SI
SI
discoversearch

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: i-node who wrote (386646)5/27/2008 1:55:17 AM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577995
 
REPUBLICANS PROFIT FROM IRAQ MISERY
By Bill Gallagher

DETROIT -- In war, the powerful make money, not sacrifices. They grab the bucks. Ducking the bullets and dying is someone else's responsibility. In Iraq, for the first time in our nation's history, the bill for a war is being deferred, passed on as a painful burden of debt for another generation.

A handful of politically connected military contractors -- most with close ties to the Bush White House -- are raking in billions of dollars with no-bid, cost-plus contracts, often with little, if any, scrutiny from government auditors.

After the capture of Baghdad, the American taxpayers provided billions of dollars in cash, bundles of fresh hundred-dollar bills shrink-wrapped on pallets and flown to Iraq to bribe and pay off politicians and contractors picked by Vice President Dick Cheney's main man, the thoroughly corrupt Ahmed Chalabi. No accounting for the money was ever even attempted.

We are still pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. Sen. John McCain, the Republican's presidential candidate, says he's prepared to wage war in Iraq for a "hundred years" and hand the tab over to wage-earning Americans.

McCain, like President George W. Bush, does not hesitate to squander staggering sums of money to pay for a struggle that will never be decided militarily. But they both balk at spending a relatively small sum of money -- $52 billion over 10 years -- to improve veterans benefits.

Last week, the Senate approved a measure that would significantly boost education benefits for veterans. The proposed new GI Bill, modeled on the World War II-era program, would cover college tuition, room and board, and provide a $1,000-a-month stipend to veterans who have served on active duty for at least two years.

The White House, Pentagon and McCain are worried that expanding education funding for veterans will lure many men and women from active duty at a time when the military is having difficulty retaining people.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., both Vietnam War veterans, drafted the measure attached to the bill financing another year of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There are no politics here," Webb said. "This is about taking care of people who have taken care of us." Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the democratic presidential hopefuls, both supported the expansion of veterans benefits. McCain missed the vote, but has said he supports a far more limited benefits package.

Bush, as usual, says he only wants "a responsible war funding bill" and any broader legislation, including other congressional priorities, is unacceptable to him. Bush demands a "clean bill" for his dirty war.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, wisely noted, "When it comes to Iraq, it appears that money is no object for President Bush. Yet when it comes to important priorities here at home, he turns into Ebenezer Scrooge."

Bush wants to block more spending for veterans just as a Pentagon audit shows the U.S. Army spent $8.2 billion dollars on contractors in Iraq and almost none of the payments were made according to the federal government's own rules. In some of the contracts there is no record of what, if anything, was done for the payments.

Described as "perhaps the masterpiece of elliptic paperwork," The New York Times examined a document entitled "Public Voucher for Purchases and Services Other Than Personal." It "indicates that $320.8 million went to 'Iraqi Salary Payment' with no explanation of what the Iraqis were paid to do."

That's OK with Bush, but he doesn't want an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans.

Obama spoke on the Senate floor on the veterans benefits, respectfully nodding to McCain's military service and years as a prisoner of war. But Obama said he "can't understand why (McCain) would line up with the president in opposition to the GI Bill."

In a written rant typical of a grumpy old man, McCain said he "will not accept from Sen. Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures for those who did."

Of course, McCain would never use those words to describe Cheney, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the whole cadre of "chicken hawk" supporters of the war in Iraq who relentlessly sought deferments to escape the "responsibility to serve our country" during the Vietnam War. Obama was too young for Vietnam and never sought a military deferment.

It was a bad week for McCain, and he finally had to renounce the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee, the popular televangelist and peddler of hate and intolerance for whose support McCain groveled.

McCain -- surely at the behest of Karl Rove, a key campaign adviser -- has been courting the support of the radical rapture wing of evangelicals. The rapture crowd is linked to neoconservatives, with their shared wild ideas about using force to transform the Middle East, launching an attack on Iran, creating fortress Israel and doing nothing to help the Palestinians.

