<p>Sigh. The House Appropriations Committee had hired 60 investigators to look into the unprecedented levels of fraud, waste and corruption in spending by this Congress. The investigators are said to have saved billions of dollars.</p>
<p>The head of the committee, himself under investigation, just fired them all.</p>
<p>I’m a realist, and our politicians can best be defined by their greed, not by their love of America. What Poet describes just isn’t going to happen.</p>
<p>Yes indeed, parent2noles, I am a “girl”. Mini, I’m sorry but I’m having a “lesser intelligence” moment: Could you explain what you mean by the term, “corporate socialists”. I have an idea, but somehow, I’m not putting it all together…:(</p>
<p>Allmusic, in my view, the only thing that keeps it from happening is our collective unwillingness to make it happen. It’s high time to examine why we’re so perenially unwilling to do so. After all, the fact still remains that it is our votes that place these people in office. We can vote them in, and we can vote them out. Why we are so unwilling to remind them that they MUST ANSWER TO US is beyond me. Perhaps the fact that we show ourselves willing to live with the fallout of political graft, partisan bickering, finger pointing, and overall ineffectualness, is what emboldens them to thumb their noses at us. </p>
<p>But I propose that the most powerful grassroots movement ever to sweep modern American politics, would be one wherein voters made a few simple, non-negotiable demands of its representatives: Things like no excuse accountability. It should be imperative that politicians show a willingness to actually admit when they’ve made a mistake (what a concept!), along with a deep desire to correct it. I could respect that in a politician. Heck, I wouldn’t expect perfection. I wouldn’t even expect that they should present the answers to our countless and complex problems in neat little packages. But I would expect them to work together, and with a sense of urgency, to solve our problems to the best of their ability. </p>
<p>They should no longer be able to vote themselves payraises, nor use tax dollars to provide themselves with the best of everything while the majority of Americans struggle to provide their families with the basics. Their fortunes should rise and fall with the collective fortune of the average American. They should not be allowed to raise obscene millions to smear-campaign themselves into office. All campaigns should be entirely predicated upon each politician’s own stand on the issues, and what he or she proposes to do to solve them. There should be no tolerance for criticism without the proposal of a constructive alternative. </p>
<p>It’s late, and I need to get some sleep, but I believe these are but a few of the things we should demand of our Presidents and elected representatives. If we the voters could rewrite the rules, what would you change?</p>
<p>Parent2noles, I hope you’ll now reconsider your grossly unfair and inaccurate claim that you offered that in constrast to the Democrats, “Republicans at least will fight when needed.”</p>
<p>I think history shows that non-Republicans have been willing to fight for our country whenever it was needed, and even in times like these, when the necessity of the fight is still widely debated.</p>
<p>No party has a monopoly on sacrifice in the defense of this country.</p>
<p>"Could you explain what you mean by the term, “corporate socialists”.</p>
<p>Why, sure. Corporate socialists are a tiny class of folks who learned, beginning really in the 1840s (though with earlier roots) that 1) competition was not really in their class interests; and 2) that by acting in concert, they could utilize government - laws, politicians, and government institutions - as instruments of class domination. It is “corporate” in that it is not the interest of any individual person that counts (though in the 1880s, the Supreme Court recognized the “corporate personhood” of corporations under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, something neither the Founding Fathers nor the framers of the 14th Amendment ever even remotely imagined); and it is “socialist” in that it unites a class and its resources in cooperative, collaborative (rather than competitive) efforts to achieve its own social and economic ends.</p>
<p>Something he has in common with Ralph Nader, btw (anti-corporate socialist).
