Well, Eason Jordan buckled. The big guy from CNN. But there is one thing I want to see and that is the video. Sounds like CNN did review the Davos tape and saw that Eason did in fact say those things about the military targeting journalists on purpose. And to preserve further potential embarassment to himself Eason is erring on quiting instead.
Still, I wanna see the video.
Now, who in the heck is this "Jack Gannon"??
UPDATE: Another theory proposed as to why Eason bailed out is that Fox News primetime gets three times as many viewers as CNN's primtime - 2,041,000 to 656,000; CNN doesn't want to go the way of MSNBC (primetime viewership, 356,000) - so the last thing they need is their honcho out there calling our troops murderers.
Well, that seems about right.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Aikido - What Is It?
Now, Aikido is a Japanese Martial Art. It is NOT Kung Fu, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Silat, and the likes. It is, however, based on various old Japanese martial arts such as Jujutsu or aiki-Jutsu, spear fighting (yarijutsu), kenjutsu , and the sword arts of the Yagyu family (kenjitsu). Aikido is all about how you react to others. It is not about attacking. Is it not a linear martial art movement but circular movements when it comes to self-defense. It's about centering. Being the center. And allowing gravity and momentum do the work. It is a martial art that's counter-intuitive when it comes to self-defense.
It is certainly not about screaming either but in Aikido we can employ what you call a "kiai" or shout. This is one of the multitudes of techniques to "unbalance" the attacker using the "atemi" (or a strike, not necessarily injurious but to hurt and distract) approach. Of course, screaming or shouting at a stone deaf attacker would look pretty stupid hoping the attacker would get startled. I rarely use the "kiai". Think of "kiai" when you go to a zoo to watch some monkeys up close and one of the monkey moves suddenly and screeches at you loudly with his face grimacing at you. You get starteld. You've momentarily become unbalanced at a time when you least expected it. That's when a "kiai" is useful.
Now, this isn't about which self-defense martial art is the best but which martial art is best for you. And you practice it with your best. There is no "perfect" martial art but a martial art that's perfect for you.
With this Aikido that I practice, it's not about religion, esoteric fantasy of moons and stars circling about with floaty self-defense movements. This is the hard traditional Aikido, and you WILL get injured practicing Aikido whether it's from a cut, broken toe, thumb or arm, along with numerous bruises to the body or bumps to the head from a baseball bat, stick or jo. It's part of the learning experience. The rentention rate is very low with students dropping out after a month or two for obvious reasons. After 8 years, I've been lucky to sustain only one serious injury....a knife cut to the palm of my hand that required 7 stitches. But I'm still doing it. Here's an interesting story told by Sensei Ellis about a knife. Sensei Ellis is the teacher (United Kingdom) of my teacher (USA) at my dojo.
Now, that'd be a scary dude to mess with. Tadashe Abe had scars on his forearms from many knife cuts over the years.
But if you want to learn more about Aikido before making any embarrasing comments on the suppositions of what Aikido might be like, go here first or tap into Google. That way, the next time you make comments about Aikido it'll be an intelligent and an informed one. It is rather embarassing to read such blog comments from people who have no clue about Aikido in their attempt to raise ire.
It is certainly not about screaming either but in Aikido we can employ what you call a "kiai" or shout. This is one of the multitudes of techniques to "unbalance" the attacker using the "atemi" (or a strike, not necessarily injurious but to hurt and distract) approach. Of course, screaming or shouting at a stone deaf attacker would look pretty stupid hoping the attacker would get startled. I rarely use the "kiai". Think of "kiai" when you go to a zoo to watch some monkeys up close and one of the monkey moves suddenly and screeches at you loudly with his face grimacing at you. You get starteld. You've momentarily become unbalanced at a time when you least expected it. That's when a "kiai" is useful.
Now, this isn't about which self-defense martial art is the best but which martial art is best for you. And you practice it with your best. There is no "perfect" martial art but a martial art that's perfect for you.
With this Aikido that I practice, it's not about religion, esoteric fantasy of moons and stars circling about with floaty self-defense movements. This is the hard traditional Aikido, and you WILL get injured practicing Aikido whether it's from a cut, broken toe, thumb or arm, along with numerous bruises to the body or bumps to the head from a baseball bat, stick or jo. It's part of the learning experience. The rentention rate is very low with students dropping out after a month or two for obvious reasons. After 8 years, I've been lucky to sustain only one serious injury....a knife cut to the palm of my hand that required 7 stitches. But I'm still doing it. Here's an interesting story told by Sensei Ellis about a knife. Sensei Ellis is the teacher (United Kingdom) of my teacher (USA) at my dojo.
A knife for my enemy
by Ellis Sensei
It was this early positive style of Aikido that Abbe sensei brought to the UK in 1955, at this time there was also the first Japanese master to Europe, this was Tadashi Abe sensei 6th dan who was based in France, he was a small man even by Japanese standards, but to my mind he was the hardest man I have ever met, he was very similar to Kazuo Chiba Sensei who I met with in London's West End last week. When he traveled he always carried a knife with him, this was not for his own protection but to hand to his shocked opponent, he would say "please, this is for you" he said that an opponent with his bare fists was no challenge, but a man with a knife was "very interesting".
Now, that'd be a scary dude to mess with. Tadashe Abe had scars on his forearms from many knife cuts over the years.
But if you want to learn more about Aikido before making any embarrasing comments on the suppositions of what Aikido might be like, go here first or tap into Google. That way, the next time you make comments about Aikido it'll be an intelligent and an informed one. It is rather embarassing to read such blog comments from people who have no clue about Aikido in their attempt to raise ire.
New HIV Strain in NYC - Ground Zero?
It was bound to happen, I suppose. A new HIV strain was discovered in NYC. We all know that viruses mutate where they become more resilient to drugs and the body's immunity. Just as we expect different strains of the flu viruses to occur every year, however.
Be prudent. Be very prudent here folks. We'll know more in three months time. Stay tuned.
Good thing I've never lived a decadent lifestyle prior to my marriage. Imagine the complications, the grief, and money involved! Rarely did I ever drink. No drugs. No smoking. Or dangerous sexual activities. All of that signifies a loss of control and irresponsible actions. I'd like to think and do things with a clear mind. Who want to be a "shroom" head and become a complete idiot? You dabble, you get what's coming to you sooner or later. By your own free will you choose a particular dangerous activity. I know better not to be that stupid. At least I'm still following through in my marriage. It makes sense.
You sow what you reap. That's a harsh reality.
New York City doctors have discovered a previously unseen strain of HIV, which appears to be resistant to three of the four types of anti-viral drugs that combat the disease, and progresses from infection to full-blown AIDS in two or three months, the health department said.
"We've identified this strain of HIV that is difficult or impossible to treat and which appears to progress rapidly to AIDS,'' said New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden.
Frieden said the case, diagnosed in a man in his mid-40s who reported multiple male sex partners and unprotected anal sex -- often while using the drug crystal methamphetamine -- was "extremely concerning and a wake-up call.''
Antonio Urbina, medical director of HIV education and training at St. Vincent's Catholic Medical Center, site one of Manhattan's largest AIDS clinics, said at a news conference that the patient's use of crystal methamphetamine shows that the drug "continues to play a significant role in facilitating the transmission of HIV.''
The drug reduces peoples' inhibitions and their likelihood of using condoms or other forms of safe sex, he said.
.
.
"....but clearly the fact that we are dealing with such broad resistance of drugs and the rapid clinical progression is quite alarming,'' Valdiserri said.
Be prudent. Be very prudent here folks. We'll know more in three months time. Stay tuned.
Good thing I've never lived a decadent lifestyle prior to my marriage. Imagine the complications, the grief, and money involved! Rarely did I ever drink. No drugs. No smoking. Or dangerous sexual activities. All of that signifies a loss of control and irresponsible actions. I'd like to think and do things with a clear mind. Who want to be a "shroom" head and become a complete idiot? You dabble, you get what's coming to you sooner or later. By your own free will you choose a particular dangerous activity. I know better not to be that stupid. At least I'm still following through in my marriage. It makes sense.
You sow what you reap. That's a harsh reality.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Eason Jordan - "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire"
The Eason Jordan brouhaha. No, make that debacle, and a bad one at that. The simple fact boils down to this; Eason Jordan made a serious charge. It was not simply a "belief" or an "opinion" but an out and out extremely serious charge nonetheless. A charge that American troops were deliberately targeting journalists. This was Eason's charge and it was witnessed by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank who told Michelle Malkin that after Jordan made the statements, which was a charge, he was so troubled that he tried to get specific examples from Jordan. But Jordan refused to provide an ounce of proof to support his outrageous charge.
You see folks, it's ludicrous to say that people should back off of Eason Jordan's "belief" or "opinion" who have been saying that American forces were *deliberately* targeting journalists for assassination. And if somebody professes that "belief" or "opinion" then he or she should back up that proof. Eason has not done so and have begun to backtrack, or let other Liberal weenies try and cover him (but not for long). The blogosphere is really nailing him, and the MSM such as Joe Scarborough of MSNBC (saying CNN should fire Eason) are starting to pick this story up not wanting to be left out like they did with the Rathergate episode. Ratings and integrity are everything. So is honesty and truth (Scarborough's words). Certainly the MSM would not want to look too weasel-like and have a "CNN-like" stigma stuck onto them. Nobody want to be the Commie News Network who ranks the lowest on viewership.
Democrats have a quandry here. You can either call Eason Jordan a liar who is CNN's most powerful news executives when he told a group of world leaders overseas that American soldiers had targeted reporters for assassination without an ounce of proof. This is the same charge as calling somebody a murderer without proof but just an "opinion." Not to be taken lightly, and certainly not within the realm of simply as an "opinion." If you don't call Eason a liar then you are calling Democrat Congressperson Barney Frank and Democrat Senator Chriss Dodd liars when they both heard Eason Jordan make those same charges on the Davos panel.
Yet this is a very, very serious charge made by Eason Jordan who never provided any proof or specific examples.
Now, Jordan's the man who admitted last spring that CNN withheld news out of Baghdad to maintain access to Saddam Hussein's regime. He was quoted last fall telling a Portuguese forum that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces (a charge he maintains today). In the fall of 2002, he reportedly accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions." He was in the middle of the infamous Tailwind scandal, in which CNN was forced to retract a Peter Arnett report that the American military used sarin gas against its own troops in Laos. And in 1999, Jordan declared: "We are a global network, and we take global interest[s] first, not U.S. interests first." (Thanks, Malkin)
As Jim Geraghty says,
I agree. Eason Jordan need to put up, or shut up. Just a Jordan's simple opinion? Please, people, don't be an idiot. It's a serious, serious charge. It's even more serious if there's no proof to back up that statement made by Eason Jordan.
