Saturday, May 11, 2013

The Minimalist. I can't honestly say she was wrong in her estimation to guide the talking points for the administration.

Victoria Nuland crafted the talking points Ambassador Rice delivered on the Sunday following the attacks that killed Ambassador Stevens. 

Ms. Nuland has worked in the federal government for quite some time and for three administrations. She would not be in the positions she has held unless she was excellent at what she does.

The responsibility of the State Department Spokesperson is not to inflame a set of circumstances, quite the contrary it is to set a tone for what will follow by others inside and outside the State Department. A spokesperson does not set policy. And, true to form as she estimated in her first statement by Ambassador Rice to the public, the President would later address the tragedy as a terrorist attack. It was the responsibility of the President and not Ambassador Rice to give a military assessment to the nation.

Ms. Nuland had a difficult task, she didn't want to state anything to the public that was classified and at the point where Ambassador Stevens lost his life and that of his security detail the information surrounding the tragedy was mostly classified. I don't care what the Right Wing says, up to the point where more was known about Benghazi, it was classified. The primary source of public information was through news organizations and not the federal government.

By Associated Press, Published: May 10
...Nuland’s email said such revelations (click here) could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails....

Benghazi was basically an unknown to the USA after a civil war. All previous understanding of Libya before the civil war was null and void after the war.

There were CIA agents in the area of Benghazi putting together an assessment for the government. That information was not complete or available. If Ambassador Stevens was developing his own 'baseline' about Benghazi, it was now gone with his death. Why he chose to be in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 and not later is something we may never know. I do know in his emails from Tripoli there were reports of an explosion near his office and he believed he would be safer in Benghazi. He may have thought he would be safer in Benghazi on September 11th than in Tripoli. Those are his personal assessments.

It would seem it all to obvious Ms. Nuland was correct. She did a very good job actually. She had her hand on the pulse of the politics and how dysfunctional it could make the country in the face of the Benghazi attacks. 

Neocons scream war at their earliest convenience. There was no reason to war  on behalf of the USA even though the consulates were USA property. This was an action by militias and/or criminals and not a sovereign nation. It isn't as though the sovereign government wasn't interested in defending the USA consulates and/or capturing any criminals causing the death of a USA diplomat. 

With a recovering USA economy there was a lot hanging in the balance. Any information in talking points that focused on a CIA lack of intelligence would result in the immediate political escalation to create a drum beat to war. Regardless of the solid decision making moment to moment by AFRICOM in regard to Benghanzi look at where we are with this tragedy today. There is no respect for the decision makers.

Regardless, here again, it would be the President making those statements to the nation, not the State Department or Ambassador Rice and not the Congress regardless of the political drive it displayed to enter a war within Libya. The politics would have caused too many problems and Ms. Nuland made an assessment. It was her right to do it. Those in office have to trust someone and Ms. Nuland has impeccable credentials.

The country remained engaged after the news of the attacks without sending itself into a financial or economic tailspin. She did her job and did it well.

Now, if anyone wants to have a dialogue about these events it needs to be 'in context' and not a matter of propaganda.

Tea Party vs. GOP

The Democrats have no reason to sabotage the Tea Party.

Karl Rove inspired targeting of groups effecting the outcomes of Conservative Primaries.

Following the loss of seats due to Tea Party Primary outcomes a boom in applications occurred to establish a greater grassroots support for the party. The organization claiming discrimination often used the same address on their applications. There was reason to take a longer view at these group of applications as well.

...Lois Lerner, the director of the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt groups, acknowledged that the agency had singled out nonprofit applicants with the terms “Tea Party” or “patriots” in their titles in an effort to respond to a surge in applications for tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012....

...But the leader of one of the groups that cried foul, the Kentucky 9/12 Project, said he had received no such admission from the agency. Eric Wilson, the group’s director, said he never complied with the I.R.S. questionnaire (click here)....