Go Green Party!</p>
<h1>88</h1>
<p>I once had a bench next to an older and more experienced tech. He relates this story:
'In the late 50’s (Eisenhower administration) he was a SeaBee. His unit was tasked to build a nascent naval base in VietNam. He unfortunately got sick just prior to shipping. When he recovered, he asked when can he rejoin his unit. The reply, your unit was wiped out. </p>
<p>Your definition of “starting” and “ending” may be a formal definition, but there are other definitions.</p>
<p>itstoomuch, do you have any more details? I’m not doubting your friends’ story, but I’m interested in finding out more.</p>
<p>Through research, I was able to find an American casualty in Vietnam as far back as the 1940s, but nothing like a whole unit getting wiped out in the late 1950s. The Wikipedia article on the Vietnam conflict only talks about two Americans getting killed during the 50s, both in 1959. </p>
<p>Are you sure your friend said Vietnam and not Korea or some other theatre? And do you know if the deaths were combat-related? We have lost way too many servicemen and women over the years in accidents, especially transportation-related ones. This might be one reason that the unit isn’t getting much obvious mention.</p>
<p>ETA: <a href=“http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm[/url]”>http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm</a> doesn’t show anything like your friend’s unit, so likely whatever happened was non-combat related. Still a great loss though; I don’t think the families mourn any less.</p>
<p>Conyat:
Do you really believe than any Administration will admit to sending and losing men in an “insurgency” that was not authorized by Congress? Do you really believe that the US Military will admit to a annihilation of an entire unit, that went to VN without supporting troops? Remember that this was late 50’s and the VietCong was not deemed to be a big threat to SVN. </p>
<p>Do you also believe that the internet has all knowledge known to Man? </p>
<p>Believe what you want. I’ve been out of college for 35 years. I was told this story 25 years ago.</p>
<p>Another heresay story>
I have coffee with a neocon who had apartments. A daughter of one of his tenents joined THE COMPANY. A few years later, this daughter arrive home in a casket and a brief note: ‘In Service for her Country.’ No other explanations.</p>
<p>The vocal director of our opera company was part of a non-existent army intelligence unit in Laos. He was told going in that if he was killed, no one would acknowledge where had been, and that no one would try to recoup the body. </p>
<p>He ended up performing in cafes in Vientienne with North Vietnamese soldiers. (has some pictures, too.) Came in useful, as he is fluent in French, and is great with the French repertoire.</p>
<p>Itstoomuch, I wasn’t attacking your buddies’ story; I was simply pointing out it isn’t verifiable through historical documentation. One reason I suggested is that perhaps the casualties were related to something other than combat; Seabees have a very dangerous job even when no one is shooting at them.</p>
<p>You propose another explanation, that it was all hush-hush cloak and dagger stuff. That could be another reason; I wasn’t doubting your or your friends word. I was just asking for more information.</p>
<p>“Do you also believe that the internet has all knowledge known to Man?”</p>
<p>If you’d look at the site I linked to, you’d know it was an official Navy site with all the acknowledged casualties from hostile action. If his unit’s casualties were documented by the Navy as occuring from hostile action, it would have been there. No reason to scoff at the information merely because it’s on the Internet.</p>
<p>My apologies for coming across to sharp. </p>
<p>Nothing wrong in attempting to verify heresay. Sometimes even verified information will be attacked as wrong information on this board.</p>
<p>In todays NYTimes:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/world/middleeast/28reconstruct.html?em&ex=1162180800&en=c1321e5e6145dcbc&ei=5087 [/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/world/middleeast/28reconstruct.html?em&ex=1162180800&en=c1321e5e6145dcbc&ei=5087 </a></p>
<p>It has taken me awhile to be able to watch this documentary. Thank you SBmom for mentioning it. For those of you who haven’t, I recommend that you see this. It is in all of our best interests to understand the complicated mess that is going on in Iraq.</p>
<p>You’re welcome, overseas; I’m glad you found it worthwhile.</p>
<p>On mini’s recommendation, I read Imperial Life in the Emerald City.</p>
<p>Here’s a relevant quote from that book:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems worth investigating…</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it have been great if COngress had done its job with the republican leadership, that little thing called OVERSIGHT…imagine that</p>
<p>Now, maybe we will get some answers</p>