Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (349989)	9/8/2007 1:43:06 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572207

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment

To: tejek who wrote (349989)	9/8/2007 1:53:08 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1572207

Hollywood Pork: $4 Billion for a park in Beverly Hills It was business as usual in Washington this week as California Senator Dianne Feinstein slipped a $4 billion earmark for a Beverly Hills park into a veterans' spending bill. Sadly, when I offered an amendment to strike this wasteful earmark so the funds could be used for VA healthcare, only 25 senators had the courage stand up for America's veterans and say no to pork for Hollywood's wealthy and well connected. Here is how the Beverly Hills earmark was described by the Wall Street Journal: WALL STREET JOURNAL Rambo's View Dianne Feinstein's $4 billion earmark for Beverly Hills comes at the expense of America's veterans. By Kimberly Strassel September 7, 2007 …It takes hard work to come up with an earmark more egregious than that infamous Alaskan bridge, but California's Dianne Feinstein is an industrious gal. Her latest pork -- let's call it Rambo's View -- deserves to be the poster child for everything wrong with today's greedy earmark process. The senator's $4 billion handout (yes, you read that right) to wealthy West L.A. (yes, you read that right, too) is the ultimate example of how powerful members use earmarks to put their own parochial interests above national ones -- in this case the needs of veterans... The pork here revolves around the West Los Angeles Medical Center... 387 sprawling, prime real-estate acres in the middle of tony West L.A. More than twice the size of the National Mall, it is surrounded by the mansions and playgrounds of the city's elite, including the Bel Air Country Club and the Beverly Hills estates of Sylvester Stallone, Barry Bonds and Tim McGraw (to name a few). Huge portions of the facility are also a veritable ghost town... According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Los Angeles County also falls on the lowest end in terms of the percentage of veterans living in the area... It turns out the well-to-do in West L.A. consider the veteran's center grounds their own little rolling, personal park, and they want it to stay that way -- thank you very much. The indefatigable earmark warrior, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, offered an amendment this week to strip Ms. Feinstein's earmark. California Sen. Barbara Boxer rose in righteous indignation on the Senate floor, and fizzed that she would never dream of leveling such a direct "attack" against South Carolina. The point of this speech was to remind her Senate colleagues that what's hers is hers, and that the penalty for voting against her and Ms. Feinstein's California pork would be the targeting of projects in their own states…

To: tejek who wrote (349989)	9/8/2007 3:22:33 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572207

Too bad and I am a man of true compassion. Now, that said, he enrolled as a soldier and planned on a career as a soldier. Soldiers kill - or get killed - that's their job, the job he enrolled for. He learned how to kill in the best, fastest and most efficient way and was paid for that. He was - one may say - very fortunate, because he wasn't killed while obviously quite close to that. The good news now being, that the US now takes cares of his basic needs for the rest of his lifetime. I know you guys will now be all over me for being that cynical, for never having served (true) et al but frankly speaking, what is wrong about my reasoning here?? Taro