Douglas Shulman was confirmed as IRS Director March 24, 2008 by the former President Bush. Shulman is pure Wall Street, he has no allegiance to the Koch Brothers.

Commissioner Shulman began his five-year term on March 24, 2008. He presides over the nation's tax administration system, which collects approximately $2.4 trillion in tax revenue that funds most government operations and public services. He manages an agency of over 100,000 employees and a budget of approximately $11 billion.

Mr. Shulman was the person responsible for the sale of the New York Based Stock market shortly before taking his position with the IRS. His role in the changing hands of the American Stock Exchange took place on January 17, 2008.

On January 17, 2008, NYSE Euronext announced it would acquire the AMEX for $260 million in stock; on October 1, 2008, NYSE Euronext completed the acquisition.[5]Before the closing of the acquisition, NYSE Euronext announced that the AMEX would be integrated with the Alternext European small-cap exchange and renamed theNYSE Alternext U.S.

There is more to this than meets the eye and the Obama administration has nothing to do with it.

New York, Oct. 1, 2008 – NYSE Euronext (NYX), (click here) the world’s leading and most diverse exchange group, today completed its acquisition of the American Stock Exchange(R) (Amex(R)), becoming the third-largest U.S. options marketplace and enhancing the company’s leadership in ETFs, cash equities, closed-end funds and structured products. The transaction is expected to produce annualized run-rate cost savings in excess of $100 million by the end of 2009 and be accretive to earnings.

"We welcome the Amex to the NYSE Euronext family," said Duncan L. Niederauer, NYSE Euronext CEO. "This combination is beneficial to our customers and shareholders, further improves our competitive position in U.S. options, ETFs and cash equities, and enables us to realize significant operational efficiencies and new business opportunities. Amex customers will have more products and services available to them and the advantage of leading-edge technology. On behalf of everyone at NYSE Euronext, I want to thank Neal Wolkoff as well as the staff and members of the Amex for their outstanding support."

Neal Wolkoff, former Chairman and CEO of the American Stock Exchange, said: "I am extremely pleased that we have completed this compelling and strategic business combination that joins Amex to NYSE Euronext. Amex’s diverse business groups will enhance the competitiveness of NYSE Euronext’s different product lines and provide new business opportunities to the marketplace."

The earlier in age American people begin their Wellness Visits they will continue these habits over a lifetime.

One in ten women will receive a new diagnosis for breast cancer next year. 

- Did you know that the cost of detecting cancer early will cost less in treatment than if a diagnosis is discovered late? 

- Did you know the outcome to our nation is better when diagnosis is made early because wives and mothers remain within their families adding to families stability and economic success of for the rest of their lives? 

- Did you that early detection of cancer insures a stronger nation for the continued longevity of it's citizens?

- Did you know the free mandatory preventive tests for cancer now a part of our lives due to the Affordable Care Act will cause the cost curve of health care for the nation to bend down exponentially almost as soon as the act is in full effect in 2014?

- Did you know that young men's lives can be saved if they receive preventive testing and care when testicular cancer is found early?

  • A type of cancer that occurs in men’s testicles
  • Young men are most at risk
  • Early diagnosis can save your life.
Even though testicular cancer is not very common, it is a serious concern for young men. It is the most common cancer among men aged 20–34. But if testicular cancer is found and treated early, it is usually curable.
Whether you think you may have testicular cancer, or are a concerned friend, family member, or partner, you may have many questions. Here are the answers to some questions people commonly ask about testicular cancer.

It is a highly treatable and usually curable type of cancer. (click here) If you (or a loved one) are worried about developing testicular cancer, have just been diagnosed, are going through treatment, or are trying to stay well after treatment, the Detailed GuideOverview, or More Information can help you find the answers you need.

The survival rate is higher for men diagnosed with early-stage cancer and lower for men with later-stage cancer. 

- For men with cancer that has not spread beyond the testicles (Stage 1; see Staging), the survival rate is about 99%. 

