Thursday, August 29, 2013

Legally speaking. "Intellectually there is nothing similar between Iraq and Syria."

There are definitely parallels between the two countries, as a matter of fact when Iraq used chemical weapons against it's own people the USA did nothing.

The CWC aims to eliminate (click here) an entire category of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by States Parties. States Parties, in turn, must take the steps necessary to enforce that prohibition in respect of persons (natural or legal) within their jurisdiction...

The Convention was developed over 20 years. It was open for SIGNATURE just before President Clinton took office January of 1993. He would see it ratified a few years later as countries signed on to it. The Convention is relatively new on the timeline of Geneva and the Geneva Conventions as well as the Nuremberg Trials. But, it is a good treaty between countries that pledged to eliminate these terrible weapons. These weapons were used in WWI. They were used without a second thought during that heinous war.

The Convention on the Prohibition (click here) of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (otherwise known as the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC) was opened for signature with a ceremony in Paris on 13 January 1993—130 States signed the Convention within the first two days. Four years later, in April 1997, the Convention entered into force with 87 States Parties—the ratification of the Convention by at least 65 States, achieved in November 1996, was a precondition to trigger the 180-day countdown until the Convention’s entry into force. Currently, the CWC comprises 184 States Parties, as well as a fully functioning implementing Organisation, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)...

The map above shows the nations that have agreed with the Conventions and those that do not. The darker green nations view the Conventions as a treaty and abide by it. They do that basically because they have been asked to do so and given foreign aid and/or alliance for their loyalty to the Conventions. The yellow nation is Myanmar and ratified it but is not a signator. It may be that is the status of Israel as well. If that is the case it brings an interesting dynamic to the President's decisions.

The red nations on the map are non-signators. Syria is one of them. These weapons are heinous and should be gone from the face of Earth, but, they are not and we have to accept that TODAY.

Those that are not signators were never expected to kill their own people. It was recognized these nations don't have other military options other than alliances to bring pressure to bear to honor their sovereignty.

I believe President Obama is correct in that Syria has gone over a line, no different than Saddam did awhile ago, because, they are suppose to be DEFENSIVE weapons, as Saddam's Scuds were and the USA military donned their masks when the invasion began. So, there is no doubt President Obama holds the moral high ground. However, regardless of the evidence proving Assad's military have conducted these releases and shelling which more than likely contained those chemical weapons, there is wiggle room for Assad and his military. Not much, but, some.

The wiggle room results from the fact there is a civil war, therefore, Assad is at war. The fact this is a civil war can be used to justify his actions. The 'other side' of that logic is the fact he is using those weapons to wipe out ETHNIC populous. It is the Ethnic Cleansing, not the use of chemical weapons, that actually assails international law.

Turkey was among the first nations to not simply identify the use of chemical weapons, but, to state this is ethnic cleansing. Turkey would know. Turkey has been in the Cat Bird Seat the entire time. They are well invested into their own nation's sovereignty and the safety of it's people. If Turkey is worried about ethnic cleansing it brings brevity to President Obama's actions.

The positioning of USA Assets nearby has tamed the circumstances in Syria. That is a good thing. The USA is not judge and jury here. The USA has treaties and we happen to have a very decent and moral man in the White House. President Obama has not turned from this heinous war in Syria, but, at the same time his hands are somewhat tied. 

The USA has an enormous capacity, but, while that is a comfort for the citizens of the USA and the nation's sovereignty, it can cause more damage when intervening than if it left it alone. 

The global community would wave a wand and have peace at every turn if they could. I am fairly confident of that. It is that will that brings every nation that values human life to the diplomatic tables. It is that will Assad lacks. He has been problematic for a very long time, ask Lebanon. Ask Israel. 

The Middle East exists in an atmosphere of hate. The ethnicities hate each other, GENERALLY. There are some degrees of success in Iraq with it's provinces better defining their differences, but, cooperation between the diverse people really doesn't exist. The provinces would rather divide and become autonomous.

What has existed in the past is oppression of peoples with help from the USA. That reality existed in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and other nations including Syria. When oil was the USA's best friend it was the Sunnis in larger number and in power. It was the Sunnis the USA backed. It caused a lot of problems and we are seeing them today. I am pleased we don't lean on those nation's anymore. It is very difficult to watch them go through 'the sifting' through to freedom and democracy they claim to crave. 

Does all this make the world a little more dangerous? I don't think so. The USA and it's allies know a great deal about the nation's of the Middle East and where the dangers lie. The instability in the Middle East attracts attention rather than believing all is well. The attention provides information to any covert activities that would be a sincere danger to the USA and it's allies. I am NOT terribly worried. 

