Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Gone at 77
Sadly, I did not know she was ill. My strongest memory of Odetta is a concert she gave at the First Parish Church on Congress Street in Portland on winter solstice, 1990. (I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1991.) That was incredible. She will be missed...
Sadly, I did not know she was ill. My strongest memory of Odetta is a concert she gave at the First Parish Church on Congress Street in Portland on winter solstice, 1990. (I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1991.) That was incredible. She will be missed...
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Here is Rice during the Iraq War run-up:
Of course they belong to Susan Rice, President-elect Obama's choice for the key foreign policy post of U.N. Ambassador. News fluff suggests, "Rice has spent her career studying how to prevent violence by alleviating poverty, curing disease and addressing climate change."
Fair enough, except the liberal hawk part is left out.
I also learn from the news today that Ms. Rice has roots and a summer home here.
RICE: "I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003)(H/T to the excellent A Tiny Revolution for those quotes.)
RICE: "We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. ... It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
RICE: "I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a question of timing and tactics...We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions." (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)
Of course they belong to Susan Rice, President-elect Obama's choice for the key foreign policy post of U.N. Ambassador. News fluff suggests, "Rice has spent her career studying how to prevent violence by alleviating poverty, curing disease and addressing climate change."
Fair enough, except the liberal hawk part is left out.
I also learn from the news today that Ms. Rice has roots and a summer home here.
New government for Canada?

Canada is held in high esteem in our household

Awesome site during our travels in New Brunswick, Canada
Looks like the Bush-friendly Harper government is about to leave in the wake of the economic meltdown.
The only reason the Conservative Party led by Harper was ever able to gain power as a minority is because the opposition to it was divided. In the wake of Liberal Party arrogance and scandal (see "Sponsorship scandal" HERE), it's standing sank, creating an opening for the Conservatives to slip in with only 36% of the vote in early 2006.
In recent elections, the Conservatives seemed to maintain the minority government. But the economic crisis has overtaken Canada too. Conservative reluctance to pass economic stimulus appears to have driven former enemy opposition parties--Liberal, New Democratic, and Bloc Québécois--into coalition to put an end to Harper's regime.

Canada is held in high esteem in our household

Awesome site during our travels in New Brunswick, Canada
Looks like the Bush-friendly Harper government is about to leave in the wake of the economic meltdown.
The only reason the Conservative Party led by Harper was ever able to gain power as a minority is because the opposition to it was divided. In the wake of Liberal Party arrogance and scandal (see "Sponsorship scandal" HERE), it's standing sank, creating an opening for the Conservatives to slip in with only 36% of the vote in early 2006.
In recent elections, the Conservatives seemed to maintain the minority government. But the economic crisis has overtaken Canada too. Conservative reluctance to pass economic stimulus appears to have driven former enemy opposition parties--Liberal, New Democratic, and Bloc Québécois--into coalition to put an end to Harper's regime.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Fascinating, "The administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes."
If I read this correctly, it seems the U.S. intends fully to continue to operate covertly in Iraq for an indefinite period, and somehow weasel its way into using the country to launch attacks on others, as it arrogantly and brazenly did in Syria a few weeks ago.
Also, if anyone wants to read theTreaty"Agreement," McClatchy does have it. Raed Jarrar had posted a translation a couple of weeks ago.
For his part, Obama has decided that Robert Gates is just the guy for managing the continuity at the Pentagon.
I may have to rip up my "I Voted for Change" stickers from three weeks ago. Except the little devils are wicked difficult to tear off the jacket I wore during canvassing.
If I read this correctly, it seems the U.S. intends fully to continue to operate covertly in Iraq for an indefinite period, and somehow weasel its way into using the country to launch attacks on others, as it arrogantly and brazenly did in Syria a few weeks ago.
Also, if anyone wants to read the
For his part, Obama has decided that Robert Gates is just the guy for managing the continuity at the Pentagon.