You see folks, it's ludicrous to say that people should back off of Eason Jordan's "belief" or "opinion" who have been saying that American forces were *deliberately* targeting journalists for assassination. And if somebody professes that "belief" or "opinion" then he or she should back up that proof. Eason has not done so and have begun to backtrack, or let other Liberal weenies try and cover him (but not for long). The blogosphere is really nailing him, and the MSM such as Joe Scarborough of MSNBC (saying CNN should fire Eason) are starting to pick this story up not wanting to be left out like they did with the Rathergate episode. Ratings and integrity are everything. So is honesty and truth (Scarborough's words). Certainly the MSM would not want to look too weasel-like and have a "CNN-like" stigma stuck onto them. Nobody want to be the Commie News Network who ranks the lowest on viewership.
Democrats have a quandry here. You can either call Eason Jordan a liar who is CNN's most powerful news executives when he told a group of world leaders overseas that American soldiers had targeted reporters for assassination without an ounce of proof. This is the same charge as calling somebody a murderer without proof but just an "opinion." Not to be taken lightly, and certainly not within the realm of simply as an "opinion." If you don't call Eason a liar then you are calling Democrat Congressperson Barney Frank and Democrat Senator Chriss Dodd liars when they both heard Eason Jordan make those same charges on the Davos panel.
Yet this is a very, very serious charge made by Eason Jordan who never provided any proof or specific examples.
After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan. Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.
Now, Jordan's the man who admitted last spring that CNN withheld news out of Baghdad to maintain access to Saddam Hussein's regime. He was quoted last fall telling a Portuguese forum that he believed journalists had been arrested and tortured by American forces (a charge he maintains today). In the fall of 2002, he reportedly accused the Israeli military of deliberately targeting CNN personnel "on numerous occasions." He was in the middle of the infamous Tailwind scandal, in which CNN was forced to retract a Peter Arnett report that the American military used sarin gas against its own troops in Laos. And in 1999, Jordan declared: "We are a global network, and we take global interest[s] first, not U.S. interests first." (Thanks, Malkin)
As Jim Geraghty says,
Davos authorities can settle this dispute by releasing the videotape: Help us learn who’s telling the truth. And everybody else in the media – blogs, mainstream, left, right, big, small – can help add to the pressure by politely but firmly calling on the World Economic Forum to release the tape.
I agree. Eason Jordan need to put up, or shut up. Just a Jordan's simple opinion? Please, people, don't be an idiot. It's a serious, serious charge. It's even more serious if there's no proof to back up that statement made by Eason Jordan.
Protesting via your 1, 5, 10 and 20 dollar bills.
This is what I saw here:
This will probably be the new movement and a cheap way of advertising - on a U.S. dollar bill. Just be sure to bring an indelible black ink and mark it off. That's all. No need to advertise.
Join the revolution for progressive legislation http://www.boycott-republicans.com. Write this url on your one, five and ten dollar bills.
This will probably be the new movement and a cheap way of advertising - on a U.S. dollar bill. Just be sure to bring an indelible black ink and mark it off. That's all. No need to advertise.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
sComm, Inc Wins $1.3 Million NIH Award
Just received personal words via my email from the CEO of sComm, Jason Curry, whose company was recently awarded a few days ago a $1.3 million dollar funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH). The recent award will help fund the Phase II of their product that provides technology-based tools that enable face-to-face communication betweeen deaf and hearing people, and between people in other communication-challenged situations. The Mission of sComm is Freedom through Communication. sComm, Inc. of Kansas City, MO has completed a Phase I Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project, funded by NIH, to develop a stand-alone communications device for the deaf and hearing-impaired. The recent award will help sComm, Inc continue with their Phase II project.
But sComm's fundamental contribution reaches far beyond the tools.
Jason Curry, who is deaf and wears a cochlear implant ever since 2000, is a known innovator and motivator whose positive energy encourages people to set their own goals to a higher standard for themselves. Now, Jason Curry and his company, sComm, Inc will have an even higher goal to break....a device enabling independent face to face communication between deaf and hearing people. The power of transformation. The power of greater independency.
For more information please contact Jason Curry, Founder and CEO, jason@jasoncurry.com or Emma Curry, Administrator, Emma1@sbcglobal.net
============
Look here on the Kokonut Pundits blogsite for more and exciting updates or visit the sComm, Inc website. The exciting journey on FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION for millions of people who are deaf across the world can now move foward at sComm, Inc.
But sComm's fundamental contribution reaches far beyond the tools.
"We have observed that deaf users of our tools experience a profound sense of freedom and independence that greatly transcends the tools. Gone is dependence on a human interpreter; gone is the reduced quality of content that gradually overtakes a signed, or handwritten conversation. Instead, the user experiences authentic, nuanced, rapid-fire conversation that was never possible before."
Jason Curry, who is deaf and wears a cochlear implant ever since 2000, is a known innovator and motivator whose positive energy encourages people to set their own goals to a higher standard for themselves. Now, Jason Curry and his company, sComm, Inc will have an even higher goal to break....a device enabling independent face to face communication between deaf and hearing people. The power of transformation. The power of greater independency.
For more information please contact Jason Curry, Founder and CEO, jason@jasoncurry.com or Emma Curry, Administrator, Emma1@sbcglobal.net
============
Look here on the Kokonut Pundits blogsite for more and exciting updates or visit the sComm, Inc website. The exciting journey on FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION for millions of people who are deaf across the world can now move foward at sComm, Inc.
I. King Jordan on NPR
An Exploration of Deaf Culture - click on the link for more.
NPR.org, February 2, 2005 · This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.
The millions of Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing form a unique community, a culture, they say, shaped by their shared experience and their shared language. ASL, American Sign Language, is currently the second most taught language on college campuses. A major Broadway play using deaf and hearing actors is touring the country. At the same time, deaf culture is both changed and challenged by technology. There are plenty of divisions and arguments within deaf culture, but the deaf and hard of hearing share another universal trait--the incomprehension of the hearing world around them that sees their condition as a disability, as a handicap. For those who live without sound, that absence is the starting point of an identity.
=========
However, what I generally disagree is Carol Padden's remark:
I wouldn't say literacy levels "shot up and skyrocketed" knowing that the general reading and writing skill levels among deaf/hh kids are still around the 4th grade level among 17 and 18 year olds as reported in the Gallaudet Research Institute website, no less.
NPR.org, February 2, 2005 · This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.
The millions of Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing form a unique community, a culture, they say, shaped by their shared experience and their shared language. ASL, American Sign Language, is currently the second most taught language on college campuses. A major Broadway play using deaf and hearing actors is touring the country. At the same time, deaf culture is both changed and challenged by technology. There are plenty of divisions and arguments within deaf culture, but the deaf and hard of hearing share another universal trait--the incomprehension of the hearing world around them that sees their condition as a disability, as a handicap. For those who live without sound, that absence is the starting point of an identity.
=========
However, what I generally disagree is Carol Padden's remark:
CAROL: Yeah. So the point was that as a major focus of this conference at Swarthmore College, there was tremendous amount of time and energy given to the
pursuit of oral education, which was continued to be, 35 years later, the same kind of feeding on the fears and ignorance of hearing parents that let me waste the first 10 years or so of my children's life by staying away from deaf people, away from sign language and away from deaf culture. And it wasn't until that turned around by my watching what they needed from their perspective and not from this so-called hearing professionals and medical people who really didn't know what they were doing. That changed and that's when their literacy levels shot up and skyrocketed, once they got their language and their culture, which I've come to believe is the birthright of every single deaf child in the world....
I wouldn't say literacy levels "shot up and skyrocketed" knowing that the general reading and writing skill levels among deaf/hh kids are still around the 4th grade level among 17 and 18 year olds as reported in the Gallaudet Research Institute website, no less.
Privatizing Social Security
It’s incredible. Liberals are at again. Screaming that you should not have a choice in how you invest or use your money for your retirement plans. This is all about privatizing Social Security. It’s already being done for Federal workers ever since in 1987. The Thrift Savings Plan, which as of December 2004 had assets of $152 billion, is a retirement-savings plan open to all civilian federal employees, including senators, and all members of the uniformed services. This includes Senator Harry Reid, a screaming Liberal, who is against the idea of Social Security privatization. Yet he participates in the Thrift Savings Plan! How convenient for him. Remember his name for now.
Even Bill Clinton agreed that privatization of Social Security ought to be done. In fact, Clinton warned that there were only three possible ways to reform Social Security: 1) raise taxes, 2) cut benefits, or 3) find a way to receive a higher rate of return through private investment. Payroll taxes are already so high and benefits so low that young workers receive a rate of return on their taxes of barely more than one percent, far below market returns (actually it closer to a negative rate of return). Raising taxes or cutting benefits will only make that bad deal worse.
Only the third option -- private investment -- solves all of those problems. It preserves Social Security's solvency and increases returns to young workers while allowing workers to accumulate real and inheritable wealth.
Bill Clinton wasn't able to follow through on Social Security reform. That responsibility has now fallen to President Bush.
Now, In the Thrift Savings Plan, Federal employees can invest as much as 14 percent of their salaries in one of five retirement funds. Even if they do not want to participate, the government contributes 1% of their base pay for free! Free money added into their Social Security retirement plan.
Now, let’s consider the rate of return of C Fund, one of the five. It is a common-stock fund, (think Blue chip, Dow, and Nasdaq) so it should represent the risks that Senate minority leader Harry Reid thinks should terrify Americans:
In only four of 17 years has the rate of return been negative. But in 11 years the rate has been greater than 10 percent, in eight years it has been greater than 20 percent, in four years it has been greater than 30 percent! The compound annual rate of return for the last 10 years has been 12 percent, and the return over the 17 years has been 12.1 percent. You have to look at the long term returns and not the yearly return.
And funny that Reid participates in the plan, but opposes allowing all Americans the comparable opportunity that Bush is proposing. Imagine every Democrats or Liberals opposing the privatization of Social Security even though each and everyone of them have a choice in the Thrift Savings Plan!
