If the Department of Defense can be believed, at least half a million National Guards members and reservists have been shipped over to Iraq and Afghanistan. The number may be far higher.
DoD is coy about what, exactly, the Guard and Reserve members have been doing over there. But even the Pentagon's own news channel, not usually known for hard-hitting reporting, makes it clear that there's a lot of discontent in the ranks.
For one thing, the army's been stiffing Guardsmembers and Reservists on the hardship pay and medical care which should be coming to them when they get assigned to combat posts. Isn't it enough that we're forcing these men and women to help in the overseas occupation, without also robbing them of their due pay?
Take a look at the Pentagon video below.
http://dodvclips.mil/index.jsp?fr_story=FRdamp321579&rf=rss
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Shock treatment
The British government is going ahead with plans to arm thousands of police officers with electric stun guns, commonly known as Tasers.
The excuse? Home Secretary Jaqui Smith said that, while she is "proud" that the British police force does not carry firearms, she nevertheless wants to give police "the tools they need" to carry out their dangerous work.
So ten thousand more cops are going to have the tools they need to send 50 thousand watts of electricity coursing through the veins of suspected criminals. As Amnesty International notes, Tasers can cause serious injury or even death -- the guns have killed at least three hundred people in North America in recent years.
Most of those Taser victims were not even armed. Which brings up another point -- how will the British people react to the knowledge that their police force is carrying miniature electro-shock machines? Up until this point, British police have been a relatively benign force, at least compared to police in France or the United States. And British criminals, knowing that their police are unarmed, have not needed to arm themselves. Now the balance is shifting.
The excuse? Home Secretary Jaqui Smith said that, while she is "proud" that the British police force does not carry firearms, she nevertheless wants to give police "the tools they need" to carry out their dangerous work.
So ten thousand more cops are going to have the tools they need to send 50 thousand watts of electricity coursing through the veins of suspected criminals. As Amnesty International notes, Tasers can cause serious injury or even death -- the guns have killed at least three hundred people in North America in recent years.
Most of those Taser victims were not even armed. Which brings up another point -- how will the British people react to the knowledge that their police force is carrying miniature electro-shock machines? Up until this point, British police have been a relatively benign force, at least compared to police in France or the United States. And British criminals, knowing that their police are unarmed, have not needed to arm themselves. Now the balance is shifting.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Update: Wall Street IS Main Street
Silver, Nadler, and State Senator-elect Daniel Squadron have finally released their estimates of how much it would cost to move the FDIC out of lower Manhattan: between one and four million dollars a year, on top of multi-million dollar moving costs.
These figures may well be accurate, and it's certainly hard to understand why the Fed would want to abandon its long-time home in Manhattan's Financial District. I'd love to hear some explanations for this proposed relocation.
In the meantime, it would be nice if our political leaders would stop using populist rhetoric to talk about the plight of financiers. Daniel Squadron has taken to repeating that "in lower Manhattan, Wall Street IS Main Street." This may be catchy, but it's hard to swallow the idea that the financial sector is just another embattled local industry.
Other Democratic leaders have been complaining that "the worsening economy continues to hammer this community." Calling bankers a community is pretty laughable; describing them as a group of victims being "hammered" by outside forces, like polar bears losing their homes to rising sea levels, is beyond laughable.
These figures may well be accurate, and it's certainly hard to understand why the Fed would want to abandon its long-time home in Manhattan's Financial District. I'd love to hear some explanations for this proposed relocation.
In the meantime, it would be nice if our political leaders would stop using populist rhetoric to talk about the plight of financiers. Daniel Squadron has taken to repeating that "in lower Manhattan, Wall Street IS Main Street." This may be catchy, but it's hard to swallow the idea that the financial sector is just another embattled local industry.
Other Democratic leaders have been complaining that "the worsening economy continues to hammer this community." Calling bankers a community is pretty laughable; describing them as a group of victims being "hammered" by outside forces, like polar bears losing their homes to rising sea levels, is beyond laughable.