McCain accepted Hagee's support, knowing the reverend had called the Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and had labeled Muslims "parasites" with a "mandate" to kill Christians and Jews.

The final straw for McCain came when a recorded sermon Hagee gave in the 1990s emerged. Hagee said Hitler was a "hunter" sent by God to expedite his will to have the Jews re-establish the state of Israel. Hitler was doing the Lord's will, chasing the Jews from Europe and shepherding the chosen people to Palestine.

Scoring a monotheistic hat trick of bigotry against Catholics, Muslims and Jews, Hagee's intolerance finally reached a critical mass for McCain. The senator belatedly rejected Hagee's support, but only after he had become a political liability. One man who did not see Hitler as doing God's will was Franz Jaggerstatter, an Austrian farmer who defied the Nazis and refused induction into German army. His conscience and courage cost him his life.

Jaggerstatter opposed the Nazis on religious grounds and refused to serve in the army after receiving conscription papers. He was executed, beheaded in Berlin in 1943. He is now Blessed Franz Jaggerstatter, beatified last October in St. Mary's Cathedral in Linz, Austria.

Joseph Ratzinger lived in a Bavarian village a short distance from Jaggerstatter's hometown of St.Ragegund. Now Pope Benedict XVI, young Ratzinger was drafted into the German army and served briefly until he deserted in 1945 and ended up as an American prisoner of war.

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton noted that history in a talk he gave marking the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Pastoral Letter on War and Peace.

It was May 21, which happened to be Jaggerstatter's feast day. Gumbleton was a founder of Pax Christi USA and served as its first president. He is a prophetic voice for peace and still travels to hot spots around the world seeking non-violent solutions and championing the plight of the poor and the persecuted.

The Pastoral Letter contained challenges including "a presumption against war" for settlements of disputes, "a statement that nuclear deterrence could only be justified as a short term strategy on the road to disarmament," support for "immediate, bilateral, verifiable agreements to halt the testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons systems," and a denunciation of pre-emptive, offensive war.

"We have failed the challenge," Gumbleton said. "The church in the U.S. has failed." He fears "a war that will end our planet as we know it" unless we urgently change direction and start "living up to the call of the Pastoral Letter."

Gumblelton said "the letter would not be able to be written today" because of changes in the Catholic Bishops Conference that do not encourage discussions of many controversial issues and narrow the participation in teaching decisions.

For speaking out on behalf of the victims of clerical sexual abuse and calling for the extension of the statute of limitations in these cases, the Vatican, at the urging of cowards in the American hierarchy, punished Gumbleton and removed him as pastor of St. Leo's Parish in Detroit. He's too charitable and forgiving to say this, but it is true.

Gumbleton has been a bishop for 40 years and is the longest-serving bishop in the United States. But these days he is banned from speaking on church property in many dioceses. Most of the bishops who shun Gumbleton belong to country clubs, spend more time golfing than helping the poor, and probably voted for Bush and will vote for McCain.

Gumbleton continues to challenge the powerful and stand up against war. Prophets get into trouble.



To: i-node who wrote (386646)5/27/2008 7:39:43 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577995
 
I know you personally are not concerned about high fuel prices...

Small business crunched by fuel prices By Nick Carey
Mon May 26, 10:13 PM ET


Many U.S. small business owners say soaring fuel costs are eating their profits at a time when the economy is already weak, making them more cautious about expanding or hiring.

"In theory we could pass on extra costs with fuel surcharges," said Vince Puente, part owner of Southwest Office Systems Inc (SOS), which sells and services copy machines and other office equipment to companies in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. "However, our competitors are all bigger than us and aren't doing that, so surcharges would kill us."

"With gas rising 5 to 10 cents a week, you have to find ways to cut costs," he added.

SOS has 70 employees and 2007 revenue of $16 million.

But Puente said his freight costs have gone up as the companies hauling his office machines apply fuel surcharges.

SOS has also just had to raise the amount of gasoline it pays employees for driving to visit clients to 42 cents from 36 cents per mile (1.6 km), at a cost $3,000 a month.