But you’ll hear the “buts” from Liberals and nay-sayers who are adamantly against Social Security privatization. Suppose the stock market crash and go bankrupt? So what? Everybody would lose. That’s a no brainer. Social Security as we know it would be *kaput!* Where do you think will happen to the workers? They are the ones that pay into the existing retirees’ monthly Social Security check. Currently, approximately 3 workers pay into the Social Security system that fund one retiree's monthly retirement check. Thirty years to forty years ago it was 6 workers that paid into for one retiree’ monthly Social Security check. And in a few more years the number will have a ratio of 2:1 with two workers paying for one retiree’ SS check. And just to ensure that one retiree get his/her same month SS check, payroll taxes will have to go up for those two current workers under the current Social Security system.
You want to pay more taxes to support a retiree’s monthly Social Security check? And nothing to contribute to your retirement plans?
Now, you can check out the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who have http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0 been asked to evaluate the long-term economic and budgetary implications of current laws governing major entitlement programs and of legislative changes to those programs. In accordance with its mission to provide the Congress with budget projections and estimates of the costs of legislation, CBO has sought to enhance its capacity to produce long-term analyses. As a starting point, the agency presented comprehensive 50-year scenarios for the federal budget in December 2003 in The Long-Term Budget Outlook. (Background on Social Security, including information about the program's structure and financing, underlying demographic trends, and strategies that have been proposed to prepare for the aging of the U.S. population, can be found in an earlier CBO publication, Social Security: A Primer, published in September 2001). In short, the long term projection is not good if we stay with the current Social Security system.
FACT #1: Social Security was designed to supplement your pensions and your own personal savings plan (eg savings banks, CDs, IRAs, Market funds, personal investment, etc). The monthly Social Security check was not meant to be as a sole source of income when you retire. It wasn’t meant as a “safety net” either. It’s supplemental source of income. It has always been that way. Liberals just want to believe it’s your sole source of retirement income. It’s not.
FACT #2: Workers today pay into the Social Security *FOR* retirees only, and not for themselves. That means when YOU retire, you better hope there will be enough workers who will pay into for your Social Security monthly check. It is the current workers’ money that pays into the retirees’ monthly Social Security checks.
FACT #3: People will have a choice on whether to participate in the privatization of their own Social Security where the money they put into while they work is their money alone…and not to some retiree’s monthly check.
FACT #4: The privatization plan affects only current employees. Those who are already on Social Security (or close to retirement) will not see a change in their monthly checks.
FACT #5: The government is actually *stealing* your money to pay for somebody else’s retirement. It’s not yours to begin with. It never was your money. It belongs to Joe Schmoe who is retired. And to continue the funding of Social Security means that there will be less workers to fund the system and the payroll tax will have to raised in order to fund the month Social Security checks. Again, more stealing of your money by the government to pay existing retired people who never really planned or saved for their retirements.
FACT #6: It is YOUR money. Not the government. Not the retirees’. But YOUR money and you should have a say on how to control your money. This is about choice. Current Social Security does NOT give you a choice. The existing Social Security is nothing more than a pyramid scheme when you have less people paying for that one person at the top of the pyramid (e.g. retiree). Somebody’s going to get hurt at the end when it is all said and done because existing Social Security system cannot maintain their course of direction indefinitely. It need to be reformed on a massive scale.
From Vox Libertatis ac Veritatis (The voice of freedom and truth):
Yet it will cost 2 to 3 trillion dollars to help pay for the transitioning to the privatization of Social Security that tax payers will have to support. This will be a somewhat painful, but no where near as painful to watch Social Security as we know it become increasingly useless starting 10 years from now. It will take trillions more than the current 2 to 3 trillion dolars it’ll take to currently revamp Social Security now than to try and save Social Security 10 years down the road when everybody’s in a panic mode, costing us even MORE money to save the Social Security system.
What would you rather have? A system that has a range of 5 to 15% rate of return or a negative -1% return under the existing Social Security retirement system (which was not designed as a sole source income)?
Hey, I want to control MY money and see that it stays under MY name when money is deducted from MY paycheck. I don’t want to depend on some “IOUs” from the government when I retire.
Even Bill Clinton agreed that privatization of Social Security ought to be done. In fact, Clinton warned that there were only three possible ways to reform Social Security: 1) raise taxes, 2) cut benefits, or 3) find a way to receive a higher rate of return through private investment. Payroll taxes are already so high and benefits so low that young workers receive a rate of return on their taxes of barely more than one percent, far below market returns (actually it closer to a negative rate of return). Raising taxes or cutting benefits will only make that bad deal worse.
Only the third option -- private investment -- solves all of those problems. It preserves Social Security's solvency and increases returns to young workers while allowing workers to accumulate real and inheritable wealth.
Bill Clinton wasn't able to follow through on Social Security reform. That responsibility has now fallen to President Bush.
Now, In the Thrift Savings Plan, Federal employees can invest as much as 14 percent of their salaries in one of five retirement funds. Even if they do not want to participate, the government contributes 1% of their base pay for free! Free money added into their Social Security retirement plan.
Now, let’s consider the rate of return of C Fund, one of the five. It is a common-stock fund, (think Blue chip, Dow, and Nasdaq) so it should represent the risks that Senate minority leader Harry Reid thinks should terrify Americans:
In only four of 17 years has the rate of return been negative. But in 11 years the rate has been greater than 10 percent, in eight years it has been greater than 20 percent, in four years it has been greater than 30 percent! The compound annual rate of return for the last 10 years has been 12 percent, and the return over the 17 years has been 12.1 percent. You have to look at the long term returns and not the yearly return.
And funny that Reid participates in the plan, but opposes allowing all Americans the comparable opportunity that Bush is proposing. Imagine every Democrats or Liberals opposing the privatization of Social Security even though each and everyone of them have a choice in the Thrift Savings Plan!
But you’ll hear the “buts” from Liberals and nay-sayers who are adamantly against Social Security privatization. Suppose the stock market crash and go bankrupt? So what? Everybody would lose. That’s a no brainer. Social Security as we know it would be *kaput!* Where do you think will happen to the workers? They are the ones that pay into the existing retirees’ monthly Social Security check. Currently, approximately 3 workers pay into the Social Security system that fund one retiree's monthly retirement check. Thirty years to forty years ago it was 6 workers that paid into for one retiree’ monthly Social Security check. And in a few more years the number will have a ratio of 2:1 with two workers paying for one retiree’ SS check. And just to ensure that one retiree get his/her same month SS check, payroll taxes will have to go up for those two current workers under the current Social Security system.
You want to pay more taxes to support a retiree’s monthly Social Security check? And nothing to contribute to your retirement plans?
Now, you can check out the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who have http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0 been asked to evaluate the long-term economic and budgetary implications of current laws governing major entitlement programs and of legislative changes to those programs. In accordance with its mission to provide the Congress with budget projections and estimates of the costs of legislation, CBO has sought to enhance its capacity to produce long-term analyses. As a starting point, the agency presented comprehensive 50-year scenarios for the federal budget in December 2003 in The Long-Term Budget Outlook. (Background on Social Security, including information about the program's structure and financing, underlying demographic trends, and strategies that have been proposed to prepare for the aging of the U.S. population, can be found in an earlier CBO publication, Social Security: A Primer, published in September 2001). In short, the long term projection is not good if we stay with the current Social Security system.
FACT #1: Social Security was designed to supplement your pensions and your own personal savings plan (eg savings banks, CDs, IRAs, Market funds, personal investment, etc). The monthly Social Security check was not meant to be as a sole source of income when you retire. It wasn’t meant as a “safety net” either. It’s supplemental source of income. It has always been that way. Liberals just want to believe it’s your sole source of retirement income. It’s not.
FACT #2: Workers today pay into the Social Security *FOR* retirees only, and not for themselves. That means when YOU retire, you better hope there will be enough workers who will pay into for your Social Security monthly check. It is the current workers’ money that pays into the retirees’ monthly Social Security checks.
FACT #3: People will have a choice on whether to participate in the privatization of their own Social Security where the money they put into while they work is their money alone…and not to some retiree’s monthly check.
FACT #4: The privatization plan affects only current employees. Those who are already on Social Security (or close to retirement) will not see a change in their monthly checks.
FACT #5: The government is actually *stealing* your money to pay for somebody else’s retirement. It’s not yours to begin with. It never was your money. It belongs to Joe Schmoe who is retired. And to continue the funding of Social Security means that there will be less workers to fund the system and the payroll tax will have to raised in order to fund the month Social Security checks. Again, more stealing of your money by the government to pay existing retired people who never really planned or saved for their retirements.
FACT #6: It is YOUR money. Not the government. Not the retirees’. But YOUR money and you should have a say on how to control your money. This is about choice. Current Social Security does NOT give you a choice. The existing Social Security is nothing more than a pyramid scheme when you have less people paying for that one person at the top of the pyramid (e.g. retiree). Somebody’s going to get hurt at the end when it is all said and done because existing Social Security system cannot maintain their course of direction indefinitely. It need to be reformed on a massive scale.
From Vox Libertatis ac Veritatis (The voice of freedom and truth):
Plainly stated, Social Security is broke. Why are Democrats so quick to increase the tax burdens on the wealthiest Americans yet at the same time stand by this outdated system? Social Security taxes are regressive, meaning poorer Americans pay into the fund with larger percentages of their wages than middle and upper class Americans. In 2018, the federal government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in Social Security taxes. The money which 2018 retirees will have paid throughout their working life and which should be collected by them upon retirement in 2018 is not stored somewhere the same way we store money in a bank account. That money was loaned to other areas of the federal government through special bonds—IOUs from one part of the government to another. Without changes, by 2042 the system will be unable to continue paying full promised benefits. To repay these "IOUs," the government will need to collect $5 trillion from taxpayers by then—an increase of $33,000 per family or a hike 50% hike of payroll taxes. The other option would be to cut benefits by more than a third.
It does not take a Ph.D. in Economics to know that the market performs best over the long haul. Examine any 40 year period (assuming a person starts payments at age 25 and begins to receive benefits at age 65) in stock market history, and you will see a growth rate 10-15% over that time, compared to the negative -1% return under the present system.
Yet it will cost 2 to 3 trillion dollars to help pay for the transitioning to the privatization of Social Security that tax payers will have to support. This will be a somewhat painful, but no where near as painful to watch Social Security as we know it become increasingly useless starting 10 years from now. It will take trillions more than the current 2 to 3 trillion dolars it’ll take to currently revamp Social Security now than to try and save Social Security 10 years down the road when everybody’s in a panic mode, costing us even MORE money to save the Social Security system.
