Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Barack hides behind Vaj!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CHICAGO SPECIALITY PERFORMER VALERIE JARRETT WAS WITHOUT HER MULE ON MSNBC YESTERDAY AS SHE INSISTED THAT, WHEN PEOPLE GOT TO KNOW THE DEBT CEILING PLAN, THEY'D REALLY, REALLY LIKE IT. FOR ANY WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN, JARRETT AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE BEEN INSISTING THE SAME OF OBAMACARE SINCE THEY FORCED IT DOWN AMERICA'S THROAT AND, UP TO THIS POINT, AMERICANS STILL REALLY, REALLY DON'T LIKE IT.

WHEN NOT LYING TO THE NATION ON TV, JARRETT SPENT THE DAY PRESSURING LAW MAKERS TO SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT THE MASSIVE SELL-OUT THE HOUSE VOTED ON YESTERDAY.

SAID HOUSE REP. KEITH ELLISON, "I REALLY AM A PROGRESSIVE, HONEST! BUT SHE THREATENED TO SICK DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE ON ME!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This morning at 6:00 am EST, it was already 120 degrees in Baghdad. AFP reports that, due to the heat, a public holiday has been called in Baghdad and that the heat is expected to stay high tomorrow and Wednesday. Aswat al-Iraq notes that along with the rising heat, today is also the first day of Ramadan. Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) observes, "Iraq's central government shuttered its offices and sent public-sector workers home across most of the country Monday as temperatures surpassed 122 degrees Fahrenheit and Muslims began fasting to mark the start of the holy month os Ramadan." Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweeted that the governmental shut down was the "first time in recent history due to heat." Ed O'Keefe and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) explain, "Television news programs began announcing the closures Sunday night -- just as American newscasts might inform viewers of snow days. The closures apply to government offices in the Baghdad region, Diyala provinces in central Iraq and all southern provinces -- including Iraq's second-largest city, Basra. Government offices in the northern Kurdistan region remain open, thanks to slightly cooler temperatures (110 degrees) and the region's more reliable electricity supply." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "The electricity shortages, which have deprived even government ministry buildings of their air conditioning, have become a politically explosive issue. Amid protests sweeping the Arab world, those in Iraq have focused on poor public services, particularly electricity shortages. With billions of dollars poured into reconstructing the electricity sector by the United States and Iraq, most people blame the continuing shortages on corruption as well as incompetence."

Climbing along with the heat is the violence. Salam Faraj (AFP) reports July has the second highest death toll of the year in Iraq with 259 reported dead by the ministries. Iraqi Body Count lists the monthly death total at 307. Let's review the month's violence.

johnfdrake John Drake

At least 84 people were killed and 163 injured in violence in #Iraq last week.

11 Jul

johnfdrake John Drake

At least 46 people were killed and almost 200 injured in violence in #Iraq last week.

18 Jul

johnfdrake John Drake

At least 23 people were killed and 52 injured in violence in #Iraq last week. This is a relatively low figure for the country.

25 Jul

johnfdrake John Drake

At least 47 people were killed and 113 injured in #Iraq violence last week.

10 hours ago

That's 200 dead and 528 injured but we left out the first week of July (44 dead, 78 injured) because half that week was June and there's no cut off point. It should be remembered that as violence in Iraq has risen, there are no heads for Iraq's security ministries (Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of National Security). Though the Constitution called on Nouri to name them by the end of December (the 25th actually, if you go by Jalal's late naming of Nouri as prime minister-designate), he never did. All these months later, he still hasn't.

July saw the deaths of 5 US soldiers in Iraq. Today the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, arrived in Iraq and he immediately raised the issue of keeping US troops in Iraq beyond 2011. Lolita C. Baldor (AP) quotes him telling reporters upon landing in Mosul, "Now is the time. We have to know." Thom Shanker (New York Times) notes, "On his visit, Admiral Mullen repeated a message from Washington that the leadership in Baghdad must decide quickly whether it wanted continued American military support. Without an official request by the Iraqi government, all American militiary units must leave the country by the end of the year, as required by a bilateral agreement."

Staying on the subject of withdrawal, Saturday Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reported that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen, has documented in his latest "quarterly report to Congress and the Obama administration" that Iraq is more dangerous today than it was a year ago and O'Keefe notes, "The findings contrast with public statements by U.S. diplomatic and military officials in Iraq and come as Washington awaits a final decision by Iraqi leaders on whether they want U.S. troops to stay in the country beyond the expiration of a three-year security agreement in December." Today David Isenberg (Huffington Post) emphasizes that SIGIR Stuart Bowen's report notes the lack of cooperation his office is receiving from the State Dept on even the most basic of numbers. The State Dept, for those who don't remember, wants a large amount of money, $6.2 billion -- US tax payer money, they're not selling lemonade by the Lincoln Monument to get this money -- and have been upset that Congress has asked questions. They've brushed aside questions and only provided the most general of details. That's what they're going to the SIGIR's office as well. The budget they have for Iraq needs to be public and broken down. The whispers are that State's numbers are not adding up. (State is over the back-up plan. Should the White House not be able to get an extension of US troops in Iraq, soldiers would be switched from DoD to State and be covered by the Strategic Framework Agreement.)

Saturday the issue was supposed to have been raised to the Parliament if only in the status of Iraqi forces report Nouri was supposed to provide the legislative branch with. Aswat al-Iraq reports that 222 MPs (out of 325) attended the Saturday session. Nouri al-Maliki did make time before Parliament to advocate for trimming his Cabinet. Dar Addustour reports his explaining, in a press conference after his appearance, that he's eliminating the ministries of state with the exception of the Ministry of Women, the Ministry of the House of Representatives and the Ministry of Provincial Affairs and that he plans to merge remaining ministries together in a plan that's yet to be made fully clear. The plan will cut the 46 ministries down to 29. [The Los Angeles Times states: "reducing the Cabinet from 44 to 33 ministries."] 46 was an excessive number but he needed to increase the size of the Cabinet during the nine month Political Stalemate I to create positions for all the people he told he'd give a job if they'd support him as prime minister.

