Obama Promises To Overhaul Veterans Affairs

Written By: Erik Stryder

Editor: Nigel Woodford

President Obama is finally addressing an issue that was overlooked and lied about during the Bush administration.  The President wants to increase the VA budget in the amount of 25 billion dollars over the next five years, paying particular attention to PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and the plight of homeless veterans.  

During the last administration, we were constantly subjected to Bush/Cheney sound-bites describing the patriotism and bravery of our military.  Away from the cameras, it was a very different story.  When they weren't singing the praises of the American military, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were busy ham-stringing veterans services and benefits.  

The blatant denial of services even included misdirection of services through mis-diagnosis.  Staff psychiatrists and psychologists were instructed not to be too quick to diagnose PTSD because the VA did not have the budget or the staff to treat the condition.  Meanwhile, our veterans suffered the consequences of an administration that was eager to make war, but not to accept the long term responsibility that accompanies warfare.       

The neglect of American military veterans by the United States government has been deplorable.  Actually, deplorable is not a word strong enough to describe the way in which our veterans have been treated.  When I consider the present state of the VA and the conservative schmucks who deny that it is happening, I become angry beyond words.  Let's understand something right out of the gate; a proposed VA budget and a passed VA budget are two different things!  Congress finally managed a comprehensive bi-partisan VA budget increase, and the man who looooves the military VETOED the bill!!!!  Republicans vivid political fairy-tales and fantasies do NOT change the reality of veterans health-care!  Ask any COMBAT veteran with a Purple Heart!  In some cases, a field hospital is less horrific than a VA hospital!

Let's talk about homeless veterans for a while, or rather, let's talk about how they came to be homeless.  I am going to bore the reader with statistics for a bit, but please understand two things: 1) these stats. are conservative estimates due to the obviously transient nature of the homeless, and 2) these statistics have a direct relationship with the root cause of veteran homelessness.  Forty-five percent of homeless veterans suffer from mental illness.  Fifty percent are chemically dependent.  These men and women became this way as a direct result of military service, through either experience or injury, or both.   Sixty-seven percent served more than three years.  Roughly twenty-five percent of all homeless people are veterans.

Inadequate funding for supportive environments for treatment of substance abuse is a major obstacle for a large number of veterans.  The horrors of war are not something to be taken lightly.  The things that our combat personnel see in the field are the stuff that screaming nightmares are made of.  Those of us that have not been to war can only imagine what it must be like.  It is regrettable that our veterans do not have the luxury of of only imagining it.  Battlefield experiences can lead a person to question his or her own sanity.  Retreat into substance abuse is not an uncommon coping mechanism, especially when the government is unable or unwilling to provide assistance.  A fair number of our veterans also become chemically dependent as a result of pain management regimens due to serious wounds.  

A new aspect of VA budgeting has arisen in recent years.  Female personnel are now an issue of concern.  The war in the Middle East really has no front line.  As a result, we have many women, both combat and non-combat personnel, whose needs are different than the males.  The VA needs additional funding to study and effectively resolve those needs 

The effective treatment of chemical dependence and mental illness is absolutely necessary if we are to help our veterans re-acclimate to society.  Veteran unemployment and homelessness can be reduced substantially with expansion and increased funding to these programs.  Special attention must be given to our veterans in these, and other, areas.  They have earned it!  

There are multiple reasons for the failure of the system, but most trail back to budget issues.  The VA simply does not get the funding it requires to serve the needs of the estimated 400,000 homeless veterans that need its services.  There will be many, many more veterans in need as they return from the Middle East in ever increasing numbers.   Doctors, surgeons, psychologists, physical therapists, prosthetists and medication cost money.  We cannot turn our backs on our veterans! 

A country that is proud of its military, and not loathe to utilize its services overseas, should not have such a general disregard for its veterans.  If you ask anyone about veterans services, they will generally be  positive and quite passionate about it.  The other side of the issue is that no one wants to pay higher taxes or sacrifice in other areas of the budget in order to accommodate the needs of veterans.  The latter is particularly true of the conservative side of the political fence.  Republicans want the military hardware.  They want to exercise the military.  They also want to cut taxes.  If you look at a breakdown of defense spending, you will see that veterans services take a back seat to hardware and active-duty personnel(active-duty personnel are also under-paid. We'll address that issue in a later essay)

Bottom line, congratulations to President Obama, assuming that he can actually accomplish what he says he wants to accomplish.  We will be watching, both carefully and vigilantly!

On Separation Of Church And State

Written By: Erik Stryder

Editor: Nigel Woodford

I compose this essay seated in a room surrounded by the writings of patriotic men of political genius: Thomas Paine, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and many others.   