What would you rather have? A system that has a range of 5 to 15% rate of return or a negative -1% return under the existing Social Security retirement system (which was not designed as a sole source income)?
Hey, I want to control MY money and see that it stays under MY name when money is deducted from MY paycheck. I don’t want to depend on some “IOUs” from the government when I retire.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Koran-friendly U.S. Bankers Lend Interest-Free Loans.
Who wouldn't want an interest-free loan? I think we all dream of getting our hands on interest-free loans. The best you probably could have mustered was anywhere between 5 and 6 percent for a 30 year mortgage loan. Or may 4 percent for a 15-year loan. But, if you happen to be a devout Muslim, (what about those who convert to other religion from Muslim? They get the ax or what?) you are forbidden to pay any form of interest or "riba" according to the February 14, 2005 Business Week edition. This is an example of either showing good financial stewardship or having this irrational fear of debt-phobia. Probably worse than the mafia who will break your knee caps if you don't pay up that 40% interest loan. Now, imagine the quandry of Muslim-Americans who want to own their own homes debt-free, essentially so.
Ok. You can stop imaging the quandry.
Maybe move to middle America and get some cheap housing?
But the works are in the works where Koran-compatible "Islamic banking" is coming to the U.S. But the biggest irony is that Devon Bank, who is leading the way, is a small community bank in Chicago owned by the Loundy family, who are Jewish. Now, isn't that a hoot?
In January, Freddie Mac (FRE ) agreed to buy Devon's Islamic home financing products. But isn't Devon's Islamic home financing products are the brainchild of the Loundy family who are Jewish?
Ok. Great. Now I can see it now. More reasons for Muslims to go after Jewish people using the Devon Bank as proof that Jewish people are trying to rule the world.
According to Business week, other banks are starting to offer Islamic services in the U.S., including the University Bank in Ann Arbor and HSBC in New York.
They are? Interest-free loans? Isn't that like saying "deafening silence"? Isn't Devon Banking an example of an oxymoron?
Business Week describes that,
Guess who moving out and those who are moving in?
But I wonder if they also conform to Shari'a law concerning debts? But according to Business Week, under "Murabaha", or installment financing, this is how it works:
Technically, no interest? Isn't that like "cooking the books" just so that Muslim-Americans can get away from paying any debts that would clash with their religious Koranic beliefs?
Somebody's making money in this loan scheme. Money is being made and nothing is ever free. Somebody's paying interest, whatever the disguise is. You've heard the lawyer jokes and how much money they make in making the victims (i.e. "their clients") pay? Bankers are certainly next in line. It's too good to be true to get an "interest-free" loan from, what else, a banker.
Hey! I want an interest-free loan, too!
Ok. You can stop imaging the quandry.
Saving to pay for a home in full when housing prices are skyrocketing is nearly impossible for those who do not believe in paying interests.
Maybe move to middle America and get some cheap housing?
But the works are in the works where Koran-compatible "Islamic banking" is coming to the U.S. But the biggest irony is that Devon Bank, who is leading the way, is a small community bank in Chicago owned by the Loundy family, who are Jewish. Now, isn't that a hoot?
In January, Freddie Mac (FRE ) agreed to buy Devon's Islamic home financing products. But isn't Devon's Islamic home financing products are the brainchild of the Loundy family who are Jewish?
Devon also is working with Fannie Mae (FNM ) to develop Koran-compatible home mortgage products.
Ok. Great. Now I can see it now. More reasons for Muslims to go after Jewish people using the Devon Bank as proof that Jewish people are trying to rule the world.
According to Business week, other banks are starting to offer Islamic services in the U.S., including the University Bank in Ann Arbor and HSBC in New York.
They are? Interest-free loans? Isn't that like saying "deafening silence"? Isn't Devon Banking an example of an oxymoron?
Business Week describes that,
Devon, on Chicago's North Side, anchors a neighborhood that has shifted from Eastern European Jews to Indian, Pakistani, and Middle Eastern Muslims. To meet customers' needs, the bank, which has $261 million in assets, spent two years developing financial products that could conform to Islamic laws and pass the financial scrutiny of U.S. regulators.
Guess who moving out and those who are moving in?
The Devon bank, which has $261 million in assets, spent two years developing financial products that could conform to Islamic laws and pass the financial scrutiny of U.S. regulators.
But I wonder if they also conform to Shari'a law concerning debts? But according to Business Week, under "Murabaha", or installment financing, this is how it works:
Devon buys a property chosen by a customer, then turns around and sells it for a price that includes projected interest costs. There is no principal and thus, technically, no interest. Islamic financing is nearly half of Devon's mortgage portfolio. The bank also offers Koran-friendly financing for commercial real estate, business equipment, and letters of credit. "We are a community bank helping a community that's being underserved," says David Loundy, the bank's legal counsel. "In this case it's the Muslim community." Given an estimated 6 million Muslims in the U.S., that's bound to change.
Technically, no interest? Isn't that like "cooking the books" just so that Muslim-Americans can get away from paying any debts that would clash with their religious Koranic beliefs?
Somebody's making money in this loan scheme. Money is being made and nothing is ever free. Somebody's paying interest, whatever the disguise is. You've heard the lawyer jokes and how much money they make in making the victims (i.e. "their clients") pay? Bankers are certainly next in line. It's too good to be true to get an "interest-free" loan from, what else, a banker.
Hey! I want an interest-free loan, too!
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Patriots wins!
Well, whadya know. The Patriots won the Superbowl XXXIX! 24 to 21. This is what we need more of...Patriots. With the Patriots winning the Superbowl 3 out 4 times in the last four years is a good reminder for Americans to remember the word and that would be "Patriots". We have the Patriots dynasty and the Bush dynasty. Both good examples of how team members use the word "patriot." Dynasties don't have to be perfect or pretty. They just have to win.
God bless the men and women of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq.
Semper Fi!
And, oh, congratulations Patriots! And the Eagles? Better luck next time. Maybe another 30 years will do?
God bless the men and women of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq.
Semper Fi!
And, oh, congratulations Patriots! And the Eagles? Better luck next time. Maybe another 30 years will do?
Deaf Republicans...4 more years.
Be sure to visit the Deaf Republicans website and if you have questions, give them a call. What many people do not know is that a good majority of culturally deaf people are Liberals....and yet they're not quite fully informed. A big job for the people of the Deaf Republicans grassroots organization.
Eason Jordan and North Korea
In the Conservative bloggers' world we pretty much have a hold on the controversy surrounding Eason Jordan as reported by Captain's Quarters blog. However, we're seeing signs of North Korea's boat taking on water as it circles the whirlpool of death. Except that, of course, Eason Jordan believes otherwise.
In The Paralysis of American Policy, 2002, Eason Jordan commented about the state of North Korea's stability in 1999:
Hmm, Eason must have been quite impressed with North Korea and Kim Jong II elevator shoes? And yet according to "The Peking Duck" stating further the likely and possible collapse of North Korea in its infancy throes.
And further evidence of Kim Jong II and North Korea going looney over "Team America" as more signs of instability by going against the spirit of Free Expression want to ban the movie Team America, a movie where nobody's immune to the acerbic political satire. A cue for the Jib Jab guys.
Banned? Image? Good thing the Czech government is not going to do such a thing. Can't the North Koreans have a sense a humour? And we all know that Kim Jong II is a movie buff.
In The Paralysis of American Policy, 2002, Eason Jordan commented about the state of North Korea's stability in 1999:
When you hear about starvation in North Korea, a lot of very evel-headed people think, “There is no way a country like that can survive.” Well, I can guarantee you this: I’m here to tell you with absolute certainty those guys will tough it out for centuries just the way they are. Neither the United States nor any other country is going to be able to force a collapse of thatgovernment in North Korea.
—Eason Jordan, president, CNN International Networks, in a lecture at Harvard University, March 10, 1999, reporting on nine visits to North Korea
Hmm, Eason must have been quite impressed with North Korea and Kim Jong II elevator shoes? And yet according to "The Peking Duck" stating further the likely and possible collapse of North Korea in its infancy throes.
According to exiles, North Korean agents in Beijing and Ulan Bator are frantically selling assets to raise cash — an important sign, says one activist, because “the secret police can always smell the crisis coming before anybody else”.
And further evidence of Kim Jong II and North Korea going looney over "Team America" as more signs of instability by going against the spirit of Free Expression want to ban the movie Team America, a movie where nobody's immune to the acerbic political satire. A cue for the Jib Jab guys.
"It harms the image of our country," the Lidove Noviny daily quoted a North Korean diplomat as saying. "Such behavior is not part of our country's political culture. Therefore, we want the film to be banned."
Banned? Image? Good thing the Czech government is not going to do such a thing. Can't the North Koreans have a sense a humour? And we all know that Kim Jong II is a movie buff.
We told them it's an unrealistic wish," ministry spokesman Vit Kolar was quoted as saying. "Obviously, it's absurd to demand that in a democratic country."
Aye. This is what you get from a democractic country while North Korea spirals around the "vortex of death" before getting sucked into oblivion. Maybe take Eason Jordan along?
UPDATE: Apparently North Korea is off a lot worse with Eason Jordan's latest comments on CNN, although it was 2 years ago on January 14, 2003. Kind of foretold things to come with N.K.'s secret police trying to cash out.
JORDAN: Well, the North Koreans have a history of tough talk, a lot of rhetoric. They talk a lot about war, a lot about killing. It's a lot of hot air.
But the North Koreans, for all the tough talk, are scared of the United States. They're scared of being branded part of the "axis of evil."
Saturday, February 05, 2005
When a Picture of a Pregnancy Kit Gets Banned from a Billboard via "Backdoor Censorship"
Just when you thought it was safe in the United....Kingdom. "Backdoor censorship" - soon to come to a country near you.....
Billboard Company Ban Operation Christian Vote Election Poster
"We are not prepared to run the ‘abortion’ copy without ASA guidance..." David Gumley, Maiden Outdoor Advertising Billboard Company Ban Operation Christian Vote Election Poster
As ‘backdoor censorship’ of Operation Christian Vote’s election campaign continues.
Operation Christian Vote will be drawing attention to what it is calling “backdoor censorship” in the Scottish Euro Elections in a peaceful gathering outside the Communication Worker’s Union offices in Brunswick Street, Edinburgh, at noon today(Saturday 6th June, 2005).