Nouri told the press he also presented a report on the status of Iraqi forces and that it was necessary for the US to remain as "trainers." While he stated that the extensions was up to Parliament, Dar Addustour is clear that Nouri stated that the US needed to remain as "trainers" with no qualifiers. Al Mada also catches this claim that the US remaining or not is up to Parliament and political blocs, on the one hand, while Nouri then states that the US military must remain in Iraq as "trainers" on the other hand. Raheem Salman and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report Nouri made time today to announce that the purchase of "36 US fighter jets" was back on. This purchase would also require US troops to remain in Iraq. As with the helicopter contracts, the jet contract includes a training provision. They don't mention that part of the contract but it is in there. Dar Addustour notes he also made clear that despite his failure to win support Thursday on his plan to do away with the Electoral Commission, he plans to have his political slate (State of Law) bring it up again and he declared the Electoral Commission unconstitutional.

Nouri said, in his press conference, he gave the security report. Sunday Aswat al-Iraq reported Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi states that no plan to extend the US military presence in Iraq was presented (Nouri also stated that) and that no report on the status of Iraqi forces was presented either. Nouri claimed in his press conference yesterday that he presented that report. Alsumaria TV also notes al-Nujaifi's denial that the report was presented. In addition Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes that Nouri al-Maliki's Saturday press conference not only found Nouri saying that Iraq needed the US military to remain as trainers but that he stated "trainers" didn't require a Parliamentary vote.

Sticking with Saturday's session of Parliament, Aswat al-Iraq reports on an issue raised:

Parliamentary Security and Defence Commission submitted today its report on US bombardments in Babil and Misan provinces, according to field visits made by commission members.
The report proposed not allowing US forces to conduct any military without the knowledge or approval of Iraqi forces and allocating a judge with every military division.
It added that it is permissible for the US forces to conduct a military operation only in case of self-defence, as stipulated by the security agreement, in coordination with Iraqi forces and knowledge of local government.

Meanwhile Tim Arango (New York Times) reports today Al Rufait today where a joint US-Iraqi raid left three people dead and five injured in what is a confusing incident and one that has enraged local Iraqis: "The raid and the deaths prompted outrage on Monday in Parliament and in the local press, and coincide with an ongoing debate about the future role of the United States military here." Aswat al-Iraq reports 4 were killed and quotes Sheik Yousif al-Rufeie stating that the US must answer for "having executed the four persons, including an old man, with cold blood." Incidents such as this do not assist the US government's desire to remain in Iraq. Nor does a similar attack in Basra today. Aswat al-Iraq quotes stating "American forces had carried out an air-landing in southern Iraq's Basra city, arrested 3 citizens, beaten women, stolen money and terrified children, in al-Quran township's Nukheilat village."

In other news, War Hawks enjoy whining, "The US must stay in Iraq due to Iran's influence!" Iran and Iraq do not get along historically. The two countries get a long very well today but that's only due to having a common enemy (US). Left to their own devices, the two countries are usually in conflict. Were the US to leave, Iraq and Iran would have to square off over many issues including the large amount of salt running into Iraqi waters from Iran. In what may be a case of overstepping and is certainly a way to create new tensions, the Iranian government is preparing to make a request. The Tehran Times observes, "Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says the Iranian government is pursuing the case of obtaining reparations from Iraq." The eight-year war is not a healed wound in Iraq. Iraq's very young population has been taught about it in school and more of them learned of it than can remember it. It's a stupid over-reach on the part of Iran and it is exactly that over-reach that will continue to create obstacles between the two countries if the US were smart enough to withdraw. Backing the point of over-reach up, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Legislature of al-Iraqiya Coalition, led by Iyad Allawi, Zala Neftchy, has stated on Monday that Iran's demand of compensations from Iraq due to their 1980-88 War 'shall step up tension between both countries,' adding that 'Iraq was supposed to demand such compensations from Iran, because the latter had started the war operations at that time'." Another conflict is the fact that Iran's military is shelling -- and possibly entering -- northern Iraq. Mohammed A. Salih (Rudaw) explains:

As fighting intensifies between a Kurdish militia and the Iranian military along the Iraq-Iranian border, questions are being raised over whether the violence could affect Iran's imports into Kurdistan.
Iraq and the Kurdistan region remain heavily dependent on imports such as food and construction materials. Iran is second only to Turkey in exporting goods to Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Iranian-Kurdistan trade relationship is so crucial that even at the height of the recent border shelling, an Iranian trade delegation was meeting with members of Kurdistan's Import and Export Union in Sulaimani to discuss boosting trade deals.
Yet concerns are growing that skirmishes between the Kurdish rebel group Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) and the Iranian military could hurt business and economic interests in Iraqi Kurdistan.

On that conflict, the Tehran Times notes, "According to Iraqi newspaper Al-Sabah, in the last session of the Iraqi parliament, the security and defense committee compiled a report on the military operations carried out by the Islamic Revolution Guards corps against PJAK and reacted against Iran's operations, the Fars news agency reported on Sunday. The committee advised Iran to settle the conflict through diplomacy and respect the territorial integrity of Iraq."

Reuters notes an Iskandariya sticky bombing which left an Iraqi soldier injured and, dropping back to Sunday for the rest, a Baghdad sticky bombing last night injured a Ministry of Electricity employee and his two children and 1 taxi driver was shot dead in Hilla. Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Baghdad attack on an Iraqi and US joint patrol left 1 Iraqi soldier dead.

"Keith Ellison's girl parts get itchy for Barry"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY KNOCKS UP KEITH!"

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Keith Ellison's girl parts get itchy for Barry

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

HEY EVERYBODY, IT'S STUPID FREAK KEITH ELLISON. REMEMBER THE PUNK ASS CRY BABY CONGRESSMAN IN 2008?

REMEMBER HIM USING COMMITTEE TIME TO PLUG HIS LOVER BARRY O? TIME AND AGAIN, DURING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY, THERE WAS LITTLE KEITH WASTING HIS TIME AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, HIS CONSTITUENTS TIME BY TURNING HIS TIME IN EVERY HEARING INTO A TESTIMONIAL FOR CANDIDATE BARRY O.

KEITH ELLISON STILL CAN'T MAN UP ALL THESE YEARS LATER.

THE RIDICULOUS KEITH STEPPED OUT OF HIS WEDDING DRESS AND LEFT THE LAND OF PLAYTIME LONG ENOUGH TO SNAP OF BARRY O'S EFFORTS TO GUT THE SAFETY NET, "I WISH HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. BUT I DON'T BLAME THE PRESIDENT FOR IT. HE DOESN'T WANT TO CUT THESE PROGRAMS."

YES, HE TRULY IS THAT STUPID AND THAT MUCH IN LOVE.