Fed flees financial district
New York's elected officials are up in arms over a plan to move the FDIC regional office out of its current location in Lower Manhattan. The FDIC has been threatening to relocate for at least fifteen years -- apparently they're very tempted by the cheaper officer space across the river in Jersey. But frankly, this just seems like a strange time for the Fed to leave the financial district.
A group of Democratic elected officials are gathering this morning at the current FDIC headquarters on 20 Exchange Place to protest the move. Sheldon Silver, Jerry Nadler, and Manhattan Community Board chair Julie Menin will hold a press conference on-site at eleven to express their outrage at a plan which, they say, would "undermine our nation's financial center, further erode investor confidence in the financial industry, and unnecessarily increase the FDIC's operating costs at a time of financial need."
They're also promising to release cost estimates which, they say, could save the FDIC millions of dollars every year.
Let's see what comes of this.
A group of Democratic elected officials are gathering this morning at the current FDIC headquarters on 20 Exchange Place to protest the move. Sheldon Silver, Jerry Nadler, and Manhattan Community Board chair Julie Menin will hold a press conference on-site at eleven to express their outrage at a plan which, they say, would "undermine our nation's financial center, further erode investor confidence in the financial industry, and unnecessarily increase the FDIC's operating costs at a time of financial need."
They're also promising to release cost estimates which, they say, could save the FDIC millions of dollars every year.
Let's see what comes of this.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
On the media: Brits miss the point
Spiked-online.com, one of the best British libertarian websites out there, has lately fallen into a very bad British habit. Rather than rely on their U.S.-based reporter (the excellent Sean Collins) to produce their U.S. news, Spiked has begun publishing long, fervent, and absolutely wrong-headed editorials out of their London offices.
The trouble with reporting on America (or on any country) from a distance is that fact-checking is nearly impossible. So is a sense of perspective. When European journals write about America, they tend to base a lot of their ideas on a reading of U.S. media and movies. What they end up with is an unhealthy mixture of mythology and prejudice. Spiked is no exception.
That said, we can all learn a lot from Spiked's bizarre readings of American culture. Here is their latest take on the "radical left's" hatred of George Bush:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5909/
The gist of this piece is that America's "cultural elites" hate George Bush because he represents greed, sloth, and drunken debauchery. And the elites love Obama because he's slim, fit, and gets loads of exercise:
"Now Obama, the teetotal healthy eater, is presented as America’s moral saviour after the cake-scoffing irresponsibility, greed and general drunkenness of the Bush years."
O'Neill's theory is strange in the extreme, given that Bush is a fanatical mountain biker who works out for three hours a day and hasn't had a drop to drink in twenty years.
But then again, O'Neill's sourcing is also strange in the extreme. He's watched the new Oliver Stone movie, W. And he's read through a selection of left-leaning magazines. All of his sources praise Obama for getting regular exercise -- and denounce Bush as a recovering alcoholic.
O'Neill reads this as an instance of the cultural elite's puritanical sensibility. He writes:
"The liberals who made a living from bashing Bush hated him primarily for sinning against their religion: the Church of Self-Denial and Self-Restraint."
But O'Neill is completely missing the point, of course. The left wing does not hate Bush because of his eating habits or his exercise routines. The left hates Bush for invading sovereign states, stripping away our civil liberties, and gutting our social programs, among other things.
Left-leaning commentators bash Bush wherever they can. This is why they attack his drinking, or, for that matter, his mispronounced words. Most people don't really care whether the president likes pepperoni, or how he pronounces the word nuclear -- these are just excuses to take cheap shots at someone we dislike anyway.
But maybe we all need to get over this bad habit. This habit of taking cheap shots.
Why are we so afraid to attack our political leaders for their real sins? Why HAS the left spent so much energy hammering Bush for such nonsense? Why are afraid to stand up for what we really believe in? No wonder foreign observers think that we're all obsessed with food and manners -- those are the only things we allow ourselves to be outraged by.