Operation Christian Vote will be unveiling a 20 foot billboard poster that outdoor media company Maiden Outdoor has refused to display, claiming that it is too “controversial”. The billboard poster that bears a picture of a pregnancy testing kit and the words, “Abortion? It may be a choice for the mother, but it’s murder for her baby!” will now travel around Edinburgh and Glasgow on a mobile advertising trailer.
In a telephone call, made just after 3 O’clock on Thursday, 3rd June, hours before the proposed launch of Operation Christian Vote’s election billboard campaign, Maiden Outdoor executive, David Gumley, informed Revd Hargreaves of the decision. After pressing Mr Gumley, it was revealed that Maiden Outdoor senior executives objected to the Operation Christian Vote’s pro-life poster, and as a result, Maiden Outdoor sought to pull out of the entire campaign.
Revd Hargreaves comments,
Revd Hargreaves added,
After protracted negotiations Maiden Outdoor has agreed to display an alternative poster which campaigns for more rights for parents.
In a letter to Revd Hargreaves, Maiden Outdoor made the following statement:
==============
Go figure. They recoil at the sight of a picture containing a pregnancy kit along with a text to make a point is too much for a billboard company.
Billboard Company Ban Operation Christian Vote Election Poster
"We are not prepared to run the ‘abortion’ copy without ASA guidance..." David Gumley, Maiden Outdoor Advertising Billboard Company Ban Operation Christian Vote Election Poster
As ‘backdoor censorship’ of Operation Christian Vote’s election campaign continues.
Operation Christian Vote will be drawing attention to what it is calling “backdoor censorship” in the Scottish Euro Elections in a peaceful gathering outside the Communication Worker’s Union offices in Brunswick Street, Edinburgh, at noon today(Saturday 6th June, 2005).
Operation Christian Vote will be unveiling a 20 foot billboard poster that outdoor media company Maiden Outdoor has refused to display, claiming that it is too “controversial”. The billboard poster that bears a picture of a pregnancy testing kit and the words, “Abortion? It may be a choice for the mother, but it’s murder for her baby!” will now travel around Edinburgh and Glasgow on a mobile advertising trailer.
In a telephone call, made just after 3 O’clock on Thursday, 3rd June, hours before the proposed launch of Operation Christian Vote’s election billboard campaign, Maiden Outdoor executive, David Gumley, informed Revd Hargreaves of the decision. After pressing Mr Gumley, it was revealed that Maiden Outdoor senior executives objected to the Operation Christian Vote’s pro-life poster, and as a result, Maiden Outdoor sought to pull out of the entire campaign.
Revd Hargreaves comments,
I pointed out to Maiden’s that it was ludicrous to scupper our entire campaign because of an objection to just one of three poster designs. I also pointed out that Operation Christian Vote has a legally binding contract with Maiden Outdoor and that their decision to pull our entire campaign had serious ethical and legal implications.
Revd Hargreaves added,
I cannot help wondering whether there is a wider political motive at play. Maiden’s initial stance seemed to suggest that because our party takes a pro-life position, none of our material on any other political subject, such as the EU constitution or parental, should be displayed on their billboards. Such a stance is political interference of the most blatant form. This backdoor censorship is totally unacceptable in our democratic country.
After protracted negotiations Maiden Outdoor has agreed to display an alternative poster which campaigns for more rights for parents.
In a letter to Revd Hargreaves, Maiden Outdoor made the following statement:
Maiden’s normal procedure is to request an advertiser to seek copy approval from the Advertising Standards Authority if their copy is likely to be deemed to be controversial. The visual relating to abortion we feel is controversial and we would have asked you to gain that approval, prior to accepting your booking, if it had been drawn to our attention.
Revd Hargreaves has responded by noting, “The same “visual relating to abortion” was approved by the BBC, STV and thepost office for airing on television and distribution as an election leaflet without any comment. Operation Christian Vote will be immediately seeking copy approval from the Advertising Standards Authority. We are confident that we will gain approval; once approved we will insist that Maiden Outdoor display our poster as originally planned.”
Operation Christian Vote Scottish European Election candidate and Tranent based pastor, Revd Richard Russell, said
It is interesting to note that the poster industry displays any amount of offensive images that we as Christian have had to bear for years, yet a picture of a pregnancy kit together with text is too much for them to bear!
==============
Go figure. They recoil at the sight of a picture containing a pregnancy kit along with a text to make a point is too much for a billboard company.
When Terrorists Use Mentally-Disabled People as Weapons
If you want the whole story from the mouths of Iraqis on this, go here. These terrorists are complete sickos...attempting to kidnap and use Iraqis with Down Syndrome or other mental impairments to force them to strap on bomb vests to try and blow up polling centers...if not elsewhere prior to or after the election. How many of these mentally-impaired (well, all terrorists are mentally-impaired, but you get my meaning here) Iraqis were kidnapped and used as weapons by forcing them to wear bomb vests? It's difficult to find out who the person was after he/she gets blown up. No ID. Head's gone or shattered into unrecognizable features, and the likes. I think resources for willing suicide bombers have gone down tremendously with arrests by coalition forces and the Iraqi police and army happening almost on a weekly basis, if not on a near daily basis. Terrorists are becoming desperate to the point of holding a toy action figure hostage by sending photos of what was supposedly (they were hoping) to be a human U.S. soldier. It was obvious to everybody (mostly conservative bloggers than to MSM or Liberal bloggers thinking it was the real thing).
Now, there is no "new low" with these terrorists. They will do anything in their justification to kill Americans and their supporters. They'll even kill their own mothers if it'll help.
Support the troops. Support Iraq.
Semper Fi! (don't like it...don't ask for their help should you ever, God forbid, get in a bind).
They deserve our respect and we must honor them for it is the Armed Forces who help protect America with their lives.
Now, there is no "new low" with these terrorists. They will do anything in their justification to kill Americans and their supporters. They'll even kill their own mothers if it'll help.
Support the troops. Support Iraq.
Semper Fi! (don't like it...don't ask for their help should you ever, God forbid, get in a bind).
They deserve our respect and we must honor them for it is the Armed Forces who help protect America with their lives.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Even gay people have their limits
Nothing new but noticed that even hearing gay people (they're human, too!) are not immune to idiocy and bad taste from a deaf gay person. If people insist on blathering to no end and to spite people all the time because of their ideas and beliefs by stooping to call people names, then what can you do? Well, this guy finally had to do something about it with this one visitor who pretty much trashed his blogsite with trash talk. Sounds like a bitter person who feels like he's been jilted who insist on trashing people's blogsites. It wasn't a pretty sight to read.
Ouch...and by a hearing person, too. Now, this deaf person will now have more reasons to hate hearing people, as usual, on the grand order. Although, I haven't banned anyone....yet. I harbor no ill-will and feel no need to call names, either. Why lower MY standards with that kind of an attitude? I seek to challenge myself akin to playing on a PGA-style 18-hole golf course rather than an 18-hole putt-putt golf course. What I don't buy is intellectual dishonesty crapola a' la "Nick Coleman" from people with potty mouths.
I hope everybody success that comes with honest hard work and perserverance. Even in the World Wide Blogosphere. Deaf and hard of hearing people have to work harder regardless of political affiliation or orientation just to be recognized. That effort alone is worth kudos rather than attempt at Crab Theory. Success is yours, indeed.
And remember, when you visit somebody's blog and make comments on their blogsite, it's a priviledge....not a Constitutional Right. And when somebody bans you, don't curse but celebrate knowing that Freedom of Expression still works.....the right to ban people at will and whenever, and for whatever reason. Learn from it and move on. If a person continues to curse and call people names, then that person hasn't learned to move on.
C'est la vie.
.....but you also don't have free license on my blog to lower the standards of political discourse.
Ouch...and by a hearing person, too. Now, this deaf person will now have more reasons to hate hearing people, as usual, on the grand order. Although, I haven't banned anyone....yet. I harbor no ill-will and feel no need to call names, either. Why lower MY standards with that kind of an attitude? I seek to challenge myself akin to playing on a PGA-style 18-hole golf course rather than an 18-hole putt-putt golf course. What I don't buy is intellectual dishonesty crapola a' la "Nick Coleman" from people with potty mouths.
I hope everybody success that comes with honest hard work and perserverance. Even in the World Wide Blogosphere. Deaf and hard of hearing people have to work harder regardless of political affiliation or orientation just to be recognized. That effort alone is worth kudos rather than attempt at Crab Theory. Success is yours, indeed.
And remember, when you visit somebody's blog and make comments on their blogsite, it's a priviledge....not a Constitutional Right. And when somebody bans you, don't curse but celebrate knowing that Freedom of Expression still works.....the right to ban people at will and whenever, and for whatever reason. Learn from it and move on. If a person continues to curse and call people names, then that person hasn't learned to move on.
C'est la vie.
Kokonut Pundits Gets Mentioned in FrontPageMag
Not only am I getting around but conservative bloggers and magazines (ezines) are beginning to pick up my blogsite. Good news. Twice with BlogsforBush.com, once with CaptainsQuartersblog.com, Sisyphean Musings, and now Frontpagemag.com. The more the merrier.
This way people can realize that even deaf and hard of hearing Conservatives and Republicans can be just as good as the rest of them. Presenting an argument becomes an art form by being able to poke holes into those Democrats or Liberals' meek arguments that are increasingly being relied on their own emotions and not facts. Pretty much like deflating their "Exit Strategy" scream fest by stating that President Bush never planned an "Exit Strategy" for the Iraq war. Of course, he didn't. They're right. He never planned an "Exit Strategy". The only "Exit Strategy" needed is to W...I....N the battle! A pretty simple and straight forward plan. Nothing overly complicated here that would challenge some of the Liberals' amazing shrinkng brains.
Now, WWI never had an "Exit Strategy". Neither did WWII. Korean war. Vietnam war. The Gulf War. Grenada battle. And certainly not this Iraq war. All of those wars or battles main prerogative is so excrutiatingly simple and that is to.. *takes a breath*.... W...I...N!
Many Democrats and Liberals just want to scream to their clueless constituents about President Bush supposed lack of an "Exit Strategy" plan. A deception in disguise by the Liberals who think these people who pander to them are dumb. Well, they are in a way. Naughty people you are to prey on the dumb and clueless. You might want to remind them about Clinton's own true to life and soberly real "Exit Strategy" on the disasterous Somalia battle.