KEITH ELLISON, KNOCKED UP IN 2008 BY BARRY O, AND STILL READY TO BEAR THE LOVE CHILD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today Terry Gross flaunts her stupidity and her smutty by re-airing one of her stupidest interviews ever -- one of the reasons Fresh Air was pulled from several radio stations last year -- with a "dominatrix." No one needs that s**t on the public airwaves, do you understand? There's enough going on in the world that NPR doesn't need to work the blue room. Terry goes there repeatedly. And it was her laughing (and playing) her 'comedian' friend using the word fa**ot over and over on her sho last year that was the last straw for some stations. Please note, that "comedian" went public weeks ago saying Tracy Morgan's homophobic rant as funny and fine. Of course he did. He's a homophobe himself. Terry Gross awful show needs to be pulled. The woman's an idiot, ill-informed and plays to the lowest common denominator repeatedly. She's also a little War Hawk as anyone who followed her coverage should be aware (including the way Ehren Watada was covered -- and if Terry's so wise how come she and her guests were SO WRONG about what would happen to Ehren?). In 2010, as Ann, Ava and I documented at Third, only 18.546% of Terry's guests were women. Yet another reason her tired ass needs to be retired. But it was yesterday's show with CJ Chivers of the New York Times and Transitional Council that we're noting right now. Chivers is in bed with the so-called rebels. No, the paper didn't do that in Iraq. From the interview.

Mr. CHIVERS: I don't know exactly what the air power is up in the air. I've been trying to get it at that. And the governments that are involved, when they sign on for NATO, some of them seem to get sort of nondisclosure agreements with NATO. So I don't really know. I'd rather - they also almost bombed me one day...

GROSS: Oh, my G**. Really?

[. . .]

Mr. CHIVERS: Well, we later approached - I mean it was one of those situations. We came back and, you know, I was suffering from some headaches and having trouble hearing. And so we came back and I, you know, I called the paper and let them know very briefly what had happened - told them I was fine. And then we started to ask a few questions. Because, you know, it struck me as unusual that they would bomb something that was very blown up. They would bomb something that was, in this case, behind rebel lines.

Oh, you poor baby. How awful for you, the American, visiting someone else's country and free to leave anytime you want. to experience what so many Libyans are going through right now as a result of that war. [We censored Terry's use of a religious deity's name in vain because we don't allow that here out of respect for all religions and those people who are religious.] I'm also confused as to why we need a history of Libya from CJ Chivers. Meaning whatever did or did not happen years and years ago. Is that supposed to be "perspective"? If so the biggest perspective and the only one that matters right no is that Barack said this would be a few weeks and it has been months, that Libya is an established and recognized government, that the CIA has backed the so-called rebels and that this is part of the AFRICOM dream. Don't expect CJ Chivers to ever put that in perspective while working for the New York Times or to acknowledge that his little scare is the sort of thing Libyan children are living with every damn day in and near Tripoli and for no legal reason at all.

Staying with NPR. today on The Diane Rehm Show's second hour, guest host Susan Page (USA Today) and panelists, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers), Joby Warrick (Washington Post) and Jill Dougherty (CNN) discussed Iraq.

Susan Page: In Iraq, there's been another bomb blast targeting police this time in Tikrit. Do we see a pattern emerging, Jill? What's happening in Iraq?

Jill Dougherty: Well, Iraq, I guess you'd have to say the big thing is when do the Americans pull out? I mean, we know, according to the Status of Forces Agreement, that they're supposed to be out, the troops must leave Iraq by the end of this year, December 31st. But you do have some movement now among the Iraqis and certainly the U.S. would be open to that to keep the U.S. as trainers for a longer period. But, you know, with the mood about the war, it seems, you know, in both countries, it could be a problem to try to continue them. And so if, let's say, Afghanistan and Iraq, if the local military cannot take care of the security situation, then things can fall apart. It's a real dilemma.

Susan Page: And, in fact, these -- the bombing came just hours after the Iraqi prime minister was talking on the phone to Vice President Biden about the withdrawal of U.S. troops. What is the issue there? We need Iraqis to make some decisions, Nancy?

Nancy A. Youssef: Well, the real issue is that no Iraqi wants to come out publicly and say he asked for the occupation forces to stay on, however beneficial they may be to Iraqi security. And so al-Maliki came out and said the parliament must vote on this.

Susan Page: So that's a way for him to say I'm not asking, let's have the parliament?

Nancy A. Youssef: Yes, I mean, let's -- Really there's a game of chicken going on where the Iraqis are trying to see how close they can get to not asking and having the Americans still stay. And so we heard from Hoshyar Zebari this week who is the foreign minister. He said something quite interesting. He said, well, maybe we could work out a deal defense ministry to defense ministry. And so I went to the Pentagon and I said, would that be acceptable or do you have to have parliamentary support? And there's a debate going on right now about that and my sense is that no, they'd have to have the backing of the parliament. Because remember, the parliament is the one who approved the Status of Forces Agreement that allows us to stay until the end of 2011. And so what the Iraqis are looking for is the least they have to do to get the Americans to stay without having the onus of going to the public and saying, I asked for the forces to stay.

Susan Page: But do we want to be asked to stay? Or would we prefer to be able to go?

Joby Warrick: Yeah. It's there is a push within the administration to try to get some residual force there beyond the end of 2011 because of the regional concerns, because of Iran and all the things that it's doing in the region. We'd like to have a counter-balance to that. And -- but again, we have to be asked and now this, the whole negotiation process appears to be frozen. There's no movement in sight and if we are going to leave at the end of 2011, there's a lot of logistical things involved in that and we have to start moving now.

Nancy A. Youssef: You know, Jill talked about the cost of this and the financial pressures essentially to bring down war costs. The Congressional Research Service released a study earlier this year and they found that with fewer troops, it actually costs more per trooper in Iraq. In 2006 and 2007 at the height of the violence, it cost about $500,000 per trooper and that is the logistics, the equipment and getting that trooper there. We're now in 2010 and it was at $800,000 and so there is a cost factor in this. It is actually more expensive per soldier to keep them in Iraq even if there are fewer of them.

Susan Page: President Obama campaigned as a candidate on a promise to get the U.S. forces out of Iraq. So Jill, what if he fulfils that promise? We see troops coming out and the situation there really deteriorates. Does that mean we would go back in or do we just leave the Iraqis to themselves?

Jill Dougherty: I shudder to think what they would do. I'm not quite sure because, you know, you have legal issues governing the relationship between the two countries. You have the financial realities in the United States budget, which -- It's a perfect day to be talking about that. You have the American public, I think the last I looked, 30 percent support the war or the conflict. So it would be very, very hard to begin that over again.