The trouble with reporting on America (or on any country) from a distance is that fact-checking is nearly impossible. So is a sense of perspective. When European journals write about America, they tend to base a lot of their ideas on a reading of U.S. media and movies. What they end up with is an unhealthy mixture of mythology and prejudice. Spiked is no exception.
That said, we can all learn a lot from Spiked's bizarre readings of American culture. Here is their latest take on the "radical left's" hatred of George Bush:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5909/
The gist of this piece is that America's "cultural elites" hate George Bush because he represents greed, sloth, and drunken debauchery. And the elites love Obama because he's slim, fit, and gets loads of exercise:
"Now Obama, the teetotal healthy eater, is presented as America’s moral saviour after the cake-scoffing irresponsibility, greed and general drunkenness of the Bush years."
O'Neill's theory is strange in the extreme, given that Bush is a fanatical mountain biker who works out for three hours a day and hasn't had a drop to drink in twenty years.
But then again, O'Neill's sourcing is also strange in the extreme. He's watched the new Oliver Stone movie, W. And he's read through a selection of left-leaning magazines. All of his sources praise Obama for getting regular exercise -- and denounce Bush as a recovering alcoholic.
O'Neill reads this as an instance of the cultural elite's puritanical sensibility. He writes:
"The liberals who made a living from bashing Bush hated him primarily for sinning against their religion: the Church of Self-Denial and Self-Restraint."
But O'Neill is completely missing the point, of course. The left wing does not hate Bush because of his eating habits or his exercise routines. The left hates Bush for invading sovereign states, stripping away our civil liberties, and gutting our social programs, among other things.
Left-leaning commentators bash Bush wherever they can. This is why they attack his drinking, or, for that matter, his mispronounced words. Most people don't really care whether the president likes pepperoni, or how he pronounces the word nuclear -- these are just excuses to take cheap shots at someone we dislike anyway.
But maybe we all need to get over this bad habit. This habit of taking cheap shots.
Why are we so afraid to attack our political leaders for their real sins? Why HAS the left spent so much energy hammering Bush for such nonsense? Why are afraid to stand up for what we really believe in? No wonder foreign observers think that we're all obsessed with food and manners -- those are the only things we allow ourselves to be outraged by.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Where's the Money?
The Outraged Optimist is looking for information about the outcome of the December 21, 1999 powerball lotto in Washington, D.C.
If we are to believe the public notices papered all over Judiciary Square, the D.C. government awarded those powerball winnings to a proxy, a stand-in for the true winner. The government has since refused to disclose the identity of either the proxy or the lotto winner.
This raises serious questions about what actually happened to the cash. Did the DC government just snatch it? Is the mayor having a party with this "proxy" and a few hundred of their closest friends? A group called Lewis Radcliffe Enterprises is reportedly investigating the matter. We here at O.O. would like to learn more about LRE and possibly assist in the investigation.
If we are to believe the public notices papered all over Judiciary Square, the D.C. government awarded those powerball winnings to a proxy, a stand-in for the true winner. The government has since refused to disclose the identity of either the proxy or the lotto winner.
This raises serious questions about what actually happened to the cash. Did the DC government just snatch it? Is the mayor having a party with this "proxy" and a few hundred of their closest friends? A group called Lewis Radcliffe Enterprises is reportedly investigating the matter. We here at O.O. would like to learn more about LRE and possibly assist in the investigation.
Homeland Security Radio
I’m sure other public radio listeners were just as stunned as I was, last week, when they tuned in to NPR’s Morning Edition and heard this:
This program was brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security, offering E-Verify -- the free tool that enables businesses to confirm the legal status of prospective hires.
What?? NPR is now taking money from DHS? Probably outraged innocents all around the country were falling out of chairs, spilling coffee, and cursing up a storm after this announcement – that’s what happened in my house, at least.