These men had a commonality in their thought; they all understood that the separation of church and state was necessary if the horrors of the past were to be avoided.  They knew that the greatest atrocities men had perpetrated upon one another had been committed in the name of someone's God.  They were familiar with the lessons of the crusades and the inquisition.

Our founding fathers believed in the necessity of separation, so much so that they made reference to it in two explicit passages in the U.S. Constitution: article VI prohibits requirement of a religious test for the holding of any federal office or public trust.  The first amendment prohibits establishment of a religion or denial of free exercise of religion.  The inference of free exercise is also abstention from the practice of any religion.

More than a few of the founding fathers were not Christians, but deists.  In fact, many of them had a pronounced  distrust of organized religion.  They were well educated, thoughtful men.  They were a product of the age of enlightenment.  These men were knowledgeable students of history, philosophy, and theology.  They were men not predisposed to careless development of ideals.  

Given these historical facts, a return to traditional Christian values is a misnomer, particularly in a legislative context.  The Constitution does not provide for legislating morality.  It specifically and unequivocally forbids this type of legislation.  

There exist several questionable laws and court decisions regarding separation of church and state.  The most objectionable and ironic example I can think of is the Pledge of Allegiance.  The flag pledge was written in 1891 by Francis Bellamy, a baptist minister and Christian socialist.  He wrote it with profound emphasis on three words: freedom, liberty, and justice.  The phrase 'under God' was added to his pledge by congress in 1954 after a heavy lobby by the Knights of Columbus.  The addition of the phrase was a companion to the fear-mongering McCarthyism of the early 1950's.  'Under God' was added with the intent of denying freedom, liberty and justice to a select group of citizens.  Bellamy's grand-daughter has said that her grandfather would have resented the addition.  He was forced from his position as pastor of his church as a result of his socialist sermons.  His ouster occurred in the same year in which he wrote the pledge.  Bellamy later retired to Florida  He soon stopped going to church because Christianity was being manipulated to advocate racial bigotry. 

The Christian right takes an interesting view of their beliefs and of the meaning of the Constitution.  The bible says,”judge not, lest ye be judged.” It also says,”vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord.”  The bible says, “go forth and spread the word.”  It does not say,”oppress, persecute, and kill those who refuse to accept it.”  The Constitution does not say that we have the right to worship only the Christian God as we see fit.  It does not say that Christians have the right to force their dogma on the citizens of the United States of America.

It could be argued that the majority of the citizens have the right to impose their will on the minority.  This is, in theory, the way democracy works.  Majority rule is the way things ought to be, and this idea will work if it is implemented with benevolence.  The framers of the Constitution went out of their way to insure benevolence by requiring a 75% majority in order to add amendments to this extraordinary document.  Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, wrote, “In a democracy, the majority of the citizens are capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority”.  These words were ever on the minds of our founding fathers.

Let us hope that the future of our great country is wrought with benevolence.  Let us hope that the idea of the freedom upon which it was born remains chaste.  In a country that was conceived out of the necessity of escape from tyranny, what could be more fundamental?      

Rush Limbaugh: Hypocrisy And Ignorance The Order Of The Day

Written By: Erik Stryder

Editor:  Nigel Woodford

We are going to focus on an extreme right-wing media zealot today.  Rush Limbaugh is a great source of disinformation and misguided idealism.  We are surprised at how much there is to say about such a small-minded man, largely because he spews rhetoric without regard to fact.  His misrepresentation of history, which he has rewritten to suit his own venal purposes, is expansive.

Let us delve into the adult history of the heralded voice of the Republican party.  Mr. Limbaugh completed two full semesters and one summer semester of university education.  According to a 1992 interview with his mother, he flunked everything.  She said, "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio".  He had a number of jobs in music radio through the seventies and early eighties, finally arriving at KFBK in Sacramento.  Limbaugh replaced Morton Downey Jr..  Downey went on to host a television talk show whose logo was a mouth(not a brain).  Define irony!  The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which had mandated free air-time for views opposed to controversial opinions broadcast by any stations, launched Limbaugh's politically formatted radio career.  Limbaugh moved to New York City to begin his national radio show in 1988.  At the time of this writing, his nationally syndicated show commands roughly twenty percent of talk-radio listeners.  

The paradox Mr. Limbaugh represents is vast.  Obama Chief-Of-Staff Rahm Emanuel recently stated in an interview with CBS News Face The Nation that, "Rush Limbaugh is the voice and intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party".  There is no doubt that he is the voice and energy behind the Republican party, however, Limbaugh often presents contradictory ideas in a context suggesting that they are not.  He invents facts and statistics at will, speaking with an authoritative voice that colors his statements as truthful.  We have come to question whether or not he actually listens to what comes out of his mouth.  The intimation that Limbaugh is intellectual is moot at best.  