- For men with cancer that has spread to the retroperitoneal lymph nodes (lymph nodes in the back of the abdomen), the survival rate is about 96% but depends on the size of the lymph nodes with cancer. 

- For men with cancer that has spread to distant areas outside the testicles, the survival rate is 73%.

Empowerment of Sexual Assault Victims and Prevention

I think the real discussion surrounding sexual assault in the USA, especially within the military, is based in the removal of shame, empowerment to trust 'the system' and preventing any impetus to the cause.

To begin, the military is about adults and not teenagers.

Immediately, seeking protection from assault is vital. Immediately, providing confidence in 'the system' to address the most minor of complaints needs to begin. Immediately. That means qualified female civilians are now IN PLACE, immediately, at positions of empowerment and qualified male civilians are now IN PLACE, immediately at positions of empowerment.

The victims placing the complaints should have their choice of the gender of their empowerment path. That means if women believe they will be 'able to report' more confidently to a female than same should be provided. If a man believes they will be 'able to report' more confidently to a male then same should be provided. If their requests are the opposite gender than that needs to be accommodated. Signatures on permission to treat begins with the first words of the complaint with absolute privacy. 

There can be no military record of these complaints anywhere in the soldiers record. If a civilian court finds a soldier guilty they are given a dishonorable discharge.

I want to see the allegations of sexual assault in the military removed from the military structure. Sexual assault needs to be viewed as a civilian matter with the USA military accepting the outcomes of the civilian courts. The civilian courts are to be an ADJUNCT to the military in this matter simply because the military has failed so profoundly in their ability to empower victims and bring about sincere justice.

There is to be no appeal to a military tribunal and/or officer regarding the decisions of the civil courts in this matter. May I be as so bold as to think an Executive Order from the Commander and Chief can actually facilitate this. I don't care if these folks are in a combat situation, they are immediately to be reassigned to separate units and at the earliest possible time given leave to seek civilian authority to facilitate the complaint. This can be done and needs to be done.

In regard to the 'military orientation program' of soldiers, be they men or women, in regard to knowing what sexual assault is and when to move to protect themselves; they need to be given the same information civilians receive AND any other OPPORTUNISTIC prevalence that is exclusively military. 

This is going to sound counter intuitive and very harsh but A SURVIVAL METHOD for women or men assaulted can be to allow the rape. Women do survive rape. If relinquishing the fight is a better outcome to provide survival of the assault, then so be it. 

What occurs in these drastic survival methods is PTSD. So, victims surviving rape by allowing the physical over powerment of their will are to be considered seriously for mental health issues. Rape and not necessarily sexual assault immediately impacts on the survival centers of the brain and PTSD frequently is a reality. If a person raped within a military setting believes they will function better in their lives by staying in their military capacity that should be guaranteed to those that report. By the way, allowing these people to remain in their military capacity can be validated by civilian psychiatrists.

PTSD when brought on by sexual assault has to be considered a legitimate reason for VA Disability benefits as well. PTSD is PTSD regardless of it's etiology. PTSD for VA Disability is measured exactly the same whether it is rape or combat.

I would never deny a person the right to submit to rape if they can survive in that manner. I would list it as a survival tactic to be a part of a tool box when faced with sexual assault. 

By the way, I LEARNED to handle the physical prowess of a man/a person larger than I, set on rape through a program offered by the university police. I did that on a weekend where the minority of the time was spend on classroom theory and the majority of the time was spent on learning physical self-defense. 

These learned techniques in my tool box would end if someone was using a gun or knife at me. So the idea I could submit rather than fight to save my life (and knives are frequently the intimate/covert tool of rapists) is a reality. It is not my first choice and I was empowered to believe I could stop the rape and RUN from it. Getting away from the assault is ALWAYS the focus of actions of the victim and then calling authority TO REPORT. Reporting is not only therapeutic, but, it is being a real friend to others that will be faced with these horrible possibilities.