Nancy A. Youssef: And also I think the question becomes what could the U.S. do to mitigate whatever emerges in that period because you're starting to see Iraqis sort of positioning themselves for the post-U.S. period and so the relevancy, the impact of the United States diminishes with every brigade that the United States pulls out. So if you keep 10,000, which is the number we hear tossed around at the Pentagon, what real impact could they have to stopping whatever the momentum ends up being in Iraq post 2011?

On the non-withdrawal, Brian Williams (The Militant) explains:

The Los Angeles Times reports that unnamed U.S. officials say the White House is prepared to keep as many as 10,000 U.S. troops around Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. That would be on top of the nearly 50,000 Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel the Pentagon reports deploying "around Iraq" as of March 31 of this year.

The Pentagon is putting "multiple plans" in place to support U.S. troop operations in Iraq in 2012, Alan Estevez, the Pentagon's nominee to lead its logistics and materiel readiness office, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing July 19. As contracts expire on food services, fuel, and logistics support, he said, the Department of Defense can almost immediately turn "the volume on [them] back up."

The U.S. embassy, which opened on new grounds in January 2009, is by far the largest in the world -- about the size of 80 football fields and 10 times bigger than any other U.S. embassy.

Saturday was to be the meet-up of political blocs at Jalal Talabani's home to discuss a number of issues including whether or not to extend the presence of US troops. , Ahmad al-Rubaye (AFP) reports that meeting has been axed. (Jane Arraf noted yesterday that people were saying the meeting wouldn't take place.) al-Rubaye explains Ali Mussawi delivered the news that the meeting was off: "He said the talks were postponed because President Jalal Talabani, who was to lead them, had to visit the northern city of Arbil to attend condolence ceremonies for the mother of Massud Barzani, president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region. She died on Wednesday." And as the White House pushes for an extension, there is silence. Dennis "DJ" Mikolay (Populist Approach) observes:

Apparently, despite the current president's tenacity for waging war, the once thriving anti-war left is uninterested in opposing him. Why? Were the peace-seeking activists of the past decade motivated more by a hatred of George W. Bush than they were a love of human life? Perhaps they believe that, unlike his predecessor's wars, the current president's are somehow morally justified?

Whatever the case, opposition to American interventionism seems to have gone the way of the Furby or the Pet Rock, meaning President Obama can wage as many wars as he likes with minimal criticism. That is a truly frightening realization. Who will the United States wage war with next? Iran and Syria seem likely contenders for that dubious honor.

One must wonder how much blood must be shed before the American public demands a revamping of the "War on Terror?" How many Americans have to die before voters turn their backs on both the neo-conservative Republican and Progressive Democratic war machines?

Given the neutralization of anti-war sentiment in the United States, coupled with the lack of viable Republican presidential contenders, the probability that the United States will remain engulfed in war until at least 2016 is becoming increasingly likely. The sad moral of this entire affair, however, is that by casting their ballots for a pro-war candidate the American public got exactly what they asked for. And they don't even seem to realize it.

Al Mada has an interesting story on a statement released by Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi. In the statement, Allawi's stating that the problems (Political Stalemate II) are not between Iraqiya and Nouri's State of Law but "our real problem" results from agreeing to a move that left them in a lesser position (Iraqiya won the March 2010 elections) and accepting tokens instead of real partnership. He notes the Erbil Agreement was not implemented. (He is correct. The Erbil Agreement ended Political Stalemate I -- the nine months after the March 2010 elections -- and when Nouri trashed the agreement, Political Stalemate II began.) Al Mada also reports that six deputies withdrew from Iraqiya yesterday for a number of reasons but chief among them the fact that they did not support Salman Jumaili as president of Iraqiya's bloc in Parliament. The paper also reveals that yesterday's efforts by State of Law to attack the Electoral Commission with a no-confidence vote found only 94 of the 245 MPs present voting in favor of the proposal.

"Corn Chowder in the Kitchen"

"There is no 4 year pass"

"Bad mother alert"

"Off the cliff"
"4 women, 2 men"
"4 women, 3 men"
"david benjamin the sexist"

"pelosi the fighter re-emerges"
"Glenn Thursh, the overly permissive parent"
"Kate Randall says it all"
"A very bad year for music"
"Lady Gaga"
"If only he could talk big"
"The awakening"
"That not-so Fantastic Four and sequel"
"Jason Alexander's announced his suicide"
"Bully X-mas"
"Tim DeChristopher"
"Idiot of the Week: Matthew Rothschild"
"Libyan War"
"Jobs?"
"THIS JUST IN! WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"

Friday, July 29, 2011

Jobs?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO BE PLAGUED BY THE QUESTION: "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"

SINCE BEING ASKED THAT QUESTION, HIS POPULARITY -- OR WHAT REMAINS OF IT -- HAS BEEN ON A DOWNWARD SLIDE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY, AMERICA'S PRINCESS INSISTED THE QUESTION WAS NOT A FAIR ONE, "HOW CAN YOU ASK ME WHERE ARE THE JOBS? ME? WHAT OF CORNELL MCCLLELAN? DO WE NOT EMPLOY HIM AS OUR FITNESS TRAINER? DO WE NOT FLY HIM IN AND OUT OF CHICAGO SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK? IS THAT NOT A JOB I HAVE CREATED? AND WHEN I COULD HAVE LAID OFF CRISTETA COMERFORD WITH OLIVIA PARAS OR SAM KAAS DID I NOT DECIDED TO KEEP COMERFORD ON AS WHITE HOUSE CHEF . . . AND TO CREATE JOBS FOR OLIVIA PARAS AND SAM KAAS AS WHITE HOUSE CHEF? OVER AND OVER, IF YOU SEARCH THROUGH OUR SERVANTS QUARTERS, YOU WILL FIND THAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY CREATED JOBS. NOW THEY WILL BE UNEMPLOYED AFTER 4 YEARS, YES, BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER SPEND SO MUCH OF MY OWN MONEY ON THESE PEOPLE. BUT AS LONG AS THE U.S. TAX PAYERS ARE STUCK PAYING FOR MY FITNESS TRAINER,ETC., I WILL HAPPILY CONTINUE TO CREATE MORE AND MORE JOBS. LOOK AT REGGIE LOVE. HE IS MY 'BODY MAN' WHICH MEANS HE HOLDS THE PRESIDENTIAL HOSE WHEN IT'S TIME FOR ME TO TAKE A LEAK. JOB CREATION STARTS WITH ME."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The Council on Foreign Relations' Fellow for Conflict Prevention Micah Zenko weighs in with a piece today entitled "It's Hard to Say Goodbye to Iraq: Why the United States Should Withdraw this December" (Foreign Affairs):

Yet Baghdad seems unable to make up its mind. Some political leaders privately lobby for U.S. troops to stay, but only in training and advising roles. Still, most Iraqis and many members the Iraqi parliament are weary of a continued American military presence, which is problematic since U.S. officials insist that an updated SOFA be approved by the parliament. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani had requested that Baghdad's fractious political blocs decide by last Saturday whether to ask for an extension of U.S. troop presence into next year. They were unable to reach a consensus and have postponed additional negotiations on the topic "until further notice."

