|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 6, 2007 1:20:02 GMT -5
Now that the liberals are in power will congress be able to better represent the will of the people? Not likely.
Here is a link to a very revealing story as to the disfunctional machinations of Congress. Click on last weeks story (Houses of Ill Repute) One has to ask ones-self: Where do we go from here and why won't the rest of the world follow?
<A HREF="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/">The tug of war</A>
Part three is the story to which I refer although part 1 and 2 are also good subject matter in reference to the above questions.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 6, 2007 9:32:22 GMT -5
I have to admit I'm too slow(dumb)to figure out how to do this. I seem to have bought a copy of the houses of ill-repute story Will someone give me a hint on exactly what to click? And is this in audio format? How much time do I need to listen?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 6, 2007 15:43:28 GMT -5
It is an audio format. It is an NPR radio show I believe they use Realplayer. The entire program is 1 hour but you can skip to any portion of the show once it down loads.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 6, 2007 15:53:11 GMT -5
There are four buttons to the left of the title Houses of Ill Repute "Video, Download, Adio, and CD. I admit that I am not certain what you will get if you click video or CD but the audio button should bring up your player and begin a stream after a few moments.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 6, 2007 16:08:22 GMT -5
I am listening to a forum on "Word for Word" another NPR show. The featured speaker is Norman Mailer. The comment he made which recieved the most reaction from the audience was "If you are serious about your politics you don't elect a cheerleader for president."
This is another show which you can listen to free.
I may be wrong about the video button. That may be Podcast. I'm not a Poddy Boy so I don't know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Feb 6, 2007 17:49:28 GMT -5
Norman Mailer is insulting all cheerleaders! The sillie twit!
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 6, 2007 18:38:03 GMT -5
Whoa! Ouch! I didn't think of it in the philosophical term.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 6, 2007 19:40:31 GMT -5
I listened to the show about party-wrangling in our Congress, and it's enough to make you move to New Zealand...wherever. It couldn't have been more timely, as today I watched the debate over whether to vote on the non-binding resolutions; if so, which to vote on; whether in fact anyone was filibustering; and more than anything - You Started It...No, You Did! C-Span is more fun than any other channel on TV. There was so much "my friend from Nebraska," "my friend from New Hampshire," "my respected colleague" etc., that I was ready to start throwing dishes.
But there's no doubt that hurt feelings and retaliation are foremost in deciding what gets done. Add posturing for 2008 and we can be pretty sure they're not going to accomplish anything. I will say, though, that McCain made me furious and Kerry was darned good - too bad I was probably one of 3 people watching.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 6, 2007 19:55:50 GMT -5
It is beyond ridiculous. If ever ther was a time for popular revolt this would be it. The congress is busy with its image of itself, the military is abroad, the president is clueless and can't articulate it. But alas the populace is busy opening presents.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 9, 2007 7:28:11 GMT -5
This is one of the funniest thing I've heard said recently....Funny - absurd - ridiculous - Sick They all seem sooo synonomous these days. Doncha think?
Wednesday, February 07, 2007 U.S. Spent Tons of Cash in Iraq
The Bush administration went on a $5 billion spending spree in Iraq in 2004 just six weeks before returning control of the government to Iraqis, according to a House oversight committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman said that in a 13-month period, the U.S. government had shipped 360 tons of cash to Iraq. <U>"Who in their right minds would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone?" he asked.</U>
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 9, 2007 7:29:53 GMT -5
<b>well lets see if bold works</b>
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 9, 2007 7:30:46 GMT -5
nope
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Feb 9, 2007 8:58:31 GMT -5
<b>well lets see if bold works</b> roges, I think you need to try brackets. Like this [ not those little pointy ones like this <
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Feb 9, 2007 8:59:31 GMT -5
I'll try it, now that I've offered the advice.
well lets see if bold works
Edited to add: Yep, that does it.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 9, 2007 10:45:55 GMT -5
OH
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 9, 2007 10:47:07 GMT -5
Teehee Blinkblink
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 9, 2007 12:15:48 GMT -5
Why don't you just use those cute little buttons at the top of the box? That Big B is for bold. Anyway, back to this: This is one of the funniest thing I've heard said recently....Funny - absurd - ridiculous - Sick They all seem sooo synonomous these days. Doncha think? Wednesday, February 07, 2007 U.S. Spent Tons of Cash in Iraq The Bush administration went on a $5 billion spending spree in Iraq in 2004 just six weeks before returning control of the government to Iraqis, according to a House oversight committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman said that in a 13-month period, the U.S. government had shipped 360 tons of cash to Iraq. <U>"Who in their right minds would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone?" he asked.</U> It's getting scary. Lunacy has ruled this war. I really don't want to be overly judgmental, because - as Bremer said in defending himself the other day - they had no social/governmental structure to work with. I mean it isn't as unforgiveable as the Katrina debacle, in that they had no functioning organizations to manage things. Bureaucracy has its advantages, despite its bad rep. Too much is a bad thing, but none at all is even worse. Still, cash by the ton?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 9, 2007 12:49:11 GMT -5
A very strange way of counting. Unless it is pounds, rather than dollars that were shipped. Maybe it means they sent £720,000.
