and its inherent short-comings.
Fans, coaches and writers from Lafayette to Los Angeles are dusting off their yearly BCS gripe arguments and columns, and with good reason. Can anyone believe that this year's national title game may pit a rebuilding Ohio State team against a University of South Florida squad that did not even exist 11 years ago?
Most would agree that some sort of playoff system is necessary, but the scenarios most often suggested involve a field of four to eight teams -- systems that would create more controversy and solve nothing. If the NCAA Basketball Selection Committee cannot select 65 teams without considerable debate, imagine the clamor over the BCS playoff selection process!
The math simply does not work. Four births in a country with nine conferences and at least one influential independent is a prescription for disaster and never-ending grievances.
The playoff system is not the answer. What college football needs is a major tune-up. Here, for your review and consideration, is the greatest solution that WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Read the rest of the story here.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Vindication at last for The Ozone Man
By Scott Cavanagh
They say good things come to those who wait.
After nearly a decade of patience that included monumental personal setbacks and attacks, Al Gore culminated his Year of Living Largely last week by winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring attention to the dangers of global climate change.
The Nobel is the third major honor this year for the man George H.W. Bush once derisively referred to as "The Ozone Man" -- joining the Academy and Emmy awards garnered earlier in the year for his documentary film Earth in the Balance and his global television network Current TV.
For many in the Nobel handicapping community, the former vice-president's win was a foregone conclusion, one that had been all but locked-up months before by both his new found standing in the liberal communities of the world and the endless amount of publicity his media ventures have produced over the past couple of years.
While the bookmakers may have considered him a lock, there was surely one person who didn't think anything was over until the Fat Lady had actually sung -- Gore himself.
Although there is much to be said for positive thinking, no one could really have blamed Gore for being a bit cynical as the big announcement day approached -- winning the most votes in a presidential election but not winning the office will harden a guy. Watching the human train wreck appointed in your place squander eight years of hard-earned peace and surpluses can make you downright jaded.
He had the rug pulled out from under him before, as so many of us did, when the networks pronounced him the winner in Florida on election night 2000 -- only to reverse the call later in the evening. But that was really only the beginning.
Right wing pundits continued to pillory him for everything from the contested election to the bogus mantra that he claimed to "invent" the Internet, or that he lied about the documented fact that parts of the book "Love Story" were based on his college days.
By mid-2001, it appeared that Gore had lost his zeal for public life, and who could have blamed him? Within months of his concession speech, the former VP began taking hits from the left as well as the right. Everything from his campaign strategy and tactics to his honesty and weight came under scrutiny.
Then something unexpected happened -- Al Gore found his voice. No longer forced to serve as Bill Clinton's straight man or the candidate of a party that never appreciated him, Gore returned to the primary topic of his early career -- our deteriorating environment. He didn't divorce himself from all other issues, even making a series of blistering attacks on the rush to war in Iraq, but it was global warming and his honest passion and obvious knowledge of the subject that made people stand up and take notice -- and take him seriously.
The attacks began again last week, as Fox News Channel and the like commenced to equating the Nobel Committee with the editorial board of MoveOn.Org. On his HBO program Real Time, comedian Bill Maher anticipated the Bush Administration's reaction to Gore's win, quipping that Bush believes the award proves that "Sweden is with the terrorists."
Meanwhile, the busload of current Democratic presidential hopefuls tried to be as complimentary as possible, without stating the obvious: Al Gore is the most qualified and accomplished candidate the party could possibly nominate in 2008.
None of that matters today however. Al Gore is finally free of his past. He might want to do something really crazy -- like grow a beard or kiss his wife in public. Anything is possible when you're The Ozone Man.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Torture and mercenaries: a nasty combination
Posted By Scott Cavanagh
The use of torture and mercenary soldiers, tactics formerly associated with the Roman Empire and Hitler's Germany, are now staples of United States Military policy under the Bush Administration.
Congressional hearings examining the conduct of Blackwater USA, produced no punishment for the Bush-connected "American Foreign Legion", which has received nearly $1 BILLION in taxpayer-funded, no-bid contracts since the start of the war. This despite conduct so reprehensible that the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government has demanded they leave the country.