Still, according to anonymous U.S. officials, the White House is prepared to keep 10,000 ground troops in Iraq after the end of this year. It apparently has two reasons. The first is to prevent Iran from supplying improvised explosive devices and rockets to Shia militants in Iraq who have used such weapons to kill U.S. troops. According to U.S. officials, nine of the 15 U.S. soldiers who were killed in Iraq in June died from such attacks. The second is that somehow the mere presence of 10,000 U.S. troops will mitigate Iran's long-term influence in Iraq, which has been a proxy battlefield between Washington and Tehran for decades.

There are a few problems with this logic. For starters, it does not make sense for the United States to keep soldiers in Iraq to prevent Iranians from providing Iraqi Shias with weapons to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. As the Pentagon noted in its "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq" report last summer, "Iran will likely continue providing Shi'a proxy groups in Iraq with funding and lethal aid, calibrating support based on several factors, including Iran's assessment of U.S. Force posture during redeployment." In other words, Iran will continue its behavior as long as there are U.S. soldiers in Iraq to target, which suggests that the surest and fastest way to prevent further bloodshed is to withdraw the remaining U.S. soldiers on schedule.

Okay, for a new development (press wise), let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot for withdrawal talk:

Iraq's Foreign Minister is Hoshyar Zebari and he is in the news today with regards to withdrawal. Few appear able to figure out what he said today on the topic. Press TV puffs out its chest to insist that no US forces will be on the ground in Iraq after 2011 and that Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) emphasizes other details of today in Iraq and mentions Zebari only in passing. So what happened?

Press TV is wrong. AFP and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) get it right. AFP reports Zebari raised the issue of withdrawal and the yquote him stating, "Is there a need for trainers and experts? The answer is 'yes.' I think it is possible to reach a consensus on this. The Iraqi government alone cannot reach a decision on this issue. It needs political and national consensus; it's an issue all political leaders should back." Sinan Salaheddin explains, "Zebari and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appear to be preparing the public for some type of American military presence in Iraq past 2011, but have been trying to paint it as a training force as opposed to combat units."

A few e-mailed that the video at Press TV wasn't working. (The story had a video if you clinked on the link. I didn't say "link has text and video" because the video wasn't working.) New development: It is working now and the video report contradicts the written report. It also contradicts itself. In the video, we're told that extending the presence of the US military it's not just getting the approval of Parliament and three presidencies (they mean the president and two vice presidents) "and if it happens the extension would not be longer than two or three years." So it's not just that. Hmm. Well what does it involve? The reporter informs later in the segment, "The government cannot take such decision by its own the extension needs the approval of the Parliament, the prime minister and the president and this is not easy." Oh. Okay. So the only thing they added to the equation was . . . the Prime Minister.

Yes, that is rather ridiculous. They also fall for the claim that extending the SOFA or creating a new agreement is like setting a date for the elections and needs the same body to approve it. Nouri became prime minister in 2006. At the close of that year and at the close of 2007, he demonstrated he could extend the US military presence without the approval of anyone. (Parliament objected both times but did not punish him and by refusing to do so they've allowed this to be a power of the prime minister.) Today Lara Jakes (AP) reports Nouri posted a message to his website stating that it was up to Parliament and that he had spoken of the issue with US Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. AFP quoted a statement from Nouri's office yesterday on the phone call, "The prime minister assured Mr. Biden that in the end it is up to the parliament to decide whether the country needs American forces to stay or not after the end of this year." Alsumaria TV notes the statement from Nouri also said "he expects the leaders of Iraqi political blocs to reach an agreement in this regard during their upcoming meeting. On the other hand US vice President stressed that the USA support Iraq government in facing different challenges in the inside and the outside and stressed on the necessity of ongoing strategic relations between the two countries."

Ali Abdel Azim (Al Mada) reports on a meeting yesterday between State of Law (Nouri's political slate) and Iraqiya (Ayad Allawi's) in which both sides are stating efforts were made in anticipation of Saturday's big meet-up at Jalal Talabni's. Iraqiya's excited that the defense ministries were discussed. Dar Addustour notes that the rumor is Abdul Karim al-Samarrai, currently Minister of Science and Technology, will be nominated to be Minister of Defense. However, meet-ups don't always take place. Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweets:

janearraf jane arraf

#Maliki after chat with Biden says #Iraq could decide soon on US troops - but politicians say meeting Saturday to discuss now cancelled.

14 hours ago

Whether the meeting takes place this weekend or not, one thing is being extended. The United Nations Security Council notes:

The Security Council today extended the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for another year as it welcomed recent security improvements in the country but stressed the need for further progress on the humanitarian, human rights and political fronts.

In a resolution adopted unanimously, Council members agreed to continue the work of UNAMI for a period of 12 months, in line with the latest report of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the work of the mission.

The resolution noted that Iraq's security situation had improved "through concerted political and security efforts" and added that further advances will be made through meaningful political dialogue.

All communities in the country should be involved in the political process, refrain from statements or actions that aggravate tensions and reach "a comprehensive solution on the distribution of resources," according to the resolution.

Council members urged the Government to continue to promote human rights, including by supporting the country's Independent High Commission for Human Rights and by developing strategies to ensure that women can play a much greater decision-making role in society.