Instead, when President Clinton saw his 18 Delta Force soldiers get killed in an eight-hour battle, he immediately lost heart in Operation Restore Hope, ended the Aidid manhunt and soon after withdrew 28,000 Marines and US forces. This was Clinton's own unique brand of true to life "Exit Strategy" by giving NO HOPE or desire to win but only showed the world the meaning of the word "cowardice". President Clinton wouldn't even back or defend the 28,000 Marines already there. He wanted them to look like dogs (the Marines for pete sakes!) with tails between their legs.
President Bush own "Exit Strategy" is to simply win the battle. So far, so good. Those Democrats are awfully quiet of late. The 8 million or 60% of the registered Iraqi voters who voted last week is pretty damned good an indicator of President Bush winning the battle.
So, for the love of god stop making yourselves complete buffoons and lay off the "Exit Strategy" screams and gruntings. It's so..uh, Dean-like. So hateful. So...dumb.
This way people can realize that even deaf and hard of hearing Conservatives and Republicans can be just as good as the rest of them. Presenting an argument becomes an art form by being able to poke holes into those Democrats or Liberals' meek arguments that are increasingly being relied on their own emotions and not facts. Pretty much like deflating their "Exit Strategy" scream fest by stating that President Bush never planned an "Exit Strategy" for the Iraq war. Of course, he didn't. They're right. He never planned an "Exit Strategy". The only "Exit Strategy" needed is to W...I....N the battle! A pretty simple and straight forward plan. Nothing overly complicated here that would challenge some of the Liberals' amazing shrinkng brains.
Now, WWI never had an "Exit Strategy". Neither did WWII. Korean war. Vietnam war. The Gulf War. Grenada battle. And certainly not this Iraq war. All of those wars or battles main prerogative is so excrutiatingly simple and that is to.. *takes a breath*.... W...I...N!
Many Democrats and Liberals just want to scream to their clueless constituents about President Bush supposed lack of an "Exit Strategy" plan. A deception in disguise by the Liberals who think these people who pander to them are dumb. Well, they are in a way. Naughty people you are to prey on the dumb and clueless. You might want to remind them about Clinton's own true to life and soberly real "Exit Strategy" on the disasterous Somalia battle.
(T)he big difference with Bush and the Fallujah atrocities, contrasted with Clinton and Clark abandoning our U.S. troops to the savagery in Somalia, is Bush’s resolve to actually avenge the atrocities perpetrated against our fellow Americans. Truth be told, Clinton and Clark....they did not defend the U.S. against Somalia’s murderous thugs who killed our servicemen.
Instead, when President Clinton saw his 18 Delta Force soldiers get killed in an eight-hour battle, he immediately lost heart in Operation Restore Hope, ended the Aidid manhunt and soon after withdrew 28,000 Marines and US forces. This was Clinton's own unique brand of true to life "Exit Strategy" by giving NO HOPE or desire to win but only showed the world the meaning of the word "cowardice". President Clinton wouldn't even back or defend the 28,000 Marines already there. He wanted them to look like dogs (the Marines for pete sakes!) with tails between their legs.
President Bush own "Exit Strategy" is to simply win the battle. So far, so good. Those Democrats are awfully quiet of late. The 8 million or 60% of the registered Iraqi voters who voted last week is pretty damned good an indicator of President Bush winning the battle.
So, for the love of god stop making yourselves complete buffoons and lay off the "Exit Strategy" screams and gruntings. It's so..uh, Dean-like. So hateful. So...dumb.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Survey said!....the "Abstinence Only" programs
Since I'm a professional scientist and when doing scientific studies (when you say "scientific" it means that experiments can be "repeated") you must have a control group or blind group to compare results to. As for the case of a recent "study" by Texas A&M they claimed that "abstinence-only" sex education programs have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in Texas, according to their new study. What they don't mention is that they never had a "control group" to compare their results with! Major bummer! Major load dropping, too.
From the Abstinence Clearinghouse:
WASHINGTON, DC -- Opponents of truth and common sense are working hard to make abstinence education look bad. Unfortunately for the contraceptive sex educators, it's not working. Most recently, a study by Texas A & M University is drawing headlines across the state questioning the results of abstinence education. The flawed study, however, fails to have a control group by which to compare its results.
When compared with the general teen population (data found in the 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance), teens who participate in abstinence education programs have significantly lower sexual activity rates. The following chart illustrates the vast difference:
Table 1: Texas teen sexual activity by grade year, Texas A&M abstinence educated teens versus 2003 YRBS (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance) general Texas teens*
9th Grade Females
Post-Abstinence Education…..28% ever sexually active
YRBS TX Teens……………..31.7% ever sexually active
10th Grade Females
Post-Abstinence Education…..N/A
YRBS TX Teens……………..39.0% ever sexually active
9th Grade Males
Post-Abstinence Education…..24% ever sexually active
YRBS TX Teens……………..45.5% ever sexually active
10th Grade Males
Post-Abstinence Education…..39% ever sexually active
YRBS TX Teens……………..56.6% ever sexually active
After the recent rise of parents, educators, and health officials who united to integrate abstinence curricula in the public schools of Texas, contraception education supporters are desperate to regain the unbridled access to young minds they once had through so-called “comprehensive” sex education programs.
“It’s obvious that sex education supporters are attacking because their programs are not gaining in professional acknowledgment or parental esteem,” said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. “On the other hand, the more authentic abstinence education is studied, the better it is proven to be. Parents want what is best for their kids. It’s no surprise they’re choosing abstinence education. Perhaps sex education supporters should spend less time trying to make abstinence education look bad and try to make their own failed programs good.”
========
Here's a shocking result by NBC and People magazine latest survey shown this year in 2005. Their survey was taken during a period from September 4, 2004 and November 7, 2004. And survey said! (to the tune of Family Fued).......the majority of teens don’t want to have sex according to 1000 teens aged 13 - 16 in the NBC survey result. Gasppp!
Ok...you can close your mouth now.
Now, it's all about peer pressure because the other person wanted to have sex. Pick your friends carefully. Now, don't blame the messenger, it was your Liberal NBC and Hollywood star-studded magazine who produced the shocking survey. Go after them.
Better luck next time.
From the Abstinence Clearinghouse:
WASHINGTON, DC -- Opponents of truth and common sense are working hard to make abstinence education look bad. Unfortunately for the contraceptive sex educators, it's not working. Most recently, a study by Texas A & M University is drawing headlines across the state questioning the results of abstinence education. The flawed study, however, fails to have a control group by which to compare its results.
When compared with the general teen population (data found in the 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance), teens who participate in abstinence education programs have significantly lower sexual activity rates. The following chart illustrates the vast difference:
Table 1: Texas teen sexual activity by grade year, Texas A&M abstinence educated teens versus 2003 YRBS (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance) general Texas teens*
9th Grade Females
Post-Abstinence Education…..28% ever sexually active
YRBS TX Teens……………..31.7% ever sexually active
10th Grade Females
Post-Abstinence Education…..N/A
YRBS TX Teens……………..39.0% ever sexually active
9th Grade Males
Post-Abstinence Education…..24% ever sexually active
YRBS TX Teens……………..45.5% ever sexually active
10th Grade Males
Post-Abstinence Education…..39% ever sexually active
YRBS TX Teens……………..56.6% ever sexually active
After the recent rise of parents, educators, and health officials who united to integrate abstinence curricula in the public schools of Texas, contraception education supporters are desperate to regain the unbridled access to young minds they once had through so-called “comprehensive” sex education programs.
“It’s obvious that sex education supporters are attacking because their programs are not gaining in professional acknowledgment or parental esteem,” said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. “On the other hand, the more authentic abstinence education is studied, the better it is proven to be. Parents want what is best for their kids. It’s no surprise they’re choosing abstinence education. Perhaps sex education supporters should spend less time trying to make abstinence education look bad and try to make their own failed programs good.”
========
Here's a shocking result by NBC and People magazine latest survey shown this year in 2005. Their survey was taken during a period from September 4, 2004 and November 7, 2004. And survey said! (to the tune of Family Fued).......the majority of teens don’t want to have sex according to 1000 teens aged 13 - 16 in the NBC survey result. Gasppp!
Ok...you can close your mouth now.
Now, it's all about peer pressure because the other person wanted to have sex. Pick your friends carefully. Now, don't blame the messenger, it was your Liberal NBC and Hollywood star-studded magazine who produced the shocking survey. Go after them.
Better luck next time.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Completely Clueless People
Insurgents say they are holding US soldier Rory McCarthy in Baghdad Wednesday February 2, 2005.
A militant group in Iraq claimed last night to have kidnapped an American soldier and threatened to kill him if Iraqi prisoners were not released within 72 hours.
The group posted on the internet what appeared to be a photograph of a soldier sitting in front of a black banner with a gun pointed at his head.
A statement posted with the picture said a number of other soldiers were killed when the hostage was kidnapped and suggested the group was holding other soldiers. The group did not say where the incident happened and there was no independent confirmation of the kidnapping.
"Our mujahideen heroes of Iraq's Jihadi Battalion were able to capture American military man John Adam after killing a number of his comrades and capturing the rest," a group calling itself the Mujahideen Squadrons said in a statement. "God willing, we will behead him if our female and male prisoners are not released from US prisons within the maximum period of 72 hours from the time this state ment has been released," the statement said.
The US military said yesterday that no American soldiers had been reported missing in Iraq. "No units have reported anyone missing," said Staff Sergeant Nick Minecci in Baghdad.
================
The Guardian Unlimited news website is completely clueless just like some Liberals media continued to report this fake hostage story even after it was debunked on the first day within the hour with the conservative bloggers help, of course.
But I tell ya, those jihadists are certainly getting desperate. First used a young "insurgent" who had Down Syndrome to blow himself up at one of the Iraq's polling station, and next, you get "Soldier Cody" being held hostage which was a total bunk story, obvious to anybody except those who really, really, really, really, really......breathes......really wanted to believe. Man, what's next? Ransoming Barbie dolls?
A militant group in Iraq claimed last night to have kidnapped an American soldier and threatened to kill him if Iraqi prisoners were not released within 72 hours.
The group posted on the internet what appeared to be a photograph of a soldier sitting in front of a black banner with a gun pointed at his head.
A statement posted with the picture said a number of other soldiers were killed when the hostage was kidnapped and suggested the group was holding other soldiers. The group did not say where the incident happened and there was no independent confirmation of the kidnapping.