"That money comes straight out of my pocket," Puente said, adding that he has now also put his assistant in charge of administering equipment leasing, a revenue-generating job.

"We can't afford many jobs that don't bring in revenue because we're not as fat and happy as we used to be," he said.

Small businesses like Puente's are the backbone of the U.S. jobs market and vital to job creation.

In 2002, the United States had 112 million paid employees, according to Census Bureau data. About 56.4 million, or just over 50 percent, worked at companies with fewer than 500 employees.

But with crude oil prices now above $130 a barrel -- doubling in the past year and rising sixfold since 2002 -- the squeeze of absorbing these costs for transportation and utilities is intense as revenue comes under recession pressures.

"Small businesses are caught in the scissors between high fuel costs and rather slow economic growth," said University of Maryland economist Peter Morici.

That leaves small businesses in a bind. Should they pass on fuel costs to customers? Or absorb those costs, surrender profits and cut expansion, therefore creating fewer jobs?

"My concern is what fuel is doing to the bottom line of American small business owners," said Todd McCracken, president of National Small Business Association. "But if they use fuel surcharges, what does that do to inflation and the economy?"

"COMMUTING ON MY FUEL BILL"

The answer from many small businesses is that, like SOS, they can only pass on a portion of high fuel costs to customers. So expansion plans are shelved and they are focused on getting more out of current employees, not taking more on.

"There is no bottom line at the moment," said Sidney Goldman, owner of Providence, Rhode Island-based food distributor Greylawn Foods Inc.

Greylawn is a family business with 26 trucks whose weekly fuel bill has risen to $28,000 from $18,000 in the past year.

"I can pass on some fuel costs to a few customers, but they're small companies too. I get some pushback. But I can't afford to lose money," Goldman said.

Many owners say they are also looking closely at their employees' commutes and their business travel patterns.

Mike Mittelnight owns Factory Service Agency Inc, an air conditioning construction and servicing company in New Orleans, with 16 employees and sales of $2.1 million last year.

The construction projects his company handles often take a year to get going, so the work he has now he bid on a year ago based on fuel prices at the time.

To cut fuel consumption on his trucks, which get only eight to 10 miles to the gallon, a little more than three to four km per litre) , Mittelnight has his crews work longer days on-site to reduce commuting. But his weekly fuel bill has still risen to $1,000 from $350 in the past year.

Mittelnight said he is now reluctant to hire technicians who live too far away. His technicians drive company trucks home and are on-call for servicing jobs.

"I can't have people driving too far to service clients because then they're commuting on my fuel bill," he said.

Mary Galvan owns GLM DFW Inc, a Dallas company with about 50 employees and annual sales of $20 million that arranges recycling services for large firms nationwide.

She says some prospective employees have demanded higher salaries to offset the cost of driving to work.

"But it's too hard to justify paying them more than employees who have been here for years," she said.

Galvan said any investment, from paper to office furniture, is now weighed more carefully. She employs only people she knows can double or triple up by taking on different jobs.

"If it's not absolutely necessary, we don't do it," she said.

(Editing by Peter Bohan and Walker Simon)



To: i-node who wrote (386646)5/27/2008 9:05:40 AM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577995
 
"I would say a "successful terrorist attack against the United States" would be one that --"

Ok. I just want to point out that almost all of the entries in Brumar's list go away when you include both b) and e). a) eliminates several more.

2004

I dunno if this counts. Can Americans own property in SA?

Saudi Arabia, May 1: 2004 Yanbu attack kills six Westerners and one Saudi.

2005

A quiet year. Americans died, and American property was damaged, just not at the same time.
2006

Dunno if this counts. It was near, but not at the consulate.

Pakistan, March 2: Bombing in Karachi kills four, including a U.S. diplomat.

2007

Another quiet year. Americans died, and American property was damaged, just not at the same time.

2008

So far, Americans died, and American property was damaged, just not at the same time.

Bottom line, activity might have dropped. Might not have. It certainly hasn't ceased. Our consulates and embassies are still being attacked. Tourists and others are still being killed.