As noted earlier, State of Law is said to have played nice with Iraqiya in a meeting yesterday. They had every reason to. They needed support on a measure. Today they were set to take to Parliament in an attempt to do away with the Electoral Commission. However, Dar Addustour reported that Iraqiya decided yesterday not to vote to sack the chair of the EC or its members. What does the Electoral Commission matter? It's regularly cited as a body that can be trusted. It's independent. Nouri attempted to seize control of it a few months back but there was push back (including from the committee). In March 2010, Nouri declared himself the winner of the March 7th elections via his own polling (which he released to reporters -- some like NPR presented it as fact and did not credit where they were getting their numbers) before the votes were even counted. When the votes were counted, his State of Law came in second to Iraqiya. Even with relatives on the Commission and even with his veiled threats and explicit whining, the Electoral Commission refused to change the results enough to call State of Law a winner. Had they not been present and independent, there would have been no block on Nouri at all or even the pretense of fair elections. Before what happened today, a refresher -- Iraqiya got the most votes in the March 7th elections. Shortly after Political Stalemate I ended, a small group of Iraqiya members broke with the larger group. This smaller group is known as White Iraqiya. With that in mind, Aswat al-Iraq reports State of Law made their move in Parliament today as planned and they did not have much support. As their proposal went down in defeat what did Nouri's group do? Did you guess tantrum time? You are correct. They stomped their feet and stormed out. An unnamed MP tells Aswat al-Iraq, "The State of Law Coalition and the White al-Iraqiya Alliance have withdrawn trust from the Elections Commission" and when others did not support them, the two groups withdrew from the session.

As Violet Newstead (Lily Tomlin) tells Judy Bernly (Jane Fonda) in 9 to 5, "Well, I'll be damned. Just look who got paid off for services rendered." Yesterday Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported 50 members of tubby tyrant Moqtada al-Sadr's encounter group won prison release despite being convicted and behind bars "for crimes including murder, kidnapping and attacks on U.S. troops." The convicted were pardoned "by President Jalal Talabani at the request of the Prime Minister Nouri Maliki" -- no doubt to allow the convicted to self-empower themselves in the cut-throat 'new' Iraq. Mini-blowhard Moqtada insisted and spat that US forces would not remain in Iraq beyond 2011 or he was going to get his Mehdi militia back together. Then he infamously did a complete turn around on the issue stating he would not reform his militia. Why? Again, "Just look who got paid off for services rendered."

"Time to start booking a flight home?"

"THIS JUST IN! PACK YOUR BAGS!"

Thursday, July 28, 2011

There's no there there

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO HIT NEW LOWS.

IN GALLUP'S POLLING HE'S AT AN ALL TIME LOW.

THINGS ARE SO DESPERATE THAT ROBERT REICH PUTS DOWN THE POM-POMS TO TRY WHORING:

A president can be forgiven for compromising. That the health-care law doesn’t include a public option, that financial reform doesn’t limit the size of the biggest Wall Street banks, that the NSA is still spying on Americans, even that cuts may have to be made to Medicare or Social Security—all are worrisome.

THE ONLY RESPONSE TO THAT IS, "WIPE THE CUM OFF YOUR FACE AND PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON, IT'S TIME TO GO."

REACHED FOR COMMENT AMERICA'S PRINCESS INSISTED ALL WAS FINE AND DANDY AND THAT HE HAD PLENTY MORE SCARE TACTICS TO TROT OUT IF HE DOESN'T GET HIS WAY "WHATEVER THAT IS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT BECAUSE I CHANGE MY MIND A LOT. GOTTA' GO. MY MANGINA'S ALL ITCHY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Crystal Nicely: For most of the family members, we were thrown into this new role unexpectedly and unprepared, but we have taken it in stride with determination and hope of the future. We have discovered is that we could never have prepared ourselves for what we face on a day to day basis while taking care of our loved ones. For me, I am not only my husband's caregiver, non-medical attendant, appointment scheduler, cook, driver and groomer, but I am also his loving wife faced with my own stresses and frustrations. To be clear, this is not an issue of being overwhelmed with caring for my husband for there is no other place on earth I want to be other than by his side. I am sure that many of the other caregivers would agree. What is upsetting is the lack of support, compassion and benefits for these individuals. It needs to be just a little bit easier. Many of us left our lives back at home and assumed a new role and life at Walter Reed -- as many caregivers have done across the country. Simply put,life her isn't a picnic. It is a bittersweet struggle of coping with new identities and new norms, whatever those may be. I first wish to address the most difficult and disheartening issue that continues to be a problem and barrier at Walter Reed. There is not much these days my husband can do without me or someone at his side. We attempt to function independently, but the reality of his injuries requires that I be close to his side, and even if I am away for only short periods someone must be there. This is part of our new normal. Without his prosthetics Todd is unable to perform many of the very basic Activities of Daily Living (ADL) that are taken for granted by so many. The process to serve as an NMA is tedious, particularly at a time when we must oversee all the other parts of our household and our lives. I am not enlisted so it is frustrating when I'm expected to carry on as if I were, when the circumstances I have now are so much bigger than that. This is an additional and unnecessary burden for the spouses and family members. This continual process of reapplying to be an NMA feels as though I am being assessed on my love and care for Todd, or my value to him and his condition. But helping him through his treatment is what I want to do. How could I ever ask someone else to step away from their lives to come do what we so proudly do, loving and caring for our husbands. It's almost disheartening to think that someone no matter how willing they may be can care for my husband more than I can. It hurts just to consider having someone else there instead of me sharing and growing in this experience with my husband. A lot of us come from jobs or school, and there are those that have children to look after as well. Personally, I was attending school before this. Now I have to consider the very expensive life that lies ahead for my husband and me.

Crystal Nicely was testifying to Congress this morning. In her opening remarks, she broke down several times -- more than understandable. We're going with her prepared remarks above and not what she delivered due to the fact that she edited for time and I felt there were too many details in her written remarks that needed to be shared. When a VA official drones on and on forever, you're glad there's a time limit for opening statements. When someone is sharing the details they live with, as Crystal Nicely did, there just isn't enough time to get it all in. I'm noting this because someone's going to e-mail (or call) and say, "Oh, you ignored her crying" or something similar. There is nothing wrong with crying and she was speaking of difficulties she faces. It was very brave and strong of her to speak, it was very brave and strong of her to continue speaking. Repeating, we're excerpting from the written statement because it includes the points she made plus additional details and I think those details need to be included.