As to Syria. Assad is killing people. He is killing people within his own borders. He is killing them in a civil war. He has decided to use chemical weapons. He is carrying out ethnic cleansing according to a USA ally. It is reasonable for President Obama to end the missile launches that is wiping out many people of ethnic origins at a time, but, to enter Syria's civil war? That is not the place for the USA.

If one wants to apply this to a historic time? Which I think of it. The gassing of the Syrian ethnicities are dying in open air rather than chambers. They are being buried in rubble and perhaps mass graves rather than crematories. 

I believe the world needs to give the people of Syria a fighting chance and the use of chemical weapons has to stop. The ability to have those weapons fall into the hands of those that could use them indiscriminately is too great and a danger to our allies. I also believe Israel and our allies in the region including Jordan has to help decide the conclusion to this reality. It is their people that could be harm's way and that cannot be dismissed for a unilateral decision. If the actions by President Obama are unilateral that is very different than knowing what our allies decide is best. 

The actions of the Bush Executive Branch were very different. They unleashed the USA military with no measured results or a limited involvement. The Bush Executive Branch made their own reality and acted on it taking Great Britain and a coalition of the willing along for the ride.

This is not Iraq, but, there are parallels and there is every reason to step away from the brink.

While the USA brings pressure, real pressure not just symbolic, the United Nations needs to take its course while USA allies decide the best path for them.

Rumsfeld ran a cabal with Iraq, evidently he thinks that is the only way to proceed no matter the truth. I think it was called "Truthiness."

I take it this was on FOX. No one else would even consider it important. FOX are propagandists. Anyone want to guess who colluded the most with the Rumsfeld Cabal? Go ahead, make a guess. I bet you'll be right.

Rick Unger, Contributor 

Every now and then, (click here) one sees something happen right before one’s eyes that defies the laws of time, space, reality and reason. Such a moment occurred yesterday during a truly remarkable appearance by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business News program.
During the interview, Rumsfeld appeared to criticize the Obama Administration for failing to present a supportable argument as to why an attack on Syria is in our nation’s best interest.
“There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” said Rumsfeld....

Lawrence Wilkerson, New America Foundation, October 19, 2005 

"I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us though that most of the material, if not all, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth." 

Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON , Oct 20 2005 (IPS) - As top officials (click here) in the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office await possible criminal indictments for their efforts to discredit a whistleblower, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Wednesday, accused a ”cabal” led by Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld of hijacking U.S. foreign policy by circumventing or ignoring formal decision-making channels.
Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005 and when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces during the administration of former president George H.W. Bush, also charged that, as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice was ”part of the problem” by not ensuring that the policy-making process was open to all relevant participants.

”In some cases, there was real dysfunctionality,” said Wilkerson, who spoke at the New America Foundation, a prominent Washington think tank. ”But in most cases…, she (Rice) made a decision that she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president.”

”…the case that I saw for four-plus years,” he said, ”was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardisations, and perturbations in the national-security (policy-making) process”, he added.
”What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.”...

I oppose a Congressional vote on war.

This has got nothing to do with ending the chemical weapon capacity of Syria to kill. This is about the advantage Congress will seek to engage in a larger military spending.

There is going to be no boots on the ground. The missile sites have to be taken down to prevent any ability of anyone in Syria to launch. We are not going into another civil war. Never, again. We still have a country to rebuild and we are not going to be RE-EXPANDING the USA military. It is still too big.

No Congressional vote is necessary. If President Obama decides to act it will take far less than 90 days.

Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution (click here)

Friday, October 11, 2002

Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

The Late Senator Byrd talked about the travesty of this vote until he became to weak to serve. No more. If there were any legislation from the House or Senate it would be heavy with spending and don't need it.

The current military readiness of the USA includes plenty of weapons stores in the USA. Owning enough weapons to destroy the world is not an issue in the USA. 

No legislation, no amendments and no additional spending, This is an easy election issue. Congress is NOT going to get it's chance to return to war. Ain't no way!

March 19, 2003; "...Our intentions are questionable. Instead of reasoning with those we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination...."

This is not Bush and Blair all over again. Cameron is playing a dangerous game.

Let's realize Turkey is stating this is ethnic cleansing. Syria has many factions. It is vital to obtain the information from the UN to know what is taking place in Syria.

Ed Miliband announced on Wednesday that Labour would vote to block an immediate military strike against the Assad regime. Photograph: Felix Clay for the Guardian.