NPR has been growing steadily more commercial for years, but this is a new and gigantic step downhill. E-Verify is a DHS program that uses biometric information and a database of social security numbers to track so-called “illegal” immigrants. DHS offers e-verify free of charge to employers. Of course they do – the service is an excellent way to co-opt business owners, to turn every businessman into a border patrol agent, and to eliminate one of the last excuses (that of ignorance) to hire unauthorized workers.
It is disturbing enough that NPR, which claims to be independent, is accepting sponsorships from the federal government. But it’s even more troubling that the station is taking money to endorse what amounts to an ideological position. By accepting these funds and announcing the association on air, NPR is effectively endorsing Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant stance.
Think about it. When that somber, steady NPR announcer says that the program we’re listening to has been sponsored by Homeland Security, he is giving DHS a degree of credibility that it didn’t formerly have. Suddenly Homeland Security doesn’t mean a bunch of nutty man-hunters trying to build a fence across the Arizona desert. Now Hothe department is associated with the radio you know and love.
This also strips away the shame normally associated with immigrant-baiting. “Businessmen” who respect NPR are going to be far likelier to sign up for e-Verify after hearing it OK’s by their favorite radio station.
Let’s look at another side of this business. E-Verify was originally slated to sunset on November 29, 2008 -- at the end of this month. In September, Congress approved an emergency funding measure (H.R. 2638) which extends E-Verify's funding until March 6,2009. The bill, which President Bush quickly signed, gives E-Verify one hundred million dollars to "assist U.S. employers with maintaining a legal workforce."
In other words, E-Verify is flush with cash right now. This is why DHS can afford to take out radio ads.
And at the same time, the program is at risk of losing its long-term funding, once the Obama administration comes into power. Will the Obama White House renew E-Verify's mandate when the money runs out in March? Well, the recent rash of publicity on public radio certainly won't hurt Homeland Security's case.
This program was brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security, offering E-Verify -- the free tool that enables businesses to confirm the legal status of prospective hires.
What?? NPR is now taking money from DHS? Probably outraged innocents all around the country were falling out of chairs, spilling coffee, and cursing up a storm after this announcement – that’s what happened in my house, at least.
NPR has been growing steadily more commercial for years, but this is a new and gigantic step downhill. E-Verify is a DHS program that uses biometric information and a database of social security numbers to track so-called “illegal” immigrants. DHS offers e-verify free of charge to employers. Of course they do – the service is an excellent way to co-opt business owners, to turn every businessman into a border patrol agent, and to eliminate one of the last excuses (that of ignorance) to hire unauthorized workers.
It is disturbing enough that NPR, which claims to be independent, is accepting sponsorships from the federal government. But it’s even more troubling that the station is taking money to endorse what amounts to an ideological position. By accepting these funds and announcing the association on air, NPR is effectively endorsing Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant stance.
Think about it. When that somber, steady NPR announcer says that the program we’re listening to has been sponsored by Homeland Security, he is giving DHS a degree of credibility that it didn’t formerly have. Suddenly Homeland Security doesn’t mean a bunch of nutty man-hunters trying to build a fence across the Arizona desert. Now Hothe department is associated with the radio you know and love.
This also strips away the shame normally associated with immigrant-baiting. “Businessmen” who respect NPR are going to be far likelier to sign up for e-Verify after hearing it OK’s by their favorite radio station.
Let’s look at another side of this business. E-Verify was originally slated to sunset on November 29, 2008 -- at the end of this month. In September, Congress approved an emergency funding measure (H.R. 2638) which extends E-Verify's funding until March 6,2009. The bill, which President Bush quickly signed, gives E-Verify one hundred million dollars to "assist U.S. employers with maintaining a legal workforce."
In other words, E-Verify is flush with cash right now. This is why DHS can afford to take out radio ads.
And at the same time, the program is at risk of losing its long-term funding, once the Obama administration comes into power. Will the Obama White House renew E-Verify's mandate when the money runs out in March? Well, the recent rash of publicity on public radio certainly won't hurt Homeland Security's case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)