"Good morning and welcome to today's hearing where we are going to examine the lifetime costs of supporting our newest generation of veterans," declared Senator Patty Murray bringing the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing to order. "As we all know, when our nation goes to war, it's not just the cost of fighting that war that must be accounted for, we must include the cost of caring for our veterans and families long after the fighting is over. And that is particularly true today at a time when we have more than a half a million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in the VA health care system. That's an over 100% increase since 2008. This presents a big challenge and one that we have no choice but to step up and meet if we're going to avoid many of the same mistakes we saw with the Vietnam generation. But it's more than just the sheer number of new veterans that will be coming home that presents a challenge for the VA. It's also the extent of the wounds -- both visible and invisible -- and the resources it will take to provide our veterans with quality care. Through the wonders of modern medicine, service members who would have been lost in previous conflicts are coming home to live productive and fulfilling lives. But they will need a lifetime of care from the VA. Today we will hear from the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, the RAND Corporation and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. In an effort to help us understand and quantify these costs and to ensure that we meet the future needs of our veterans and their families. And today we are so fortunate to be joined by one of those brave family members, Crystal Nicely, who's not only a wife but also a caregiver to her husband Marine Cpl Todd Nicely. Todd was seriosly injured by an IED in the southern Helmand province of Aghanistan. Since that time, he's come home to fight every day, focus on his recovery and I even heard yesterday that he's already starting to drive again and I want to take a moment to say thank you so much for your service to our country. You have shown bravery not only as a Marine in Afghanistan but also through the courage you have displayed during your road to recovery. I invited Crystal here today because I think it's incredibly important that we hear her perspective. The costs we have incurred for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and will continue to incurr for a long time, extend far beyond dollars and cents. When I first met Crystal last month while touring Bethesda Naval Base, her story illustrated that. Crystal's here today to talk about the human costs and that cost is not limited exclusively to the service members and veterans who fought and are fighting our wars but it is also felt by the families of these heroes who work tirelessly to support their loved ones through deployments and rehabilitation day in and day out. Many like Crystal have given up their own jobs to become full time caregivers and advocates for their loved ones. Last month, while testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Mike Mullen told me that without the family members, we would be no where in these wars. I couldn't agree more and after you hear Crystal's story that will be even more clear."

Along with Crystal Nicely, the Committee heard from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Paul Rieckhoff, the CBO's Heidi Golding, the RAND Corporation's James Hosek and the GAO's Lorelei St. James.

Excerpt.

Commitee Chair Patty Murray: Mrs. Nicley, I want to start with you. You know when I first met you up at Bethesda, I was really disconcerted when you told me that you'd been waiting forever for your husband to finish his joint disability evaluation process. You had to wait almost 70 days for approval of a simple narrative summary. I went and checked and what I understand is that the summary only needed to state the obvious, that your husband was indeed missing two legs and two arms. And that essentially sat on someone's desk for more than two months. That is really unacceptable and my apologies to you and your family on behalf of that. But I wanted you, as you shared with me a little bit about what you were going through for those many days while this country essentially put you on bureaucratic hold.

Crystal Nicely: I think Todd's therapy is very important but he got to a point in his therapy where he was able to do more stuff more independently which didn't require his therapist to be there, I guess, during the whole time. So, it's kind of like -- I don't know if it's a requirement -- I don't know whether it's Marine Corps procedure that they go into therapy. And if Todd was not being taught new things or it was just getting redundant over and over again. So he had pretty much accomplished much of what he had wanted to in that time frame which meant he was taking up more space that other people could have been utilizing the therapist and so, I guess, why pay for his therapy? Or why if you could be paying it for somebody else? So it was a waste of time, I guess.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: What were you spending your time doing all of that time?

Crystal Nicely: Support. Taking Todd back and forth to therapy and just helping him with the daily living.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: You talked to me a little bit about Coordinators of Care, that they were coming through, changing every two months, and that you knew more than they did and they left and then you were training the Corrindators of Care. Can you share with us a little bit about that?

Crystal Nicely: I don't want to say that all of them are at fault due to the situation because of the way it is but the way that the military site has all of the liasons coming in and out is very frustrating because they're not MOS specific.trained in the jobs that are being asked of them. So they come here without the knowledge of what they're expected to do and take the time while they're here to learn what they're doing. And by the time that they've adjusted and maybe absorbed some of it, it's time for them to leave again and new individuals come in who are still not MOS specific. So that doesn't help us with what they're here for is the frustration and helping to take the stress off of the families and able to do the things that are necessary and instead, me personally, had to look for outside assistance from -- whether it was other family support or my case manager -- but was not assisted on the military side of things. That doesn't aid and for me in the beginning of the family process it's hard to open up to people and trust individuals. So to be able to get a connection with somebody and to have somebody there for the short period of time and then transition out and give us somebody else is not allowing us to have that connection or allow us to open up to them because, okay, if we come to you, what are you going to do for me because I know more than you do? So it's extremely frustrating. I know that they're working on it but it's extremely frustrating.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: You are a tremendous advocate for your husband and I am extremely impressed with what Todd is capable of doing and I know that that's -- your proud of that as well. I also know that he needs you at his side and you are there every single minute doing that. You met many people through this process. What does somebody do who doesn't have a wife or a live-in caregiver?

Crystal Nicely: I think -- Oh, boy. That's hard because you do see it in some cases. The family support is maybe not there or maybe not there for the right reasons. I think because of the lack of -- I don't want to say lack of knowledge, their ability to assist in a lot of ways and the lack of compassion when it comes to these guys, there next choice would be to reach out to somebody, I don't know, that whether it's through the military side of things or the hospital because the hospital staff is wonderful -- I guess there's not really a way to say this --

Committee Chair Patty Murray: Maybe if you can share with this Committee, like you did with me, a little bit of what your day is like.

Crystal Nicely: Well here recently a lot easier than normal because Todd has strived to become very independent with his prosthetics. Without his prosethetics, it would be -- I would be doing the work for two people. With his prosthetics and because of his knowledge with what he's been able to absorb with his therapist and his daily work in putting into therapy. I basically just observe and watch and if he needs assistance, then I assist him, if he asks of course.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: Well thank you and thank you again for your courage in being here too.

I am not interested in Paul Reikoff. As per usual, Paul wanted to go Water Cooler instead of addressing issues. No, not every veteran is worried about "the default." Adam Kokesh (Adam vs The Man airs on RT Monday through Friday at 7:00 pm EST and streams online) is an Iraq War veteran who's been mocking the 'crisis' (rightly so). But let's get one thing clear, if the doomsday that dime-store economist Paul used the hearing to portray came true, everyone would suffer. Don't whine that veterans benefits aren't getting paid. If the whole country were to go under (it's not going under), then, yeah, veterans would be up a creek without a paddle, just like everyone else. They are American citizens and they will suffer the same economic plight that other Americans suffer. Paul's grand standing was, as usual, done with one eye to the gallery, hoping he'd get some camera time. If a significant number of veterans are truly spooked by the White House and media narrative on the debt ceiling, shame on Paul for refusing to tell them that everything's fine. Life does go on and it will go on. Calm down, America. If we had a qualified leader in the White House, calm would be dictated. Instead we have someone who wants to gut the safety net and is willing to scare the nation in an attempt to get them to go along with that.