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Feb 9, 2007 13:21:28 GMT -5
Well, Joe, Waxman stated the amount of dollars, $5 billion, in his first sentence and he simply followed up in a logical progression to kindly inform us of the weight of $5 billion for shipping purposes which was 360 tons for the previously stated $5 billion. If he had not mentioned the weight for shipping purposes, how would some people know the weight of $5 billion.
modified to erase an ing
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 9, 2007 13:31:16 GMT -5
Oh.
BTW, didn't the Beatles have a song about Waxman? Maybe Mike can furnish the lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 9, 2007 13:48:03 GMT -5
A possible explanation, though not really sufficient.
When I was in Afghanistan, we operated in a cash economy, as there were no functioning banks. We were paid (our grocery/incidental money, as we were volunteers) in cash, and the NGO's all had to be very security conscious around their payroll, as crime was rampant; the criminals (some of whom were Taliban seeking funds) knew when the paydays were, and how/where the cash was delivered for distribution.
The Coalition PRT's (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) were all out in the rural villages, operating out of storefronts to help meet the needs of the people. Their well or house was blown up, could they have money to rebuild it? (BTW, it cost about $100 to drill a well, and the bricks and tin to build a small "house" were similar or a little more.) It's winter and they need blankets and coats for their kids. Could they get them? The answer was usually yes - that's what the PRT's were there for - but they were obtained by giving the person cash (dollars or euro) to make the purchase at the market. The PRT members lived in the community and were "friends" with the village elders of the loya jurga, to try to keep things on the up and up. I hope the PRT's kept a log of cash flow and who was given money for what, but it had to be fairly informal, of necessity.
I am assuming conditions in wartorn Iraq are/were similar. I'd bet these cash distributions are among the most useful of our expenditures in accomplishing our "goal" of winning the hearts and minds.
Large quantities of cash are heavy. When I was a bank teller, my cash drawer was quite heavy, and it contained only $8,000 - $10,000. A suitcase filled with a million dollars in $100 bills would be heavy to lift (200 of those wrapped packs of 50 bills, if my math is correct). $10, $20, and $50 are better, due to forgery concerns around $100 bills - they can be difficult to spend - but much heavier.
I dont care to defend Bremer, but it can be harder than it looks and sounds to operate in a combat zone. You won't see these details if you are on a high-level escorted and protected Congressional sweep through, so it is easy to be critical.
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Feb 9, 2007 13:59:22 GMT -5
Oh. BTW, didn't the Beatles have a song about Waxman? Maybe Mike can furnish the lyrics. Actually, Joe, as the "Taxman" here and obviously good at equations in math, I'd be very interested in knowing what denomination of bills the $5 billion would be in to weigh 360 tons? Hello, Mike!
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 9, 2007 14:08:48 GMT -5
If each of those packs of bills weighs 8 ounces, then the $1 million in hundreds weighs 100 pounds.
I think there are 2,000 pounds in a ton (metric system is much easier here, but I'm already started in pounds/tons/dollars), so there would be $20 million in a ton, $7+ billion in 360 tons? Maybe they were mixed denominations? If so, I will have to ask my high-school-senior son, as he is better in algebra than I am.
Beatles and Waxman, Taxman can check my math. Please!
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 9, 2007 18:02:18 GMT -5
I agree with doctork's math. I have no independent knowledge of the weight of one pack of 50 bills, but taking that for granted, 360 tons of $100 bills would be $7.2 billion. The same wieght in 10's would be one-tenth as much in value, i.e., $720 million; 20's would produce $1.44 billion; and $50's would give you $3.6 billion. All sorts of combinations could give you $5 billion. You would get pretty close with 90 tons of 20's ($360,000,000), 90 tons of 50's ($900,000,000), and 180 tons of 100's ($3,600,000,000), for a grand total of $4.86 billion.
Thanks for the voice of experience about the need for cash, and plenty of it, doctork.
|
|
|
Post by Tillie on Feb 9, 2007 21:44:31 GMT -5
DocK, You and your co-workers did a wonderful job in Afghanistan. It's good to hear that the US dollars spent in that country didn't go astray and end up in the wrong hands but went to help the people truly in need. Are any of your group working in Iraq?