I may have to rip up my "I Voted for Change" stickers from three weeks ago. Except the little devils are wicked difficult to tear off the jacket I wore during canvassing.
Lock in was a bad deal:
Buyer’s Remorse Chills New Englanders Who Locked in Oil Prices
By Tom Moroney and Brian K. Sullivan - Nov. 26 (Bloomberg)
Along about June, time comes to decide about oil price lock in. Yes, we heat the Maine Owl residence with no. 2 fuel oil. This year caused a bit of a panic because the price had skyrocketed to about $4.70/gal by June. In April we had filled at the astonishing price of $4.05/gal, causing a surprise $600 budget shortfall. Should we now lock in $4.80 in anticipation of $6 or $7 prices by heating season?
My strategy was not to lock. I told the oil dealer to stop automatic fills and that I would be buying oil on the open market from the cheapest dealer at the cash price when I choose to fill. This was precisely the right call this year. Coupled with strong conservation measures, I'm now forecasting that we will end up buying about 575 gallons at $2.50 or less per gallon. The bill for this year will be more like $1400, rather than the $3000 it might have been under a lock.
Since 2003, I've made this call six times and only locked once for 2005-6. That was a good call, saving about $300. Last year, I did not lock and that was the wrong call. That $600 could have been saved. Other years I have not analyzed but my sense is locking would have been a wash to costing slightly more.
I'd like to say I foresaw the early-fall financial crash. But this is not the case. It was more a sense that with all the fuel switching going on in the spring and summer, demand would be suppressed, and it would be hard for prices to maintain. My break point was like $4, at or below which I probably would have locked. When the crash came, the floor on the oil price was pulled out and lock in became moot.
Buyer’s Remorse Chills New Englanders Who Locked in Oil Prices
By Tom Moroney and Brian K. Sullivan - Nov. 26 (Bloomberg)
Buyer's remorse is afflicting tens of thousands of customers in New England, where heating oil is used more than in any other U.S. region. Their eagerness to nail down a guaranteed rate backfired when oil prices fell.The term "suckered" is used by people who lost this bet.
"There was a belief that heating oil could rise to $6 or $7 a gallon," based partly on predictions by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, said Matt Cota, executive director of the 120-member Vermont Fuel Dealers Association in Montpelier.
"Some dealers had lines out the door," Cota said. "People were coming in with their checkbooks to sign contracts. There was a palpable panic in the cold-weather states."
Along about June, time comes to decide about oil price lock in. Yes, we heat the Maine Owl residence with no. 2 fuel oil. This year caused a bit of a panic because the price had skyrocketed to about $4.70/gal by June. In April we had filled at the astonishing price of $4.05/gal, causing a surprise $600 budget shortfall. Should we now lock in $4.80 in anticipation of $6 or $7 prices by heating season?
My strategy was not to lock. I told the oil dealer to stop automatic fills and that I would be buying oil on the open market from the cheapest dealer at the cash price when I choose to fill. This was precisely the right call this year. Coupled with strong conservation measures, I'm now forecasting that we will end up buying about 575 gallons at $2.50 or less per gallon. The bill for this year will be more like $1400, rather than the $3000 it might have been under a lock.
Since 2003, I've made this call six times and only locked once for 2005-6. That was a good call, saving about $300. Last year, I did not lock and that was the wrong call. That $600 could have been saved. Other years I have not analyzed but my sense is locking would have been a wash to costing slightly more.
I'd like to say I foresaw the early-fall financial crash. But this is not the case. It was more a sense that with all the fuel switching going on in the spring and summer, demand would be suppressed, and it would be hard for prices to maintain. My break point was like $4, at or below which I probably would have locked. When the crash came, the floor on the oil price was pulled out and lock in became moot.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Maine senator has 'em wrapped
Collins Watch opens the pathology lab, dissecting local news coverage of Senator Susan Collins during the recent Maine campaign for U.S. Senate. The results aren't pretty.
Collins Watch opens the pathology lab, dissecting local news coverage of Senator Susan Collins during the recent Maine campaign for U.S. Senate. The results aren't pretty.
Constrained energy flow

Halting growth past 74 million barrels per day
A few days ago The Oil Drum carried an interesting article explaining the association of energy and resource constraints with the current financial and economic crisis.
An Overlooked Detail - Finite Resources Explain the Financial Crisis
Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 21, 2008 - 8:43am
This paper "begins from the belief that consumption of natural resources – especially energy (or, more precisely, exergy) — has been, and still is, an important factor of production and driver of economic growth."
The experience of the last year suggests a fundamental instability in the economy. Wild oscillations have become typical. Hardly a day passes without the Dow Jones Industrial average experiencing a triple-digit swing. Oil has swung +100% and back -2/3 in less than two years. Capitalist business and finance is in pitched crisis and would collapse without immediate socialization of its debts. Is something very wrong here? The system seems to be blinking red.
Underlying that instability is the energy situation. Energy is not a paper asset that is manipulable by phony accounting. I believe we are beginning to see the systemic response to a situation where the rug has been pulled out from fundamental economic assumption that energy growth, hence economic growth, is limitless.

Halting growth past 74 million barrels per day
A few days ago The Oil Drum carried an interesting article explaining the association of energy and resource constraints with the current financial and economic crisis.
An Overlooked Detail - Finite Resources Explain the Financial Crisis
Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 21, 2008 - 8:43am
We are reaching limitsOne of the links in this item points to a paper (pdf) that "tests several related hypothesis for explaining US economic growth since 1900."
No matter what kind of resources we are working with, they don’t simply “run out”, as we use more and more of them. Instead, they become more and more difficult to extract. In the case of minerals, the ore concentrations become lower and lower. Mines need to be built deeper and deeper. Fossil fuels become of lower quality and more difficult to extract quickly.
For many years, depletion was not really an issue. Resources were so vast, and the leverage provided by energy from fossil fuels was so great, that we could extract as much of almost anything we wanted (oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, copper, phosphorous, gold, platinum, indium, gallium, fresh water, and many other things) very cheaply, in the quantities needed for whatever use was desired.
What has happened in the last few years is that we have started reaching the point where extraction of many of these resources is becoming much more difficult. In April, 2007, the CEOs of Royal Dutch Shell and of French oil company Total SA were quoted as saying that the days of "easy oil" are gone. Just this past week, the International Energy Agency released a report whose executive summary begins, "The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable environmentally, economically, socially.”
This paper "begins from the belief that consumption of natural resources – especially energy (or, more precisely, exergy) — has been, and still is, an important factor of production and driver of economic growth."
The experience of the last year suggests a fundamental instability in the economy. Wild oscillations have become typical. Hardly a day passes without the Dow Jones Industrial average experiencing a triple-digit swing. Oil has swung +100% and back -2/3 in less than two years. Capitalist business and finance is in pitched crisis and would collapse without immediate socialization of its debts. Is something very wrong here? The system seems to be blinking red.
Underlying that instability is the energy situation. Energy is not a paper asset that is manipulable by phony accounting. I believe we are beginning to see the systemic response to a situation where the rug has been pulled out from fundamental economic assumption that energy growth, hence economic growth, is limitless.
Monday, November 24, 2008
It's not so much public "protection" of the horrible Citibank to the tune of $300 billion as it is a privatization of public assets.
For next months bills, I think I'll just print up some stock certificates and send them to the government. The TARP will take care of them. Who needs money anymore?
Funny how these things always seem to happen on a Sunday night.
For next months bills, I think I'll just print up some stock certificates and send them to the government. The TARP will take care of them. Who needs money anymore?
Funny how these things always seem to happen on a Sunday night.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Status of forces agreement seen by "progressives" as a U.S. "blink"
Last night, Rachel Maddow had THIS interview with a McClatchy reporter who yesterday filed a story, "Why the U.S. blinked on its troop agreement with Iraq."
The idea is that "U.S. negotiators had failed to understand how the two countries' political timetables would force the U.S. to make major concessions that relinquish much of the control over U.S. forces in Iraq."
I just read THIS from an interesting "progressive" site that I've never heard of before:
Did the Bush Administration blink when negotiating the Iraq SOFA?
November 20, 2:37 PM - by Jay McDonough, Progressive Politics Examiner
"Complete" is key for the Iraqis, who are fearful of U.S. continuing covert control. Patrick Cockburn has been writing consistently about how the Iraqis are driving that hard bargain out of these genuine concerns, especially about intelligence forces. See THIS recent Cockburn piece for more.
Can you blame the Iraqis for driving a tough bargain after almost six years of their doors being kicked in, millions killed or displaced, their sewers flowing in the streets, and their country in general being laid to waste?
Last night, Rachel Maddow had THIS interview with a McClatchy reporter who yesterday filed a story, "Why the U.S. blinked on its troop agreement with Iraq."
The idea is that "U.S. negotiators had failed to understand how the two countries' political timetables would force the U.S. to make major concessions that relinquish much of the control over U.S. forces in Iraq."
I just read THIS from an interesting "progressive" site that I've never heard of before:
Did the Bush Administration blink when negotiating the Iraq SOFA?
November 20, 2:37 PM - by Jay McDonough, Progressive Politics Examiner
Did the U.S. get the best deal with the recently completed status of forces agreement (SOFA) with Iraq? The agreement has been finalized and accepted by Prime Minister Maliki's cabinet and is now being debated in Iraq's Parliament. But some U.S. military personnel are privately criticizing the Bush Administration for giving Iraq too much control over U.S. forces.I think "blinked" or "snookered" are the wrong terms. It's more like cutting losses. The U.S. did not receive the earlier brazenly arrogant terms first floated because its power over the Iraqi political process is much diminished. Also, go to afsc.org HERE and read Raed Jarrar's translation of the actual thing. While it does contain hedge language that the U.S. could use to try to extend its stay or challenge Iraqi jurisdiction, the Iraqis have managed to set forth a 3-year timetable for complete withdrawal.
This SOFA, once approved, will provide Iraq authority over Iraqi airspace, give Iraq potential authority over U.S. military operations and intelligence activities in Iraq, forbid the U.S. from using Iraq as a launchpad to attack Iraq's neighbors, and allow Iraq jurisdiction over U.S. troops for crimes committed outside the U.S. bases.
This is a radically different SOFA from the one the U.S. pressed for at the onset of the negotiations. At that time, the U.S. had wanted an open ended agreement that would allow U.S. forces in Iraq for an indefinite period, the establishment of semi-permanent U.S. military bases, U.S. control of Iraq's airspace and no Iraqi jurisdiction over American military forces or subcontractors.
So, how did the U.S. get so snookered?
"Complete" is key for the Iraqis, who are fearful of U.S. continuing covert control. Patrick Cockburn has been writing consistently about how the Iraqis are driving that hard bargain out of these genuine concerns, especially about intelligence forces. See THIS recent Cockburn piece for more.
Can you blame the Iraqis for driving a tough bargain after almost six years of their doors being kicked in, millions killed or displaced, their sewers flowing in the streets, and their country in general being laid to waste?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Crazy weeks. More frequent posts will resume soon. Meanwhile, please read about the IEA 2008 World Energy Outlook HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Also, Maine has entered state budget meltdown mode while a worldwide "uproar" has ensued over a local wingnut's Obama assassination pool.
Talk amongst yourselves, allzeroone of you...
Also, Maine has entered state budget meltdown mode while a worldwide "uproar" has ensued over a local wingnut's Obama assassination pool.
Talk amongst yourselves, all
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Hardliner
2006 devastation of Lebanon by Israeli bombardment... The shoe was on which foot, Hillary?
Some reports say it's happening while others are more concerned that Bill's finances might be a roadblock.
My question right now is, Does the potential for one of the hardest of the hard-line Israel hawks becoming Secretary of State tick up currency of the notion of a policy "signal" to major campaign funders? It seems to me that at least some people will rest easier that they are getting from Obama what they paid for over so many months:
Clinton, Edwards Will Square Off At Aipac Tonight
By JILL GARDINER, Staff Reporter of the Sun | February 1, 2007
I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason Obama is moving in this direction. But surely it figures significantly in the calculations, no?
2006 devastation of Lebanon by Israeli bombardment... The shoe was on which foot, Hillary?
Some reports say it's happening while others are more concerned that Bill's finances might be a roadblock.
My question right now is, Does the potential for one of the hardest of the hard-line Israel hawks becoming Secretary of State tick up currency of the notion of a policy "signal" to major campaign funders? It seems to me that at least some people will rest easier that they are getting from Obama what they paid for over so many months:
Clinton, Edwards Will Square Off At Aipac Tonight
By JILL GARDINER, Staff Reporter of the Sun | February 1, 2007
Two of the leading Democratic candidates for president will compete head-to-head tonight for money and support from the same pro-Israel group. A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.More on Hillary as THE biggest U.S. cheerleader for Lebanon bombardment during Summer 2006 HERE.
"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."
Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has "an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro-Israel community."
"She is an extraordinary leader on those issues in the United States Senate," he said.
I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason Obama is moving in this direction. But surely it figures significantly in the calculations, no?
Posted by The Owl on Nov 18 at 02:23. Filed under: Palestine/Israel
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Will Albright receive the same hostility from Obama Jimmy Carter did when Carter dared to mention Israel has nuclear weapons?
U.S. study urges Obama to press Israel over nuclear program
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
Last update - 09:12 16/11/2008
U.S. study urges Obama to press Israel over nuclear program
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
Last update - 09:12 16/11/2008
The Middle East is in danger of accumulating large stocks of nuclear material over the next decade that could be used to produce over 1,700 nuclear bombs, a U.S. research center has projected in a newly released report.This is wishful thinking though I am very glad it is being said by the highly respected David Albright. But I fear that instead what we are likely to see orchestrated from the Obama White House is a constant drumbeat on Iran. Albright wants to make it clear there is a lot more danger than just Iran as far as Middle East nukes go. But that position is a non-starter for the U.S. Israel Lobby.
The Institute for Science and International Security, headed by David Albright, one the world's top experts on nuclear weapons and the prevention of nuclear proliferation, recently released its report urging president-elect Barack Obama to take a number of measures to avoid such an outcome, including convincing Israel to halt production of its nuclear weapons.
"The Obama administration should make a key priority of persuading Israel to join the negotiations for a universal, verified treaty that bans the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear explosives, commonly called the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT)," the institute argued. "As an interim step, the United States should press Israel to suspend any production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Toward this goal, the United States should change its relatively new policy of seeking a cutoff treaty that does not include verification. The Bush administration's rejection of the long-standing U.S. policy of requiring verification was a mistake that the incoming administration needs to rectify."
Posted by The Owl on Nov 16 at 14:31. Filed under: Palestine/Israel
Friday, November 14, 2008
Ever wonder how "flat" the world could get for NY Times columnist Tom Friedman?
Here's a fascinating Maine connection to the global panic that seems to be impinging on the family fortune of the smarmy writer:
Here's a fascinating Maine connection to the global panic that seems to be impinging on the family fortune of the smarmy writer:
the author’s wife, Ann (née Bucksbaum), is an heir to the General Growth fortune. In the past year, the couple—who live in an 11,400-square-foot mansion in Bethesda, Maryland—have watched helplessly as General Growth stock has fallen 99 percent, from a high of $51 to a recent 35 cents a share.General Growth is the owner of the Maine Mall in South Portland, recently reported to be facing bankruptcy.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Fit to print
Update: Please post your favorite short quotes from the YesMen NY Times in the comments below.
Update: Please post your favorite short quotes from the YesMen NY Times in the comments below.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
They need more than prayer.