The Guardian

Britain's political class (click here) has been woken from its summer reverie with a shudder as the Syrian crisis creates a defining moment that will shape perceptions of all the main political leaders.
Ed Miliband, who takes pride in the way he confronted Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, identified an even larger target on Wednesday when he announced that Labour would vote to block an immediate military strike against the Assad regime. While that created a parliamentary headache for David Cameron, Labour aides acknowledged it also marked a direct challenge to Barack Obama's plan to launch the strikes before the weekend.
Downing Street is, naturally, deeply irritated with Labour and borrowed Margaret Thatcher's famous warning to George Bush Sr after the Iraqi invasion on Kuwait, when it accused Miliband of undergoing a "wobble". The Labour leader had appeared to indicate for 24 hours that he would support military action subject to proper legal clearance....

Thatcher was never all that. Millibrand is doing Cameron a big favor. He is making Cameron take stock of the circumstances facing them before anyone in Syria dies from a single shot by The West.

No one can deny the chemical weapons are out of control in Syria, but, it would be a mistake to make assumptions of these problems. Assad is completely without ability to control the chemical weapons, but, to simply assume a few strikes might end the danger is sincerely not known yet.

Now if Cameron wants to proceed while realizing all the facts aren't in yet, that it is at his own political peril and the possibility deaths can be hung around his neck.

I would expect the missile sites would have to be destroyed along with the missiles as in Libya. That would begin to eliminate the danger. No one, regardless of the faction, could launch at anyone else. That could be a very fateful incident if the missiles were launched over a Syrian border.

By Calev Ben-David
Bloomberg News

Israelis thronged to distribution centers (click here) to pick up government-issued gas masks, afraid their country will be targeted in retaliation if the U.S. attacks Syria.

The Israel Postal Service, which is distributing the masks, announced on its website that the centers would extend their hours until evening "due to extraordinary demand." In Haifa, the biggest city closest to the northern border with Lebanon and Syria, people waited in line for hours, Israel Radio said. Some centers ran out of masks.

"I'm disappointed there aren't enough masks, but I'm also upset at myself because my mother told me six months ago I should take care of this," said Inbal Demma, 28, of Jerusalem, who had come to pick up masks and an infant gas tent at the city's Hadar mall for herself, her husband and their 2-month-old daughter...

I am grateful the USA is standing by for the UN Inspectors. If we weren't there I doubt the cooperation would exist. I believe our presence has given everyone pause as well.

I fully expect there will be no tampering of the specimens either. Chain of custody is important as well as the methods to process them. 

Photo By Hans Punz

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann and President Heinz Fischer welcome U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, from left, at the Hofburg palace in Vienna, Austria on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Ban says the UN inspectors investigating the the alleged chemical attack in Syria will be leaving the country on Saturday. He asked for time for the inspection team to complete its investigation. He says all opinions should be heard before anyone makes decisions on how to react to the alleged attacks. Painting in the background shows late Austrian Empress Maria Theresia.

August 29, 2013 
Updated: August 29, 2013 12:53pm

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United Nations (click here) says some of its chemical weapons experts in Syria will personally take samples to laboratories around Europe after leaving Damascus on Saturday morning.
U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq says the team's final report will depend on the lab results and that it could take "more than days."
However, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon expects to receive an initial report on the investigation soon after the experts leave Damascus. Haq said Ban is flying back to New York on Thursday, cutting short a visit to Austria to be ready to receive the report.
The team's mandate is only to determine whether chemical weapons were used in an attack that reportedly killed hundreds of people last week. But Haq suggested that the findings might indicate who was behind the attack.

New Gun Control from the President

Old West lawmen (click here) routinely carried a short, double-barreled shotgun on walking patrol, and it was the weapon of choice for stagecoach security riders. The “sawed-off” is far from being a museum piece, however. For example, mechanized infantry in Iraq have used short shotguns to prevent suicide bombers from clambering onto moving tanks and APCs prior to detonating their explosives.

No longer without registration and special permit. Congratulations to the growing movement of responsible gun ownership. Great work.

Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January (click here)

  • Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort. 
Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

  • Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns.  These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
  •  However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation.  At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run.  ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.
  • Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole.  The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually.  By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.
Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

  • When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval.  Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms. Hello!!! Who was in the Executive Branch? This is crony politics. Very dangerous chrony politics. 
  • A quarter of a million military weapons were brought back into the USA. People were set up to purchase these weapons by stating they were necessary for self-defense. Get for real here. If every weapon was sold for $2000, which I am quite sure they sold for more than that, the sales to gun shops was $500,000,000. 
  • A half of billion US traded hands within the gun industry and don't forget the original sales by the manufacturers overseas. That is a lot of money. 
  • The folks that purchased these weapons didn't have them before 2005. No one is going to tell me those people could not have improved their lifestyles and financial security if they didn't buy the guns. There is no need for this. This is all part of the faux economy of Bush and the Right Wing still today. Not anymore. Those guns kill innocent people and empower nothing that isn't already available otherwise.
  • Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums.  This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.
  • These weapons were facilitated through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs. That means there was a relationship with the USA to allow the sales in the first place. Then the recipient of those sales turned around and decided to make money from the USA by selling them back to the consumers in the country. Not only that, but, the guns are paid for by ASSISTANCE programs to facilitate the sales from the manufacturers in the first place. So, basically, if the foreign entities wanted to get rid of the military weapons they should rightfully have simply returned them to the consumers because taxpayer monies already paid for them during the transaction with manufacturers.
  • This abuse raises the question as to whether the USA weapons programs are at all necessary AND should they be funded by USA taxpayer dollars. This is abuse that has killed Americans. 
  • These are questions for elections. Will legislators allow such abuse in their capacity to vote for legislation?

Does this sound like a viable business that seeks to survive or thrive?

A trucking company (click here) based in the southwest suburbs that owes the Illinois Tollway almost $215,000 in unpaid tolls and fines leads a list of "super scofflaws" that the toll road agency debuted on its website Wednesday.
The roster of 157 companies has amassed unpaid missed tolls and penalties totaling almost $3.7 million, with some violations dating back as long as 10 years, according to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority.
Yet representatives from several of the businesses that the Tribune contacted said the Tollway's claims are inaccurate and that their companies were being unjustly flogged in public....

NEW YORK -- Fast-food workers across the United States (click here) staged their largest strike to date this morning in an almost year-long campaign to raise wages in the service sector.
Employees of McDonald's Corp, Wendy's Restaurants LLC, Burger King Worldwide Inc and others walked off their jobs in 50 cities from Boston, Mass, to Alameda, Calif., organizers say. They were expected to be joined by retail employees at stores owned by Macy's Inc, Sears Holdings Corp and Dollar Tree Inc in some cities....
Thomas Edison and a Detroit Electric car in 1913.

Think about it.

What should Roger Smith had done? Better said, "What should the stockholders and Board of Trustees done?"

When Smith wanted to move GMC's production plants to eliminate American Labor costs, what were the right questions the Board of Trustees/Directors should have asked before taking it to the stockholders?

There are checks and balances here, but, no one is executing them. 

What the Board of Trustees did was to look at the balance sheet Smith provided and listened to how he was going to make their dreams come true and make them rich by diving into the "GMC Infrastructure" rather than building a better mouse trap.


Every municipality knows it's tax base. Every corporation doesn't know their product base. 


Boundaries. A municipality's tax base can only grow if it annexes neighboring municipalities and it is done all the time. Supposedly, the annexing city can provide infrastructure to the annexed municipality cheaper and faster because they just have to dispatch their police and emergency response over a greater area. What is the big deal? Sometimes it is not a big deal, but, if the annexed area is large, then it becomes a very big deal. But, the extra taxes that will become part of a municipalities treasury is guaranteed. 

Government takes a lot more skill in protecting the integrity of a municipality than a corporation does. A corporation can reorganize, merge and simply close up shop with no regrets. A government entity can't do that. 

So, to think for one minute corporate CEOs are the answer to governing is a huge mistake. Governing has to provide services, corporations are suppose to provide profits and those profits don't have to provide services to their employees.

Government and corporate realities are very different. The paradigms don't intersect.

What the Board of Directors/Trustees should have asked Roger Smith was, "Roger, where is all this going? Where are the balance sheets about the future of the company. I don't want to know how much I am going to put in my pocket next year so I can finally buy my yacht outright and sail into the sunset with my spouse, I want to know what the future of GMC looks like ten and twenty years from now." 

The people with the most power at GMC never asked the right questions. They allowed themselves to be pulled into a reality of a greedy CEO. At the time Roger Smith was CEO the word "Multi-national" was very fashionable. If companies were multi-national why that meant earnings the size of the planet itself. The problem wasn't the word, no different than today, it was the METHOD of achieving the goal that was the problem. 