"Our mujahideen heroes of Iraq's Jihadi Battalion were able to capture American military man John Adam after killing a number of his comrades and capturing the rest," a group calling itself the Mujahideen Squadrons said in a statement. "God willing, we will behead him if our female and male prisoners are not released from US prisons within the maximum period of 72 hours from the time this state ment has been released," the statement said.
The US military said yesterday that no American soldiers had been reported missing in Iraq. "No units have reported anyone missing," said Staff Sergeant Nick Minecci in Baghdad.
================
The Guardian Unlimited news website is completely clueless just like some Liberals media continued to report this fake hostage story even after it was debunked on the first day within the hour with the conservative bloggers help, of course.
But I tell ya, those jihadists are certainly getting desperate. First used a young "insurgent" who had Down Syndrome to blow himself up at one of the Iraq's polling station, and next, you get "Soldier Cody" being held hostage which was a total bunk story, obvious to anybody except those who really, really, really, really, really......breathes......really wanted to believe. Man, what's next? Ransoming Barbie dolls?
Monday, January 31, 2005
The Sistani Myth....uh, "disinformation"
It's funny to hear and see Liberals puff out their chests and crow that "I'm for free election in Iraq" but in the same breath say "I'm against this war!" Well, it was war that brought free election TO Iraq. There would be no other way to see this through. Saddam certainly didn't hold a free democratic voting process even though he got "100%" of all of the vote for him. Yeah, right. A real democracy in action there folks.
Most Liberals would have been much more happier to let the U.N. do their job when all they did was scam billions and billions of dollars from the Oil for Food program for several years after the Gulf War. And at the same time *ALLOWED* Saddam build palace after palace after palace costing several hundred million to a billion dollars each (not to mention he broke the cease fire agreement and violated the U.N resolutions umpteen times, and fired upon coalition jets in the "No Fly Zone" numerous times). With Saddam, UN, France, Germany, China, and Russia's greed and lack of moral compass caused several hundred thousand Iraqis (mostly children and elderly) to die of starvation, lack of medicine, unsanitary water and lack of attention over the course of several years during the Oil for Food program. The money was for the Iraqi people to help them get by during the sanctioning period imposed by the U.N resolutions. The money was not for Saddam or for the coffers of the United Nation. And you never wondered why France, Germany, Russia and China (all of them have U.N. veto powers) never agreed to going to war to oust Saddam when he violated numerous U.N. resolutions? Go figure! How dumb can these Liberals be? They want to have their cake (i.e. the Iraq voting success) and eat it too. Nope. Too EFFIN late. Many of the Liberals, most of UN people (notably France, Germany, China and Russia with holding VETO powers), and much of Europe were dead set against the war in Iraq and would rather have wanted Saddam there instead (clueless as ever).
If you want to bring free election to a tyranical country, the only way to do this is to oust the leader by force, and that means war. In this case, it was Iraq. You opposed the war.....you lose all credibility about "free election" given how many Lefty Liberals in their blogs and editorials still hold a negative and pessimistic tone about the successful Iraqi election. Had they gone your way and not oust Saddam, no free election would have even taken place! People would continue to suffer.
Scram, you ninnies!
And please, please don't insult us using Juan Cole's line that the Bush administration initially resisted the idea of holding elections so soon and only succumbed under pressure from Iraq's most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Zot! Wot laughter!! Only an idiot would even dare say this.
It was this. At the request of the United States, the United Nations has sent a team of technical experts to discuss with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite's most powerful cleric, whether *direct elections* (and not about "caucus-style" election) are feasible by June 30, the date when the U.S. proposes to turn over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government. It was Sistani who demanded a *direct election* and the U.S. rejected the idea. The June 30, 2004 was the date the U.S. had in mind to transfer sovereignty over to Iraq. It actually took place a few days earlier, surprising everybody. "Let Freedom Reign." - Bush' famous quote.
What the U.S. proposed was a *caucus-style election" process in Iraq’s 18 provinces to choose a transitional national assembly. This took place a few days ago on January 30, 2005 with great success amid all the security details and planning that took place prior and during the election over who would be a part of the 275 seat National Assembly.
Sistani was demanding a direct election process which would have proved dangerous and lacked any assurances of relative diversity among elected officials. The "caucus-style" election would be the better choice and President Bush stuck by that and it has nothing to do with Sistani!
On the "Council on Foreign Relations" website it describes President Bush' plan called "Iraq: The New Bush Plan" dated November 21, 2003. Not 2004 but 2003. The U.S. occupation government agreed November 15, 2003 (it was updated) on an accelerated timetable to speed Iraqi self-rule. The proposed time table was presented to the United Nations Security Council as dictated by Resolution 1511. The proposed time table went like this:
February 28, 2004: Fundamental law approved.
March 31, 2004: Bilateral security arrangement approved.
May 31, 2004: Transitional National Assembly elected.
June 30, 2004: Transitional government appointed; CPA dissolved.
March 15, 2005: Elections for a constitutional convention held.
December 31, 2005: Elections for a permanent Iraqi government held.
Although these things were never firm and were subject to changes according to the amount of accomplishments that were completed. As with any plans, delays are bound to be inevitable. Iraq was the case and finally President Bush agreed to the plan to hold a National Assembly election on January 30, 2005 instead of May 31, 2004, which would have been much too early given the security problems they had at the time and to adequately guarantee the safety of millions of Iraqis when it came time to vote.
Now, I'm sure you guys are wondering about some of the Liberals' intelligence by now? What took you so long?
And hey, did you hear about the Baghdad Mayor wanting to erect a statue of Bush in the middle of Bagdad in honor of him who helped released millions of Iraqis from the tyrannical hands of Saddam Hussein?
Not bad for a President to get this kind of honor. Not bad at all. And in all places...a Muslim country.
Most Liberals would have been much more happier to let the U.N. do their job when all they did was scam billions and billions of dollars from the Oil for Food program for several years after the Gulf War. And at the same time *ALLOWED* Saddam build palace after palace after palace costing several hundred million to a billion dollars each (not to mention he broke the cease fire agreement and violated the U.N resolutions umpteen times, and fired upon coalition jets in the "No Fly Zone" numerous times). With Saddam, UN, France, Germany, China, and Russia's greed and lack of moral compass caused several hundred thousand Iraqis (mostly children and elderly) to die of starvation, lack of medicine, unsanitary water and lack of attention over the course of several years during the Oil for Food program. The money was for the Iraqi people to help them get by during the sanctioning period imposed by the U.N resolutions. The money was not for Saddam or for the coffers of the United Nation. And you never wondered why France, Germany, Russia and China (all of them have U.N. veto powers) never agreed to going to war to oust Saddam when he violated numerous U.N. resolutions? Go figure! How dumb can these Liberals be? They want to have their cake (i.e. the Iraq voting success) and eat it too. Nope. Too EFFIN late. Many of the Liberals, most of UN people (notably France, Germany, China and Russia with holding VETO powers), and much of Europe were dead set against the war in Iraq and would rather have wanted Saddam there instead (clueless as ever).
If you want to bring free election to a tyranical country, the only way to do this is to oust the leader by force, and that means war. In this case, it was Iraq. You opposed the war.....you lose all credibility about "free election" given how many Lefty Liberals in their blogs and editorials still hold a negative and pessimistic tone about the successful Iraqi election. Had they gone your way and not oust Saddam, no free election would have even taken place! People would continue to suffer.
Scram, you ninnies!
And please, please don't insult us using Juan Cole's line that the Bush administration initially resisted the idea of holding elections so soon and only succumbed under pressure from Iraq's most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Zot! Wot laughter!! Only an idiot would even dare say this.
It was this. At the request of the United States, the United Nations has sent a team of technical experts to discuss with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite's most powerful cleric, whether *direct elections* (and not about "caucus-style" election) are feasible by June 30, the date when the U.S. proposes to turn over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government. It was Sistani who demanded a *direct election* and the U.S. rejected the idea. The June 30, 2004 was the date the U.S. had in mind to transfer sovereignty over to Iraq. It actually took place a few days earlier, surprising everybody. "Let Freedom Reign." - Bush' famous quote.
What the U.S. proposed was a *caucus-style election" process in Iraq’s 18 provinces to choose a transitional national assembly. This took place a few days ago on January 30, 2005 with great success amid all the security details and planning that took place prior and during the election over who would be a part of the 275 seat National Assembly.
Sistani was demanding a direct election process which would have proved dangerous and lacked any assurances of relative diversity among elected officials. The "caucus-style" election would be the better choice and President Bush stuck by that and it has nothing to do with Sistani!
On the "Council on Foreign Relations" website it describes President Bush' plan called "Iraq: The New Bush Plan" dated November 21, 2003. Not 2004 but 2003. The U.S. occupation government agreed November 15, 2003 (it was updated) on an accelerated timetable to speed Iraqi self-rule. The proposed time table was presented to the United Nations Security Council as dictated by Resolution 1511. The proposed time table went like this:
February 28, 2004: Fundamental law approved.
March 31, 2004: Bilateral security arrangement approved.
May 31, 2004: Transitional National Assembly elected.
June 30, 2004: Transitional government appointed; CPA dissolved.
March 15, 2005: Elections for a constitutional convention held.
December 31, 2005: Elections for a permanent Iraqi government held.
Although these things were never firm and were subject to changes according to the amount of accomplishments that were completed. As with any plans, delays are bound to be inevitable. Iraq was the case and finally President Bush agreed to the plan to hold a National Assembly election on January 30, 2005 instead of May 31, 2004, which would have been much too early given the security problems they had at the time and to adequately guarantee the safety of millions of Iraqis when it came time to vote.
Now, I'm sure you guys are wondering about some of the Liberals' intelligence by now? What took you so long?
And hey, did you hear about the Baghdad Mayor wanting to erect a statue of Bush in the middle of Bagdad in honor of him who helped released millions of Iraqis from the tyrannical hands of Saddam Hussein?
Not bad for a President to get this kind of honor. Not bad at all. And in all places...a Muslim country.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
The "No Plan" Pre/Post Iraq War Myth
When Liberals continue to believe that military and their department do not plan for pre and post war activities goes to show just how dimwitted they are. An example of such spouting from the mouth of a typical Liberal extremist:
And I feel that we were not prepared to deal with Iraq right after the Iraqi War because we attacked the country with NO plans for the post-War reconstruction.