The government has many debts and obligations and they owe as much on any promise to any American citizens. In terms of paying, the government is taking in more than enough money to service the debt. It can't pay it off. But, as with a VISA or Master Card bill, it can make the monthly payment even though it can pay off the full charge currently. To pretend otherwise is outrageous and, when the manufactured crisis is over, people better be demanding answers from the White House over the administration's efforts to, in effect, create the equivalent of a Y2K panic. And should the White House not pay the bills, Barack should be impeached. Bill Clinton is correct in his legal assessment (though the White House wants to dismiss it -- and, on top of that, to question his understanding of the Constitution because he's not taught it in X years -- the Constitution hasn't changed with regards to the powers of the president). Not only could Barack raise the ceiling right now on his own but if the magic day arrives and it's not raised, he can raise it under the powers of the presidency in a national emergency. The money is there. The powers are there. This stinks of self-created drama on Barack's part.

FYI, if you still don't grasp Harry Reid's proposal, Brian Montopoli (CBS News) covers it here in a realistic manner. Back to the hearing, last excerpt:

Committee Chair Patty Murray: Ms. St. James, I wanted to ask you while you were here, I recently heard some very disturbing complaints from a female veteran. She told me she had a great deal of difficulty in accessing appropriate, safe care for herself. She'd had some exams from a doctor with the exam room open to a crowded hallway, had been harassed by male veterans while trying to get mental health care and other things. And I'm concerned about the lack of separate women only in-patient mental health care units that we're hearing about as well. So I'm very concerned that the VA is not strategically planning for the increasing number of women veterans, something Mr. Rieckhoff mentioned as one of the costs of this war. Can you share with this Commitee how many of VA's backlogged construction projects involve improvements needed just to protect the privacy and safety of women veterans?

Lorelei St. James: I really, excuse me, don't have that specific information. I do know that there are initiatives that VA includes in its planning process but I don't know specifically if that's one.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: Is that something you can find out for us?

Lorelei St. James: We can certainly get back to you on that.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: Okay. I'd really appreciate that. Ms. Golding you testified that the medical cost for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans between 2011 and 2020 totaled between $40 billion and $55 billion. That number of course doesn't take into account the cost of paying for previous generations that we're still responsible for. CBO did another report earlier this year on possible ways to reduce the deficit where they made a couple of recommendations about veterans programs. I don't support those specific proposals because they negatively impacted benefits which I believe we shouldn't be touching. But I do believe that there are ways we can be more effective with tax payer dollars but not diverting it from direct delivery of services and health care. I wanted to ask you this morning do you believe there's enough excess and duplication that can be addressed to make VA more efficient without negatively impacting services?

Heidi Golding: Uhm, just one or two points that I want to make on that. And the first is that we also have projections for the 2011 - 2020 time frame for VHA for all veterans and the budget would grow -- not the budget but the amount of -- the cost to treat those individuals would rise from the $48 billion in 2010 to under the one scenario $69 billion and the higher scenario -- which included higher medical inflation and so forth, I think it was $85 billion so in the lower case, we're talking about an increase of about 45% over the next ten years which is a substantial increase in order to be able to provide health care for all enrolled veterans. Now we have not -- We do not make policy recommendations and we do not in that paper look at options to and we have not looked at efficiencies. I cannot tell you about that specifically. You're aware of our budget options so we do have a couple of options in that. But it may also involve just not efficiencies but it may involve shifting some costs or --

Committee Chair Patty Murray: If we just do efficiency and shift costs will we meet that projection that you just made.

Heidi Golding: I cannot tell you unfortunately.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Hosek a 2008 RAND study concluded that there was a possible connection between having PTSD, TBI and major depression and being homeless. Last month Amd Mike Mullen expressed concern about repeating the mistakes we made after the Vietnam War and said, "We are generating a homeless generation, many more homeless female veterans. And if we're not careful, we're going to do the same thing we did last time." I'm quoting him. Can you walk me through the costs -- both budgetary and human -- of caring for veterans after they become homeless and of using care as a tool to prevent homelessness?

James Hosek: [. . .]

Committee Chair Patty Murray: You want to turn on your mike?

James Hosek: Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't give you estimates of the costs. My concern, which I foreshadowed in my testimony is that there may be a value in being more pro-active in guiding people as they leave the service. Right now when service members leave the service, they receive an out brief. That out brief covers, among other things, the benefits they're entitled to and-and of course advised them that they'll have a post-deployment health assessment and a six month follow-up of that if they're still in the service and leave later on. But this information comes at them very fast. And even though it's provided -- which is a good thing -- I'm afraid that many of them don't really absorb it at the time. And when they leave the military and go out and need care or need to learn about their VA benefits or need to learn about job search upport, they really don't know where to turn. They haven't necessarily absorbed or remembered what they were told. And what our research indicates is there isn't readily available, cohesive, easily accessible sources of information. Now people absorb information in two ways: When it's pushed at them or when they pull for it. And a lot of the discussion that we've received has to do with the push of information, that is just making it available. But the fact that there isn't readily available, cohesive sources of information -- something that Paul referred to -- I think is important to.

And we'll stop there. Do you even remember the question he was asked? About homeless veterans, about the cost and about whether care could impact that. He goes on and on and uses his own buzzwords but where is his answer? Okay, they're getting info as they leave and it's not being recalled because the info is overwhelming. That's one sentence. And I didn't need to whine about "available, cohesive sources of information" or any other time waster.

I am not including Senator Scott Brown who acted as the Ranking Member for the hearing because Ava covers Brown and will be covering him tonight at Trina's site as usual. For an overview of Brown's hearing style, you can see "Ava spills Scott Brown's dirty secret" from June. Right now Wally's planning to cover Senator Johnny Isakson (cover at Rebecca's site tonight) and Kat's going to go into the economy at her site.

"4 men, 1 woman"

"mystery album"
"The cesspool"
"Oh look, it's Miss Priss Jay Carney"
"TopLevelExecutive is a xenophobic bitch"
"Netflix spits on customers"
"John Halle and websites"
"Where I was surprised"
"Time to start booking a flight home?"
"THIS JUST IN! PACK YOUR BAGS!"

Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Barack hides behind Vaj!

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Keith Ellison's girl parts get itchy for Barry

Friday, July 29, 2011

Jobs?

Thursday, July 28, 2011

There's no there there

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix