"Supporing the Troops" or "Ignoring the maimed veterans?"

Here is the draft of a lette I wrote to "my" Senators and
Member of the House...

26 August 2005

We frequently hear politicians speak of ?Support The
Troops? and then castigate anyone they can for not
?Supporting The Troops?.

My paternal grandfather nearly died of mustard gas
exposure in World War I and may have been treated at
Walter Reed Hospital. Yesterday, CNN talked of the number
of maimed veterans of the Afgan and Iraq Wars who were
receiving treatment at Walter Reed. To me this is truly
?Supporting The Troops?.

Then, CNN confirmed that the Base Closure people want to
close Walter Reed and ship the walking wounded to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. I was in the Navy in the 1980s and
remember being told in 1985 that Bethesda was overly
crowded then; it must be worst now!

Several months ago, there were a number of news items
about reduction in VA funding. Other vets have told me
that VA co-payments have gone up. Is this ?Supporting The
Troops??

If Walter Reed is being closed, I have to wonder if
?Support The Troops? only applies to the combat ready
troops. Those who bleed for our country deserve to be
treated better.

Respectfully,

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

There is a trend among big businesses (BB) to cut the
medical benefits and cost of living increases that were in
contracts BB signed with their then employees. I guess
that since the retirees don't come to work, BB doesn't
have to worry about "the old farts" going on strike!

It would seem the current administration is working from
that same playbook via-a-via my fellow veterans. I'll have
to ask my father-in-law (a retired USA Major) and my
brother (a retired USN Captain) iff'n the VA is sticking
it to them...

"Salvation Is At Hand" - cry the Oil Barons!

Just the other day, we were discussing why the Oil Barons
are going to raise gas prices on Labour Day. I was hoping
that for once we'd be told: "It's Labour Day folks! We're
jacking up the oil prices like we do every Labour Day. Get
used to it!"

We were hoping it would not be the usual excuses: refinery
"fires", refinery "explosions", fear of war in the mid
east, etc. Then, we realized that Hurricane Katrina is the
perfect excuse!

The oil boys can claim they had to shut down oil rigs or
that their rigs were damaged and they can do the annual
price gouging! Katerina does not even have to damage
anything; she is simply the best current excuse!

response to Rader's sentencing...

I had to mute the TV when Rader was speaking since after a
couple of minutes I could not stand to listen to that asshole.
I didn't believe his remorse at all!

Here is a reason to be glad Rader could not be awarded the death
penalty:
"It is a waste of time to torture a corpse!"

I've read that there are a lot of violent people in prison who
worry about someone harming their wives and children and who
strike out at those who harm women and children...

Mike from SW Kansas...

Freedom for Iraqi women?

This cartoon describes the probably coming status of Iraqi women. They may have been better off under Sadam.

Sad but probably true!

orphan drug patients dying for lack of profits...

There was a "Dr. Gouta" {sp} article on CNN about a little girl who was
dying from a rare cancer. She was treated with an expensive drug. She
was beating this disease when her MD was told that there was only enough
of the drug for sixty (60) patients.

The unnamed drug company's bean counters decided that they would never
be able to recoup the development and manufacturing costs for this drug
so the company would stop producing it. After all, the company had to
account to their stock holders and would be held accountable for
deliberately losing money. That "wouldn't be prudent"! The fact that
future patients would die is incidental and too damn bad!

Why not give other companies the patient rights to manufacture this
needed drug? Oh, if this compnay can't make money off a drug, then no
one else should be able to. "Wouldn't be prudent!"

My wife and I were furious when we heard this. We can just hope this
company gets buried under "wrongful death" suits. But, pessimistically,
this company will probably get judges to throw the suits out or more
likely, buy politicians who will pass special laws to protect the
unnamed company. (Opps! I can't say "buy politicians". That could be
slander. I guess I should say "give big donations to politicians who
then pass bills to benefit given drug companies". My question: will
these politicians be what Robert A. Heinlein called "honest
politicians"? That is "politicians who stay bought". We'll see.)

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

"How low can those frustrated Liberals go?"

"How low can those frustrated Liberals go?"

This is a line from a pro-Robers ad that was playing on CNN. (There!
That covers their copyright!)

I think fairly low.

My answer is that "Liberals" are using the "Conservative" play book and
are simply using the same deplorable tactics that "Conservatives" used
against President Clinton, Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry. The
"Conservatives" got very negative and thus schooled the "Liberals" in
"ROWLing that boat" to greater depths.

Personally, the way the ultra right "Conservatives" are turing against
Judge Roberts are making him look a lot better to me. (Not that it
matters; "my" Senators will vote for Supreme Court Candidate Roberts and
flat don't care about my opinion! I know from letters I've gotten in
response to my letters. Oh well...)

I like a "Supreme" who will ACTUALLY honour States Rights and who will
honour the personal rights of folks he may personally dislike. I like
that!

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

oil business as usual...or...take it like a man!

The news just advised that oil prices are at US$67/ barrow. The local
gas stations jacked their prices around 14 to 16 cents a gallon
yesterday to around US$2.49/ galloon.

We're getting fucked.

Truckers in Florida have to buy their own fuel. The news reported that
companies hiring them are charging a "fuel surtax" to cover the added
fuel charges. The problem is that companies collecting this "fuel
surtax" are keeping it and not passing it along to the truckers. The
truckers went on strike in Florida.

When the truckers get fucked, we all get fucked.

But, aside from the opportunity for me to use profanity, what have I got
to be upset about? Higher oil prices mean the "Oil Barons" make more
money! That is a good thing for them. (Question: Who are the "Oil
Barons"? Hint: Think G.W.B. and D.C.) After all, "the Business of
America is Business" to quote a former U.S. President. If the "Oil
Barons" are doing well, what are powerless nobodies like me daring to
assert that "we're getting fucked!" And who should care? I'm not rich
enough to buy politicians, not influential enough to help or hurt
politicians and I personally lack the charisma to gather followers who
could help reduce oil and gas prices. <chuckle> I think I'm doing good
to get my kids to behave occasionally...

I should be happy that "Oil Barons" making only a million or two times
what I do are getting a much needed ca$h transfusion. This is just a
little extra after the "Energy Bill" gave such massive tax cuts to oil
companies.

Yup, makes me OH SO MUCH BETTER!!!!

(This is irony and lying, BTW.)

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

impeachment? An interesting articlein "THE LIBERATOR ONLINE"...

> I extracted an interesting article from "THE LIBERATOR ONLINE": Of
> course, allegedly lying about the reason for going to war in Iraq is
minor
> compared to lying about oral sex... ;) <snicker>
>
> THE LIBERATOR ONLINE
>
> August 9, 2005
> Vol. 10, No. 15
> Circulation: 70,874 subscribers in over 100 countries
>
> Published by the Advocates for Self-Government
> Edited by James W. Harris, mailto:james@TheAdvocates.org
> Created by Paul Schmidt and James W. Harris
> ___________________________________________
>
>
>
> GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS
>
> by James W. Harris
>
> Polls: Impeach President Bush?
>
> Although it remains -- to say the least -- an outside possibility,
> the impeachment of President Bush could be on the verge of entering
> the national political debate.
>
> A Zogby International Poll, released June 30, found that more than
> "two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment
> proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about
his
> reasons for going to war with Iraq."
>
> This is potential political dynamite when considered alongside a
July
> 24 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showing that a slim majority -- 51 per
> cent -- now believes Bush *did* mislead the U.S. into the war when
he
> claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Even hardened pollster John Zogby was startled by the high numbers
> favoring impeachment if it were found that Bush misled. "It was
much
> higher than I expected," Zogby said of the 42%.
>
> Arguments that Bush misled the country into the war are spreading.
As
> the Washington Post notes: "[It is] unlikely that the
Republican-led
> House will begin [impeachment] proceedings anytime soon. But the
Web
> sites are up and running. http://Impeachcentral.com is running a
> petition drive. http://Impeachbush.org is planning a march on
> Washington in September. http://Thefourreasons.org site argues that
> the Iraq invasion was unconstitutional.
http://Afterdowningstreet.org
> asserts that Bush secretly decided to go to war and to mislead
> Congress in mid-2002."
>
> Although half (50%) of those polled by Zogby currently do not
support
> impeachment even if it is proven that Bush misled, in substantial
> parts of the country supporters of impeachment are actually a
> *majority*.
>
> 52% of respondents in the Western states favor impeachment if Bush
> misled; in Eastern states, 49%. On the other side, in the South
> impeachment is opposed by 60%; in the Central/Great Lakes region,
52%
> are opposed.
>
> Impeachment views also break down by party lines. A large majority
of
> Democrats (59%) say Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq.
> Perhaps surprisingly, fully 25% of Republicans say they would favor
> impeachment under these circumstances. Self-described independents
> are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49%
> opposed.
>
> How does this compare to public support for the 1998 impeachment of
> President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal? That
> impeachment actually had *less* public support. In October 1998, as
> the House moved to impeach, a Zogby poll found that only 39 percent
> of voters supported the impeachment, while 56 percent opposed it.
And
> less than 14% of Democrats favored impeachment.
>
> All this comes at a bad time for Bush. The June 30 Zogby poll
showed
> Bush's job approval rating at 43 percent. And the new USA
> Today/CNN/Gallup poll indicates a majority -- 53% -- of Americans
> doubts the United States will win the war in Iraq, and 58% say the
> United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic
> government in Iraq.
>
> (Sources:
> Washington Post:
>
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200972.html
> Zogby press release:
> http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
> USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll:
>
>
>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
>
>
>
>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>

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

Re: Liberator Online: a Libertarian president in 2016?