The contractor saga continued last week, when two Armenian Christian women were shot dead after their car came too close to a convoy protected by Australian security contractor Unity Resources Group. The unarmed women's car was riddled with over 40 bullet holes. A day later, fresh accounts from last month's Blackwater shooting incident that left 17 civilians dead, indicate the contractors received no fire before discharging their weapons at a busy Baghdad intersection.
This weekend, a group of World War II veterans, who once conducted the interrogations of high-ranking Nazi prisoners, condemned the Bush Administration's use of torture as both unproductive and inhuman.
"During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone," said George Frenkel, 87, . "We extracted information in a battle of wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity."
How and why did the greatest military and human rights power in history end up employing a private army and water boarding detainees? In a great Op/Ed from Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich points the finger of blame in the right direction -- directly at us.
END OF POST
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
Does America now torture prisoners? Our 39th president thinks so, and he's making his feelings public.
****
Is The Pledge - no, not that one - keeping Democratic presidential hopefuls from spending time in the Sunshine State? The Miami Herald examines why many in the Dem field are skipping the upcoming Florida Primary.
****
Distorting John Kerry's war record and making triple-amputee Max Cleland look like Osama bin Laden's cousin were bad enough, but swift-boating a 12-year-old kid?
END OF POST
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Democrats caving on domestic snooping?
By Ken Hart
According to today’s New York Times, the Democratic leadership in Congress is readying a “compromise” bill that would extend the wide-ranging domestic surveillance powers granted to the National Security Agency.
Am I missing something? Isn’t this the same group of Democrats who vowed to rescind the debatably illegal warrantless wiretapping after its speedy renewal just before the August recess? The article goes on to say that the Democrats are – you guessed it – afraid of being labeled “soft on terrorism,” despite the public’s overwhelming opposition to domestic wiretapping without a warrant.
After the 2006 election surge (excuse me, couldn’t help myself), it seemed clear that the American people wanted to see a big change and that they were entrusting the Democrats to handle it. Granted, the Democrats in the Senate don’t yet have the numbers to overcome the GOP’s hypothetical filibuster threat on forcing a change in Iraq, but this?
Yes, the proposed legislation would force the Justice Department’s inspector general to perform an audit of the program on a regular basis, and yes, it would not grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that rolled over and enabled the warrantless wiretapping to get started in the first place.
Yet the Democrats make themselves look even worse than the telecom companies by conceding ground here. You can at least understand how the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales might have bullied the telecom companies into participating. But the Democrats are in a position to do something. They’re choosing not to stand up for what they believe because they don’t want to appear “soft.”
It’s disappointing. The Democrats seem to think that by playing nice with the GOP on this issue, President Bush and the Republicans will stop calling them nasty names. Not going to happen. So why do they insist on playing in the Republicans’ sandbox?
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
Last week's Bark Back News poll results showed a growing unhappiness with the current congressional leadership. That discontent is highlighted in pieces by many leading democratic voices, including Helen Thomas and the The Huffington Post. Lefties are not alone in hating their own however -- as this piece from Right Wing News indicates.
END OF POST
Friday, October 5, 2007
Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies
President Bush's decision last week to veto funding for the State Children's Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP) marked only the fourth time in over six years that our 43rd chief executive has felt compelled to raise his pen in protest of congressional action.
Health care for needy kids joined the ranks of stem cell research for the infirmed and providing a timeline to end the $557 billion (at last count) taxpayer-funded disaster in Iraq as the pieces of legislation our Decider-In-Chief needed to protect us all from. No other items of interest in the gargantuan pork-filled, earmarked-laden, surplus-destroying, bridge-to-nowhere funding, no-bid, GOP budgets of the recent past drew his ire, but spending the cost of one week in Iraq to secure the health of millions of our children had him whipping-out his missing pen faster than Doc Holliday. And he did so as quietly as possible.