Sexual assault is complicated, very. But, as a society we have defined 'Date Rape' and as a military I am confident there are those that can define 'Military Sexual Assault.' This is doable. Men can be gentlemen and women can be ladies. I realize the paradigm of war and combat changes many things when dealing with these issues, but, it is not impossible to prepare soldiers to be gentlemen and ladies in anticipation of sexual passion vs. sexual assault. Failing to provide a strong military based in respect for gender as well as soldier capacity would be a profound disappointment to the nation. Our sons and daughters are important and the relationships they build within our military should be a point of pride, too.

Earned Benefit Programs, SSI and Medicare and Compassionate Benefit Programs such as Welfare Payments, Food Stamps and Medicaid are the 'baseline' of the USA economy.

When everything else crashes, the USA Treasury, the innate quality of the American 'economy of will' and it's Earned Benefit Programs and Compassionate Programs are the very real economy that will guarantee a 'spring board' for not just the USA, but, the global economy.

The real problem with Entitlement Reform is the unnecessary requirement for it in the USA.

The Republicans use "Entitlement Reform" as a rhetorical rant for their base. It is unrealistic and there is no reason for it in the USA. 

One of the very favorite rhetorical reference is "We don't want to be Europe" or "We don't want to be Greece." That is comparing apples to oranges and it needs to change.

There is no comparison between Europe, Greece or even Canada to the GDP of the countries. The capacity of the USA to honor ALL it's promises is completely obvious. The reason the GOP won't accept "Chained CPI" as Entitlement Reform is because they don't really care about changing it, they want to get their hands on the trust fund that is a very different paradigm to dance.

When Bush was illegitimately placed back in office in 2004 due to the culture of fear in the USA promulgated by their illegitimate 2000 victory and complete and deliberate incompetency in protecting the nation; he demanded $2 Trillion US to begin the privatization of Social Security. He also passed Prescription Drug Coverage for Medicare Recipients. Both those measures are an assault on the destruction of our Earned Benefit Programs AKA: Entitlements.

How can that be? Because the prescription drug program is a huge drag on Medicare and creates an incredible expenditure by the USA that helps "Entitlement" expenditure closer to 51% of the national budget. Bush also never included the USA military budget in any of his annual budget proposal. The USA military budget was always a measure passed separately. All those measures, moving monies out of the SSI Trust Program into the private sector, adding a Medicare Prescription Program and moving the DOD spending out of the annual national budget was a STRATEGY AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to dissolve the Earned Benefit Programs/Entitlements.

Please come to understand I support the Medicare Prescription Drug Program and if duping the GOP into believing they were actually going to reach their 51% goal to destroy these programs actually created a necessary program than so be it. But, that at the time was the plan by the Republicans. They wanted to not only starve the beast of the USA government, but, they also wanted to starve the Earned Benefit Programs to 'get their hands on them' and dissolve them.

There is a provision in the Earned Benefit Programs that basically states if the programs are going to sink the country, then it becomes an issue of sovereignty and the programs can be changed and/or dissolved. So, when discussing Earned Income Programs/Entitlements in regard to Republicans, it is not about changing the programs, it is about destroying them.

The ONLY discussion I recognize when it comes to CHANGING the quantitative amounts of our Earned Benefit Programs is when those programs assault the sovereignty of the USA. Otherwise, the General Budget of the USA has abused the right of taking loans against these programs so often it is MORAL to demand any 'gap' in the programs are funded BACK to the trust funds.

The General Budget of the USA has been DEPENDENT in solvency of the Earned Benefit Programs and in NO WAY can these programs be defunded. It was a huge immorality by the Republicans after 2000 to squander the budget surplus on 'buying the political favor' of the American people by sending out checks. That surplus has a MORAL COVET by our Earned Benefit Programs. Where there NEEDS to be INVESTMENT by the GENERAL FUND to sustain these trust funds forever, I suggest everyone get busy!

End of Discussion.