The worry is that 'the method' hasn't changed since the day of Roger Smith and it isn't the profits that are rolling in, it is the residuals within governments that are being drained. 

The USA federal government is being asked to do more with much, much less income. The tax base of the USA has shrunk because the citizens earn far less than they used to earn. The population grows, requires more services but the tax base doesn't increase in proportion. 

The method the CEOs use to balance their books and earn huge bonuses is about draconian measures, not that of growth or invention or long term strategies.

The Republicans are "W'rong. They have been wrong for a long time and the USA shows it. Our economy has to reflect healthy private enterprise with stability and sustainability. Our economy has to 'be there' to insure our sovereignty.

Government doesn't have control of the private industry no should it, but, it does have the right of reassurances from those seeking to make profits within our borders. When a corporation the size of GMC decides to move it's operations to Mexico while destroying an entire region of the USA's economy there should be all sorts of warning bells sounding and the corporate structure needs to be asked to reflect on the foolishness of those decisions.

Roger Smith should have been thrown out on his ear, but, it just wasn't fashionable to have a wealthy man not be thought of as a genius.

Every private corporation should ask itself, whom is in their brain trust and who are they leading exactly. That is if they are longing for a sustainable corporation or one that simply devours the assets of others.

Zoning for dollars.

I don't believe for one minute Mayor Bloomberg is not seeking to make a city successful, but, this is problematic.

If a city says, "Go ahead, build those buildings to custom demands, BUT, bear the cost for the government infrastructure," it creates long term problems should any of those companies fail and/or move on.

There is no doubt any business large enough to buy into a plan like this has plenty of money to spread around so they can have what they want the way they want it. What they don't have is the cost of unemployment when they aren't there anymore or the monies needed to remove the blight when it occurs and the building no longer serves the needs of others with a different vision.

Zoning for any city or town or hamlet has to be based in 'land use' and not profitability. This plan is going to fail. It won't fail immediately, but, it will ultimately fail. There will be no monies in the city's treasury to make up for the loss of tax income to pay for re-zoning when it becomes necessary. It will ultimately become necessary.

Zoning is a big deal. LAND is a big deal. Land and it's use is something everyone understands as they have to live and work somewhere. I sincerely believe a dollar figure can be assigned to drive a tax base for a MUNICIPALITY. But, realizing the BUDGET that has to be generated for municipal services is somewhat fixed if the elected government has done a good job and provided for quality of life for it's citizens. 

Working with public employee unions should never be that much of a big deal unless their demands are simply outrageous. It is called planning. It is why a portion of the tax dollars are INVESTED for returns on that investment. Investment is about the future. No one says taxes have to go up when public employees are given a raise or their pensions are granted.

Privatizing zoning is not the way to do it. Long term plans by a government to drive stability and success is the way to pursue the best outcomes for generations. People become attached to their lives and build histories, high school reunions, it is not conducive to stability to hand off land as if it should be nothing but profitable or privatized.  When people hang on to their lives in this way, the way Americans do, then the government has to match that emotional bond with a long term plan.

By David W. Dunlap
Publishded: August 27, 2013

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan (click here) to encourage construction of large new office towers around Grand Central Terminal as a way of keeping East Midtown commercially competitive amounts to an illegal game of “zoning for dollars,” the City Club of New York has asserted.

Under the plan, developers seeking to build towers larger than zoning rules ordinarily allow would pay $250 for every extra square foot. This money would go into a fund that would finance pedestrian and transit improvements in East Midtown, and the mayor has said it could reach $500 million. 

The City Club likened this mechanism to extortion, and said it would not survive judicial scrutiny...

Government is NOT private industry. It is smarter.

See this guy? This is Roger Smith. Roger Smith was the CEO of GMC when they began to outsource American Labor.

Do I have to say anything more? Maybe.

When Roger Smith began to degrade American Labor in DETROIT the entire economy of region lost it's pace. 

Let's get something straight. It was private industry that caused Detroit's decline from being a vibrant city.

When GMC outsourced their labor needs, it not only destroyed the entire regions economy, but, it locked the industry into producing automobiles that became outdated and worthless to the American consumer.

See, Roger didn't just send American Labor outside the USA, he sent infrastructure monies to other nations. He went out and said to his Board of Trustees and Stockholders, "If we build a plant in Mexico we can make money hand over fist on our products."

Once Roger Smith built his plants in Mexico, it was locked in because now he had to be correct or lose his bonus and quite possibly his job. When he, AND IF HE, discovered how completely stupid an idea that was, it was far, far too late. 