Maybe you've seen the forwarded email going around that starts
The closing is a prayer,
I won't debate the prayer for now, though THIS adds some alternate impressions. No, what I'd like to challenge head on is the notion that prayer is the "best" gift for our troops.
Let's start with this continuing shocking story of rising suicide rate amongst military personnel, covered yesterday on the PBS News Hour:
Furthermore, THIS is shameful: Our veterans organizations are forced to sue in order to get the attention of the war-crazy Bush Administration on the crying needs of veterans:
Suit Asks VA to Expedite Benefit Claims Handling
By Ann Scott Tyson - Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 11, 2008; Page A08
Maybe you've seen the forwarded email going around that starts
The average age of the military man is 19 years. He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's, but he has never collected unemployment either. ...It goes on to mention, "He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation," and "He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding."
The closing is a prayer,
Prayer wheel for our military...The last line is, "Of all the gifts you could give a US Soldier, Sailor, Coastguardsman, Marine, or Airman, prayer is the very best one."
'Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands.
Protect them as they protect us.
Bless them and their families for the selfless acts
they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.'
I won't debate the prayer for now, though THIS adds some alternate impressions. No, what I'd like to challenge head on is the notion that prayer is the "best" gift for our troops.
Let's start with this continuing shocking story of rising suicide rate amongst military personnel, covered yesterday on the PBS News Hour:
BETTY ANN BOWSER, NewsHour Correspondent: By most accounts, specialist Scott Eiswert was a happy, outgoing father of three when he was deployed to Iraq in 2004 as a driver for the Tennessee Army National Guard.Over the past year, CBS News also has reported on this tragic issue. But see Maine Owl HERE for a troubling example of reduced priority in local coverage. What our veterans need is for their problems to be taken seriously, for hard-dick attitudes stopping people from getting the help they need to be eliminated, and above all, vastly increased funding for mental health services.
TRACY EISWERT, Widow of Iraq Veteran: Before he went, oh, my gosh, he was fun, and caring, and giving, and loved people. He was just a big kid.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But during his one year in the war zone, he experienced a lot of stress. There were close calls with roadside bombs. On one occasion, he saw three of his friends blown up.
TRACY EISWERT: I was not prepared for the man that came home. No one told me what to prepare for, what to look for. No one said he would be different. No one said he'd be angry. Nobody told me how different he would be when he got home.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: When Eiswert came home in December of 2005, he was different, radically different.
TRACY EISWERT: He was very angry. One of the girls said, "I want my daddy back." That hurt him really, really bad. They said, "You're not my daddy."
Furthermore, THIS is shameful: Our veterans organizations are forced to sue in order to get the attention of the war-crazy Bush Administration on the crying needs of veterans:
Suit Asks VA to Expedite Benefit Claims Handling
By Ann Scott Tyson - Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 11, 2008; Page A08
Two groups representing about 60,000 military veterans filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to force the Department of Veterans Affairs to speed up its handling of disability claims or provide interim financial relief for applicants.No, the "best" gift for our troops is not just a prayer. It is real pressure on our government to fund and resolve the issues that threaten to rob them of the decent, respected post-war lives they deserve.
The lawsuit demands that the VA make an initial decision within 90 days on all claims for disability benefits and resolve any appeals within 180 days. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, further requests that the court grant interim benefits to veterans if the VA is unable to resolve their claims under the deadlines. ...
Chase McCombs, a 26-year-old Navy veteran from Phoenix, said he suffered several injuries and eyesight deterioration during a stint as a Navy mechanic that lasted more than three years, including a deployment on an aircraft carrier during the early phase of the Iraq war.
After his discharge, private doctors gave him a diagnosis of optical nerve deterioration as a result of exposure to a harmful substance or head injury, and he is legally blind, he said in an interview. But he said his application for benefits related to his blindness has been denied twice since he first filed in December, and he is still awaiting a response to his appeal. ...
Posted by The Owl on Nov 11 at 18:58. Filed under: War and peace