END OF POST
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Prince of Mercenaries -- Bush's private army
By Ken Hart
I’m nearly done reading a great book from last year, Washington’s Crossing by David Hackett Fischer. A few things pop right out:
1. George Washington was a goddamn two-fisted action hero. The first-person accounts of his leadership and valor in battle are amazing and fill you with patriotic pride.
2. My resident state of New Jersey is brimming with American history -- a fact unknown to many New Jerseyans.
3. The British sure used a LOT of mercenaries.
To bolster its own army in the early days of the Revolutionary War, England chose a familiar path: It hired soldiers from Germany, mostly from the state of Hesse-Kassel. They made up about one-quarter of the British forces. Most of the Hessians were professional soldiers; others were unwillingly dragged into service by press gangs.
Regardless, these men fought bravely, by most accounts. Even Washington thought so. But after winning its independence, the United States chose not to adopt the British model. Despite the many wars that followed, America – to my knowledge – has never hired thousands of mercenaries to take the place of its soldiers in the front lines of battle.
Until now. And that brings us to Iraq. There are approximately 10,000 “private security” people in that country. About one-tenth of those are from Blackwater.
I’m not going to go into the details of the disputed shooting of civilians by Blackwater personnel on September 16. (You can get the latest info here.) Let’s fast-forward to yesterday’s House testimony by Blackwater founder and chairman Erik Prince, who criticized the description of his soldiers-for-hire as mercenaries:
"A lot of people call us mercenaries," he added. "We are Americans, working for Americans, protecting Americans."
Here’s the Webster’s definition of “mercenary”:
one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service
Hmmm, interesting. But you know, I should check with the British – after all, they have more historical experience than we do. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “mercenary” as:
a soldier who fights for any country or group that pays them
Wow, now that’s what I love about the British – no ambiguity! Blackwater’s Prince tried to push the distinction that his men are “contractors,” not “mercenaries,” but the English language – and common sense – show that he’s blowing gunsmoke.
Still, if Blackwater were following military rules of engagement and if they had fairly secured this lucrative gig of protecting State Department personnel (Blackwater receives $1.1 billion in federal contracts), then what’s the harm, right? Well, unfortunately, it seems they’re not beholden to any legal rules. The U.S. government says that Blackwater doesn’t have to answer to Iraqi “justice” (such as it is) for the incident, and neither do Blackwater and its employees appear to be in any legal trouble in America over the September 16 shooting. This is partially due to the fact that U.S. laws regarding merce... I mean, “private security contractors” are murky. That needs to change.
As for how it got the Iraq job in the first place, no surprises here: Like Halliburton, another heavy contributor to GOP coffers, Blackwater was given a no-bid contract. And like Halliburton, Blackwater is embarrassing the U.S. and causing problems for our troops with its arrogance. In addition to the political contributions, the Bush Administration put companies like Blackwater to work because then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was determined to win the Iraq conflict on the cheap, i.e., if fewer actual troops were involved, then he could juggle the numbers and his dream of a lighter, faster, cheaper (but not necessarily better) military would be realized. And that was fine with the White House, since fewer actual soldiers in harm’s way back then would mean fewer U.S. military deaths and less pressure back home.
It doesn’t seem to have worked out all that well.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Poll results give Congressional Dems low marks
Results of last week's poll question, "How do you rate the performance of the first-year Democratic Congress?" reflect a growing frustration with the new leadership.
61% of all respondents rated the Dem's performance either disappointing or very disappointing, reinforcing the common belief that they have abandoned the core issue they were sent to Washington to solve -- ending the war in Iraq.
Although the numbers don't look good to begin with, they look even worse when you consider that only 11 percent rated the Congress' job as excellent.
The leadership has been under fire from the left all year, for what they perceive to be a willingness on the part of the Democrats to appease the White House on all topics concerning Iraq, domestic surveillance programs and the ever-increasing drumbeat for military action against Iran. Last week's decision by many Dems to endorse a GOP measure to condemn liberal group MoveOn.org for an ad criticizing the Petraeus report to Congress may have also played a part.
The final results: Excellent job - 11%, Average job - 28%, Disappointing job - 44%, Very Disappointing job - 17%.
END OF POST