I extracted an interesting article from "THE LIBERATOR ONLINE": Of
course, allegedly lying about the reason for going to war in Iraq is minor
compared to lying about oral sex... ;) <snicker>

THE LIBERATOR ONLINE

August 9, 2005
Vol. 10, No. 15
Circulation: 70,874 subscribers in over 100 countries

Published by the Advocates for Self-Government
Edited by James W. Harris, mailto:james@TheAdvocates.org
Created by Paul Schmidt and James W. Harris
___________________________________________

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS

by James W. Harris

Polls: Impeach President Bush?

Although it remains -- to say the least -- an outside possibility,
the impeachment of President Bush could be on the verge of entering
the national political debate.

A Zogby International Poll, released June 30, found that more than
"two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment
proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his
reasons for going to war with Iraq."

This is potential political dynamite when considered alongside a July
24 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showing that a slim majority -- 51 per
cent -- now believes Bush *did* mislead the U.S. into the war when he
claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Even hardened pollster John Zogby was startled by the high numbers
favoring impeachment if it were found that Bush misled. "It was much
higher than I expected," Zogby said of the 42%.

Arguments that Bush misled the country into the war are spreading. As
the Washington Post notes: "[It is] unlikely that the Republican-led
House will begin [impeachment] proceedings anytime soon. But the Web
sites are up and running. http://Impeachcentral.com is running a
petition drive. http://Impeachbush.org is planning a march on
Washington in September. http://Thefourreasons.org site argues that
the Iraq invasion was unconstitutional. http://Afterdowningstreet.org
asserts that Bush secretly decided to go to war and to mislead
Congress in mid-2002."

Although half (50%) of those polled by Zogby currently do not support
impeachment even if it is proven that Bush misled, in substantial
parts of the country supporters of impeachment are actually a
*majority*.

52% of respondents in the Western states favor impeachment if Bush
misled; in Eastern states, 49%. On the other side, in the South
impeachment is opposed by 60%; in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52%
are opposed.

Impeachment views also break down by party lines. A large majority of
Democrats (59%) say Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq.
Perhaps surprisingly, fully 25% of Republicans say they would favor
impeachment under these circumstances. Self-described independents
are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49%
opposed.

How does this compare to public support for the 1998 impeachment of
President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal? That
impeachment actually had *less* public support. In October 1998, as
the House moved to impeach, a Zogby poll found that only 39 percent
of voters supported the impeachment, while 56 percent opposed it. And
less than 14% of Democrats favored impeachment.

All this comes at a bad time for Bush. The June 30 Zogby poll showed
Bush's job approval rating at 43 percent. And the new USA
Today/CNN/Gallup poll indicates a majority -- 53% -- of Americans
doubts the United States will win the war in Iraq, and 58% say the
United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic
government in Iraq.

(Sources:
Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200972.html
Zogby press release:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007
USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

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

Glorious Landing!!!

We watched the landing of Discovery on the TV at work. The
whole office sat around from about 6:45 am CDT to about
7:15 CDT to watch this.

It was quite a relief to see that everything apparently
went well. As one fellow said "I bet there are no atheists
on there!" He was probably right. Any atheists on-board at
the start of the mission most likely were not at landing
time!

It was glorious and well worth watching!

It's nice to know that NASA can still do stuff correctly.
Now, they just have to come up with a far better orbiter
and I fear that they won't be able to do so...

Leadership Failure or the Bolten Appointment

"W" has just suffered a public leadership defeat because he could not
convince either the Democrats or "Moderate Republicians"* to appoint Mr.
John Bolten as UN Ambassador. I see this as a leadership failure in that
he gave his opponents no choice but to say "no". Hence, the recess
appointment and his political black eye.

I recall Republicans bad mouthing President Clinton for using the recess
appointment. Rather ironic, when you think about it!

Will "W" anoint Mr. John Roberts as Mr. Justice John Roberts via recess
appointment? That would be just lovely especially if he had to go before
the Senate and the Senate were to deny him a full lifetime
appointment...

* The phrase "Moderate Republican" is not an oxymoron. I've been one
since I campaigned for Senator Berry Goldwater in 1964 when I was in
Junior High. I was even one when I was in the Junior Republicians (or
something like that) whilst I was a Freshman at a Perkinson Junior
College in Perkinson Mississippi.