No planning for post-war reconstruction? Au contraire my feeble-minded friends.
.
.
==========================
.
.
Pre-war Planning for Post-war Iraq
Unclassified
Unclassified
Planning in the U.S. Government for post-war Iraq was an interagency process involving officials from the Departments of Defense, State, Justice, Treasury, Energy, and Commerce; the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Central Intelligence Agency, as well as from the staffs of the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget.
.
.
DoD mid and senior-level planners and officials engaged in multiple planning initiatives for post-war contingencies. DoD staff in the theater and in Washington evaluated a wide-range of possible outcomes, led efforts to merge and synchronize planning from various government agencies, and shaped planning for the major combat phase of the operation to allow for the best possible post-war conditions.
.
Key to DoD planning for this operation was the assumption that liberating Iraq from 35 years of tyrannical rule and severe social and economic underdevelopment would be a challenging prospect.
.
.
.
INITIAL INTERAGENCY PLANNING GROUPS
Beginning in July 2002, an assortment of working groups were formed to conduct and coordinate post-war planning.
.
INITIAL INTERAGENCY PLANNING GROUPS
Beginning in July 2002, an assortment of working groups were formed to conduct and coordinate post-war planning.
.
o Interagency Iraq Political-Military Cell (NSC, State Dept., DoD, CIA, Office of the Vice President): A staff-action-officer level group that focused on an integrated strategic effort to set the conditions for Iraq’s transition to stability and sovereignty.
.
.
o Interagency Executive Steering Group (NSC, State, DoD, CIA, OVP): An NSC-chaired Deputy Under Secretary level meeting that addressed strategic planning and policy recommendations for NSC Deputies’ Committee meetings.
.
.
o Interagency Humanitarian/Reconstruction Group (NSC, State, DoD, CIA, OVP, Treasury, DoJ, USAID): Prepared plans for immediate relief operations and longer term reconstruction in Iraq.
.
.
o Interagency Energy Infrastructure Working Group (State, DoD, CIA, DoE): Prepared plans to repair and operate the Iraqi oil industry in order to return output to pre-war levels.
.
.
o Interagency Coalition Working Group (DoD, State): A forum for coordination of military requirements, diplomatic strategy, and strategic support to build and maintain the coalition support (pre-war, war, and post-war).
.
.
o Office of Global Communications (State, DoD, USAID, DoJ, Treasury, the U.S. military, and coalition partners): Coordinated public affairs efforts at the strategic level, working to counter Saddam Hussein’s disinformation campaigns.
.
.
.
MILITARY/CIVILIAN PLANNING INPUTS
Military
MILITARY/CIVILIAN PLANNING INPUTS
Military
.
Additional organizations were created to continue in-depth planning, interagency coordination, and implementation. For example, the Joint Staff directed CENTCOM to create Joint Task Force 4 (JTF-4) in order to conduct detailed interagency planning for Phase IV stabilization operations.
Additional organizations were created to continue in-depth planning, interagency coordination, and implementation. For example, the Joint Staff directed CENTCOM to create Joint Task Force 4 (JTF-4) in order to conduct detailed interagency planning for Phase IV stabilization operations.
.
The most significant outcome was a CENTCOM produced 300-page Phase IV Operations Order. It was focused on seven lines of operation: unity of effort, security, rule of law, civil administration, governance, humanitarian assistance, and resettlement.
.
.
Civilian
A wide assortment of other institutions prepared studies or assisted with planning sessions considering possible post-war challenges. Included among those is the Future of Iraq (FOI) project and the National Defense University (NDU) exercise.
.
A wide assortment of other institutions prepared studies or assisted with planning sessions considering possible post-war challenges. Included among those is the Future of Iraq (FOI) project and the National Defense University (NDU) exercise.
.
FOI offered many valuable insights and contributions to various aspects of post-war planning, as did the NDU event in February 2003. Over 150 U.S. Government representatives (including members from ORHA) participated in this interagency rehearsal and planning exercise at NDU. Lessons learned from the exercise were taken back to the interagency working groups for incorporation into the processes.
.
.
Civilian officials on these interagency teams worked on post-war plans in the following ten sectors: health, education, water and sanitation, electricity, shelter, transportation, governance and rule of law, agriculture and rural development, telecommunications, economic and financial policy.
.
.
DIRECTORATE OF SPECIAL PLANS
The Office of Near East and South Asia (NESA) Affairs was one of four regional offices (working under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs) whose daily mission was formulating international security and political-military policy. (The other three regional offices being Africa, Asia and Pacific, and Western Hemisphere)
Expansion
.
In September 2002, due to increased workload related to the Global War on Terrorism and the possibility of an Iraq contingency, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the expansion of the Northern Gulf Directorate within NESA.
.
.
This office was responsible for exploring policy concerns in planning issues ranging from deployment, coalition building, potential war crimes investigations, Iraqi opposition and training issues, oil issues, postwar Iraqi media and many others. Their office was increased from 4 people to approximately 16 to handle the increased workload.
.
.
In October 2002, the Directorate of Special Plans was formally established as an expansion of the NESA’s Northern Gulf Directorate to concentrate on policy issues with respect to Iran, Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism.
.
.
.
Renaming
It was titled the “Directorate of Special Plans” because, at that time, the creation of an “Iraq Planning” group (or similarly named group) in the Pentagon conducting specialized planning for a potential Iraq contingency could have undercut ongoing diplomatic efforts in the UN and elsewhere.
.
It was titled the “Directorate of Special Plans” because, at that time, the creation of an “Iraq Planning” group (or similarly named group) in the Pentagon conducting specialized planning for a potential Iraq contingency could have undercut ongoing diplomatic efforts in the UN and elsewhere.
.
The Directorate of Special Plans was a policy planning group, nothing more. As such, it was a consumer, rather than producer of intelligence products.
Mission
.
Mission
.
It developed defense policy options for senior decision makers, coordinated those options within DoD and across the interagency, monitored the implementation of defense policy and recommended course corrections to defense policy.
.
.
It did not conduct intelligence collection, create intelligence products, conduct operational war planning, or implement policy.
.
.
In 2003, when planning for Iraq was no longer a sensitive issue, the office’s name reverted to Near East, South Asia/Northern Gulf (NESA/NG) to reflect its regional focus.
.
.
.
OFFICE OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (ORHA)
In January 2003, the Department of Defense created the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA): an expeditionary interagency office with officials from all departments and agencies in charge of detailed planning and implementation.
Jay Garner created ORHA from scratch, staffed from over a dozen offices of the U.S. government, our coalition partners and from the private sector. ORHA managed the distribution of humanitarian assistance and began the process of building the new Iraq both physically and politically.
.
OFFICE OF RECONSTRUCTION AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (ORHA)
In January 2003, the Department of Defense created the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA): an expeditionary interagency office with officials from all departments and agencies in charge of detailed planning and implementation.
Jay Garner created ORHA from scratch, staffed from over a dozen offices of the U.S. government, our coalition partners and from the private sector. ORHA managed the distribution of humanitarian assistance and began the process of building the new Iraq both physically and politically.
.
.
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY (CPA)
When General Franks, as Commander of the Coalition Forces, declared Iraq’s liberation, he announced the creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA served, in effect, as the acting government pending the Iraqi people’s creation of a new government. General Franks was the initial head of the CPA.
COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY (CPA)
When General Franks, as Commander of the Coalition Forces, declared Iraq’s liberation, he announced the creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA served, in effect, as the acting government pending the Iraqi people’s creation of a new government. General Franks was the initial head of the CPA.
.
The CPA reported directly to the President through DoD. The rationale for reporting directly through DoD was based on lessons learned from Bosnia and a desire to eliminate a dual reporting and command structure.
.
The CPA reported directly to the President through DoD. The rationale for reporting directly through DoD was based on lessons learned from Bosnia and a desire to eliminate a dual reporting and command structure.
.
In Bosnia, the U.N. was responsible for civil reconstruction, the judiciary and other ministries. The peacekeeping force however, operated under a different chain of command. Many contend the lack of coordination between the military and civilian entities has led to the prolonged involvement of all parties. We did not want to repeat past mistakes.
.
.
The plan always was when major combat operations were completed, a senior civilian administrator would be appointed in Iraq and ORHA would report to that administrator.
The President named Ambassador L. Paul Bremer as his Envoy to Iraq, placing him in charge of all civilian U.S. personnel in Iraq, including ORHA.
The President named Ambassador L. Paul Bremer as his Envoy to Iraq, placing him in charge of all civilian U.S. personnel in Iraq, including ORHA.
.
It is untrue that Mr. Bremer’s appointment reflected dissatisfaction with the work of Jay Garner. Mr. Garner’s job leading ORHA was complex, the conditions difficult, and the time short. His achievements however, were substantial. He is deserving of great praise for his efforts.
.
.
It is untrue that Mr. Bremer’s appointment reflected dissatisfaction with the work of Jay Garner. Mr. Garner’s job leading ORHA was complex, the conditions difficult, and the time short. His achievements however, were substantial. He is deserving of great praise for his efforts.
.
.
COUNTER TERRORISM EVALUATION GROUP (CTEG)
While not involved in post-war planning, the CTEG is often confused with the Directorate of Special Plans.
While not involved in post-war planning, the CTEG is often confused with the Directorate of Special Plans.
.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, our nation found itself, for the first time in our history, engaged in a war against a non-linear foe with no identifiable boundaries and a global organization. The Department of Defense identified a need to analyze conflict with a terrorist network, versus a traditional nation-state. In October of 2001, a two-person team was set up to study this issue.
.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, our nation found itself, for the first time in our history, engaged in a war against a non-linear foe with no identifiable boundaries and a global organization. The Department of Defense identified a need to analyze conflict with a terrorist network, versus a traditional nation-state. In October of 2001, a two-person team was set up to study this issue.
.
The mission of the CTEG was to review the vast amount of existing intelligence on terrorist networks, think through how various terrorist organizations relate to each other and how they relate to different groups that support them; in particular, state sponsors. It did this on a global scale, not focusing on any particular nation or region.
.
.
Its main conclusion was that groups and states were willing to cooperate across philosophical, ideological lines in order to achieve their goals. During this study, some interesting observations about linkages between Iraq and al-Qaida were discovered. These observations were shared with the CIA and other groups among the intelligence community in August, 2002.
.
.
=======================
.
.
Somebody had one too many tacos at Taco Bell. Diarrhea of the mouth is, well, bad. You know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)