We are amazed that a personality who does virtually no real research, other than listening to other news shows, can be taken seriously.  Limbaugh thrives on buzz-words, name-calling, misrepresentation of fact, rumor- mongering, and hypocrisy.  We seem to remember that these are prevalent tactics on an elementary school playground.  It is disturbing to find such a large segment of the American people taken in by a man who could not master basic freshman required courses.  It makes sense that Limbaugh ridicules education and intelligence, knowing that he possesses neither of these qualities. 

Limbaugh's misrepresentations of fact are far too numerous to list, but as an illustration of racist assumption coupled with factual blunder, Rush stated that Ohio representative Sherrod Brown is a black man.  The seven term congressman is actually white.  This Limbaugh misstep is unique, in that it is one of the very few that he actually acknowledged on the air.  It also illustrates the depth of his political ignorance because he was totally unaware of the ethnicity of a seven term congressman, quite a faux pas for someone who has been in the game for twenty years.  We suspect that there is really no need to engage the Michael Steele incident, although it was quite despicable and incendiary.  The GOP would do well to kick Rush to the curb.

The hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh looms as large as the man himself.  Three failed marriages and a drug arrest make it difficult for him to bang the drum for traditional Christian values.  We are really not interested in Limbaugh's opioid addiction.  The crux of the biscuit is that Rush has said more than once that anyone convicted of a drug offense should be incarcerated.  On October 5, 1995, Limbaugh said, “ If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused, they ought to be convicted, and they ought to be sent up”.  On this same date, he said, "too many whites are getting away with drug use".  Limbaugh plead not-guilty to a charge of prescription fraud on April 29,2006.  After a three year investigation by the Palm Beach state attorney's office, Limbaugh agreed to complete an eighteen month drug treatment program, break no laws, and pay $30,000 restitution to cover the cost of the state's investigation.  After the fact, Limbaugh claimed that the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.  Limbaugh currently has no criminal record.  We would add that Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly mocked Bill Clinton for claiming that he didn't inhale.  Apparently, Rush considers himself  above the law he would have us subjected to.  

On the other hand, George W. Bush was arrested on a cocaine charge in Harris county, Texas in 1972.  After completing community service in a ghetto area, his record went away.  After becoming president, W. got congress to pass legislation denying education financial aid to anyone with a drug conviction.  This happened at roughly the same time that the Bush girls were being detained for using fake I.D.'s at bars, Jenna in Austin and Barbara in New Haven.  Isn't it interesting how the party that touts conservatism has difficulty maintaining its image?  Apologies, for we have regressed.

Rush, perhaps you should clean your own house before you worry about ours.  Get some integrity and read a book or two.  If you can't read, get someone to read a book to you.  Most public libraries have story time daily.  This will require you to listen, rather than waiting to talk, a habit you may have some difficulty adopting.

The point to be made here is that when one trumpets integrity and morality, one damned well better have integrity and morals!  In words you can relate to, bearing false witness and being a hate merchant are no-no's!  Do as I say, not as I do will not pass muster with the majority of the people.  Hammering those of us on the political left for the error of our ways while indulging in the same behaviors does not bode well for you.  This is especially true when you exempt yourself from the law that you expect the rest of us to abide by.      

On Responsibility Of The Media

Written By: Erik Stryder

Editor: Nigel Woodford

We begin each day inundated by the political pontifications of an irresponsible media that reports as many issues as it creates. The news cycle continues, deadlines are met, and sensationalism and misinformation is churned out, designed to be digested by a public presumed to have attention spans and I.Q.s comparable to gnats. Often, the intelligence of the public is not insulted. It is completely disregarded.

The mindless speculation of a group of people attaching themselves to issues or events that, as often as not, have no relevance, make it virtually impossible for the government to do its job effectively. It becomes necessary for government to put on the brakes, pull over, and address issues conjured up by the media in order to generate ratings for television/radio or higher circulation for periodicals.

It could be argued that it is the responsibility of a diligent media to address all issues, that the public has a right to know. Would that this were true. The fact of the matter is that the media could not care less about issues. If a legitimate issue presents itself and germane facts are reported, it is a wonderful news day for readers and viewers alike. If not, sensationalism will suffice.

Sensationalism manifests itself in many forms, which brings us to the total disregard of the intelligence of the public. Sensationalism frequently employs bottom-feeding tactics such as character assassination or an appeal to fear, prejudice, or disgust, generally sucking people into the Springer vortex.

There was a time when the media respected the privacy of public figures, when quality news sources would not lower themselves to impugning the honor and character of Presidents, Congressmen and the judiciary. Presently, this type of journalism is as common as sand, and sensationalism is the order of the day.