The reason GMC fell apart was because of completely foolish investment. If Smith wanted to run home to Mommy when the entire economy in the region fell apart he couldn't. He spent a lot of money building plants and now he had to make the profits he promised. So, when it came to an economic disaster, JUST BLAME THE GOVERNMENT.

Do I see a vicious cycle here? And as of today, Snyder is doing the exact same thing. Destroy rather than rebuilding. Snyder is gambling he has the 'goddish' answer everyone is looking for.

It is unconstitutional to institutionalize the emergency manager dynamic and it is time to file suit to stop it.

Does anyone ever stop to realize the "Moral to the Story" of Roger Smith? Don't know? Roger Smith's leadership was the worst the USA ever witnessed. He had lots of money. The money he had defined him as a successful man. Everyone wants to be a million-billionaire after all.

The moral to the story of Roger Smith is "When an empire is built and a region thrives realize why and leave it alone and INCUBATE that success elsewhere." Smith never incubated anything. He destroyed what others had built and believed in. The City of Detroit BELIEVED a successful man would be the "Boom Town" forever because the wealthy never make mistakes. The wealthy after all never have to apply for food stamps.

Snyder's plans for Detroit extends beyond the reconciliation of bankruptcy.

Where does this guy get away with extending the bankruptcy into the future? Snyder is taking the emergency management far beyond bankruptcy.

Snyder is amazing, first he bankrupts the city, THEN, he wants to look at the NYC recovery. NYC had a federal bailout. What is this already?

Originally Published:    
Modified: August 08, 2013 6:59 AM

...The state is looking to New York City's brush (click here) with bankruptcy in 1975, he said. That city avoided bankruptcy with the help of a state-facilitated committee of business leaders called the Municipal Assistance Corp.

Snyder has no idea what he is doing. Not only does not know what he is doing, he doesn't trust the people of Detroit with their own future. Snyder must have an amazing ego. He must be seeing wealth in his own pocket after his Governorship.

...The governor can also receive a report from that board at a time of his choosing, and if that report shows the financial conditions of the city have not improved, the governor can appoint a new emergency manager.

"People don't know that the MAC was around for 20 years and it shows how we can have oversight (post-bankruptcy)," he said. "I don't want people to think we'll be around for 20 years, but this will take place."

Snyder said the committee's makeup is unknown at this time, but will rely on economist projections of city tax revenues to help generate budgets.
Regarding Battle Creek's delayed bond sale this week - a delay that was affected by Detroit's filing - Snyder said he expects these delays to continue throughout the state and the Midwest as financial markets get a grip on the bankruptcy filing's ripple effect.

Snyder said he's pleased with the timeline U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes has laid out for getting Detroit out of bankruptcy in the fall of 2014.
"The judge is moving fairly fast and it shows that if you have the right team in place and lay the right groundwork, we can get this resolved quickly," he said.
Snyder said the much-hyped review of the city's assets, including the art inside the Detroit Institute of Arts, is overblown and common practice in any bankruptcy filing....

So, let me see if I get this right. Detroit is in financial trouble and instead of asking for a bailout the city is forced to accept bankruptcy. The timeline to resolve the bankruptcy is fairly short to RETURN DEMOCRACY to the city, but, that isn't good enough. So, all the bond holders that are going to take a beating on this bankruptcy just have to be disposed of so Snyder can have his own Emerald City to play without any baggage. No obligation and an infrastructure set for profit. My, my.

CORPORATE TAKE OVER. Snyder is the ultimate insider with a strategy of a corporation. In other words, Snyder is giving Detroit the "Bain Capital Treatment." 

This is exactly the problem with electing Republicans. They don't care about the people and they are greedy without any obligation to support a financial infrastructure to result in a healthy economy so much as a demolished one.

"Let's kill the beast and wonder why it doesn't breath anymore." 

"Well, Golly Mah, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time."

No insight, no planning, no future, no appreciation for any culture including the financial infrastructure that has stood by Detroit all these years, just pure unadulterated greed. Me, me, me, me, me and my money.

Snyder is a control freak. He is ELIMINATING what he considers the problem and expects there to be a method of funding after he destroys his funders. Oh, wait, let's go to the federal government for a bailout when the funders are dead and rebuild the city on the sympathies of the nation. Then all the "Friends of Snyder" can apply for federal aid and completely eliminate any competition that existed before. Then INSTITUTIONALIZE the Emergency Manager to CONTROL the long term outcome to line the pockets of "Friends of Snyder."

Why does his sound like corruption to me?