From your description of Afghanistan and, from what I've only heard and read, the situation in Iraq was and is quite different regarding the billions of dollars sent to war-torn Iraq. These billions of dollars have not been accounted for since they were handed over to the government of Iraq. Chairman Henry Waxman and The Oversight Committee are trying to find out what happened to these billions as that is what The Oversight Committee is supposed to do. Government auditors have repeatedly criticized both the US and Iraq governments for failure to monitor these billions. Also, Bremer has recently stated he made mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 10, 2007 6:46:12 GMT -5
I would bet the billions were distributed in sequentially numbered packs from the point of origin (mint or Federal reserve bank?), and probably even specific numbers and contents of packs were noted at the point of original distribution in Iraq - to the government, to the US/Coalition forces, to the Iraqi army (possibly = to the "government"?). The tracking problems lie at the next steps.
I don't know what the money was used for. I do know that reparation cash was reportedly given to families of civilian victims of "collateral damage," and to make repairs to schools and homes damaged by bombs. Monies were also paid to useful informants. Anonymity would be helpful to prevent reprisal againt the recipients. Early in the war, soldiers and marines were inadequately protected, and their leaders might purchase body armor or up-armoring for their trucks, with cash, at a market. If I were a platoon leader in possession of discretionary cash, I'd be inclined use it to protect my men in combat, and to ease the suffering of those innocents harmed inadvertantly. And in the heat of sniper attacks and IED's, meticulous accounting might not be my first priority.
If the money went for good of soldiers and deserving civilians, or if it lined the pockets of Shiite "leaders," accountability is warranted, to the best of one's ability to track it. I'd guess significant portions of the $5 billion will never be accurately tracked; seems to me 20% could easily be "lost" in these circumstances, maybe even misdirected to the undeserving while you attempt to get the $4 billion (80%) to those in need. And by that stage of the "game" they weren't tracking serial numbers.
If large quantities of cash with incriminating serial numbers show up in Maliki's or Moktada al Sadr's freezer, it will be useful evidence; I doubt it will be that easy.
Representative Waxman looks to me to be engaging in political grandstanding, more than a legitimate quest for accountability, though I haven't followed the story in enough detail to be sure.
I have a distaste for politicians who pontificate on the House floor for personal/partisan political gain, while ignoring the ugly realities faced by our armed forces. I strongly suspect large quantities of cash on the ground are necessary to accomplish the mission, and Mr. Waxman should be aware of this as he carries out his Oversight responsibilities
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 10, 2007 6:57:26 GMT -5
Tillie - the organization I worked for - IMC, or International Medical Corps - is also active in Iraq. At the moment, my family won't stand for me volunteering there. I need to finish my MPH first anyway, which should happen this summer/fall, then see where our youngest goes to college. With the MPH, I can get a paid job with IMC, if I choose that route, or I will do something else for four years until the college tuition bills are finished.
A friend of mine did a year in Iraq (medical volunteer) recently and found it boring!!! He wound up doing primary care when he was really hoping for war surgery. He must have been in the wrong place (it was classified), as I know there is plenty of trauma surgery that needs to be done. Personally, I'm fine with maternal-child health and train-the-trainer programs, which is what I did in Afghanistan
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 10, 2007 9:39:13 GMT -5
Doc?
I don't think we have been introduced. It's my pleasure.
Let me echo Tillie's acclaim for your taking the initiative to risk your personal health to help folks improve their lives through your positive participation.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Feb 10, 2007 9:48:43 GMT -5
My sis, a GP in Pueblo CO went to Malawi last summer with her son to work in a mission clinic. She's an angel. She had never been anywhere like that and all the pictures or study in national geographic or the medical journals can not prepare one fully for the reality of an impoverished populace; both the good and the harsh.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 10, 2007 12:23:21 GMT -5
Thanks, roges and Tillie, for the compliments. Really, I receive much more than I give when I do a humanitarian aid trip. We are so fortunate in the US, but sometimes we don't realize our many gifts until we see how others live.
As long as one follows "the rules" it's pretty safe in Afghanistan, and other places I've been - but there are a lot of rules, of course.
Ironically, when I volunteered for Katrina relief last year in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, we had Blackwater Security (yes, the same as in the recent news stories regarding contractor security in Iraq), because it was arguably more dangerous there. Let me hasten to add, it was the many out-of-state contact workers in the neighboring workcamp that posed the risk, not the local Plaquemines residents who were a pleasure to work with.
|
|