In the not so distant past, what is now referred to as sensationalism was called muckraking or yellow journalism. Unfortunately, the appeal to the lowest common denominator sells more newspapers and cultivates higher ratings than legitimate journalism does. The tabloid aspect of journalism and the public demand for it has brought us to a place that requires better news sources to indulge this practice to compete in the media market. The reader is as responsible as the media in this regard, for if the people would not buy into shameful journalism practices, then there would be no market for it.

The media and the people have a responsibility to each other. Media is responsible for informing the public of the relevant facts that impact their everyday lives. The people are responsible for holding the media to a higher standard by refusing to indulge contemptible journalism. A symbiotic relationship is required in order to raise ourselves to the level of journalistic integrity envisioned by the founding fathers who gave us this freedom that we have come to take for granted.

This is our mission statement. Our intent is to raise the bar in journalism. We hope others will follow our example, restoring integrity and quality to a faltering profession.

On The Economic Stimulus Bill

Written By: Erik Stryder

Editor: Nigel Woodford

President Obama's Economic Stimulus Package, AKA The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is vague and ambiguous. It essentially gives the federal government and its bureaucracies carte blanche to spend 787 billion tax-payer dollars as it sees fit. The latitude is broad, the restrictions few. The people are being asked again to trust the judgment of the many custodians of taxpayer money.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as it stands, is in excess of 1,000 pages long. We are curious to know whether or not our senators and congressmen have actually read this document. We know from their own public admissions that many of them did not read the PATRIOT Act before they signed it. Is this another case of delegation of responsibility, or has the diligence required by such an equally important document been performed?

We have reviewed the available text of the final version of this bill. We fail to understand how lowering taxes and increasing spending will save the American economy. Spending more money while reducing income does not work at our houses! How will this plan benefit our country? Would it not be wiser to indulge in more fundamental solutions? It is our belief that a more simple approach is warranted.

We have not seen evidence of success with the bank bailout. As funds were distributed, we began to hear of parties being thrown because “we have to show our staff that we appreciate their hard work”. Is that not what paychecks and bonuses accomplish? At the same time the banks were accepting government money, we heard bank executives complain about restrictions on the dispersal of these funds, saying that the government should not interfere in their business affairs. They wanted the money, but did not wish to be held accountable. This has not inspired great faith in the integrity of the recipients of the bailout.

Suppose we attempt to restore value to mortgage-backed securities by empowering bankruptcy court judges to restructure home mortgages? . If consumers are able to make their loan payments, will this not keep them in their homes? Will this not restore some faith in the banking industry? Will this not help to stabilize Wall Street? President Obama has good ideas in this area, but as we expected, the House has managed to foul the plan with their usual level of competence. How is rewarding the reckless greed and stupidity of banks and brokerage houses more valid?

How is providing the banks the motivation to begin extending more credit to consumers going to stimulate the economy? Is not the reckless extension of credit one of the many factors that has brought us to the brink of destruction? It seems to us that encouraging consumers to be more responsible should be a major theme. Living within our means, rather than indulging in our need for instant gratification, might be the order of the day. This idea may not increase the GDP in a big way, but a smaller increase in productivity may be wiser than sliding further into credit-induced debt.

Tax-credits and tax rebates will not stimulate the economy when it has begun to tank. The people will take that money and use it to eliminate existing debts in an effort to stave off eminent financial destruction. They will not use the money to buy new goods and services. This sort of theory is put forth by legislators who do not know the current price of a gallon of milk. America's working people are acutely aware of the price of everything.

Suppose we impose stiff restrictions and penalties on American companies that outsource manufacturing, customer-relations, and service jobs to other countries? Will this not reduce unemployment by restoring jobs to the workers of America? How is it more constructive to reward these companies with tax breaks while they take jobs away from Americans?

Suppose we do something about the price-gouging practices of big oil? The increase in the price of a barrel of oil has not been proportional to the increase at the pump. The high price of gasoline and diesel has raised the prices of shipping, food, and goods across the entire market. Somehow, big oil has managed to post record profits while the rest of the economy has come crashing down.

Suppose we restore the regulation of big business that was removed during the Reagan administration? Deregulation may appear to be a good idea on the surface, and we will grant that it may be a good idea to limit the power of government to interfere with business to an extent, but let us keep in mind why regulation of big business is necessary. Regulation, like the labor union, is necessary because big business can not be trusted to be anything other than greedy and self-indulgent. It has demonstrated these traits consistently since the dawn of industrialization. Regardless of political affiliation, we can not deny these facts.

Many of the ideas being discussed on the Hill sound suspiciously like the ideas put forth by the previous administration, but communicated in a much more articulate manner than previously stated by the cheerleader with the two digit I.Q.

Is it not wiser to correct the behaviors that caused the economic disaster we now face, or shall we throw money at the problem while continuing the practices that brought us here?

These are but a few of the solutions that might be investigated before 787 billion American tax dollars are misspent.