But … they’re just the grubby, dirty (18%) pot calling the scorched, nuked kettle black.

I may be an ol’ yellow dog (from New York City), but I sure as heck don’t feel comfortable voting for them come this November.

(Though I probably will end up doing so. I’m no McCain fan … for starters, I remember this business.)

Forget single issues (trans rights, for instance, especially when folks don’t deliver) — I don’t see these ass clowns doing anything to address and fix my concerns about where my life, or likely where your life and those of most fellow citizens are going.

Obama, please, I expect we’ll see more improvement in his golf game like his buddy, Franklin Raines (shame, shame) …

He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.

… than anything substantive. Steve Case? Dot-com bubble. Harold Raines? Housing-bubble. Barack Obama? Name that bubble.

Eep!

Here’s a two item This And That on military issues.

* Gays And Lesbians: No; Sex Offenders & Other Felons: Yes

Okay, we’re in an unpopular war in Iraq. America needs soldiers to fight the war, but a draft is politically unfeasible. So, the Army lowers its standards in an attempt to get enough soldiers to fulfill its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, who is the Army “hiring” with their lower standards? Well, per the Michael D. Palm Center press release:

New information released today by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shows that in 2006 and 2007 Americans who were convicted of serious crimes including sexual offences, manslaughter, “terrorist threats including bomb threats”, burglary, kidnapping or abduction, aggravated assault and sexual assault were allowed into the military under moral waivers granted by the services.

According to the data given to the committee by the Department of Defense, the Army allowed the most waivers in 2006 and 2007. During this period, moral or felony waivers were given to 3 soldiers who had been convicted of manslaughter. One soldier was allowed in following a kidnapping or abduction conviction, 11 were convicted of arson, 142 convicted of burglary, 3 who were convicted of indecent acts or liberties with a child, 7 who were convicted of rape, sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, incest or other sex crimes and 3 who were convicted of terrorist threats including bomb threats.

…Last week, the USA Today reported that use of moral waivers has increased again. The total percentage of Army recruits admitted by moral waiver more than doubled from 4.6% in fiscal 2004 to 11% in fiscal 2007. It has so far edged to 13% in fiscal 2008.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) has a some great commentary up on this story in press release entitled Military Continues Recruiting Serious Ex-Felons While Discharging Qualified Gay Service Members.

~~
H/t: Christopher Neff of Outright Vermont.

[After the fold, servicemembers and their families can't sue military doctors for malpractice.]

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Post has two articles up on how veterans charities are raising money for wounded vets, but aren’t spending sizable percentages on the vets (Study Faults Charities for Veterans and Panel Probes Spending Of Veterans Charities; Low Amount Going to Troops Called ‘Sickening). The Navy Times and others have stories up as well.

The Washington Post reported on December 13th that:

Eight veterans charities, including some of the nation’s largest, gave less than a third of the money raised to the causes they champion, far below the recommended standard, the American Institute of Philanthropy says in a report. One group passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, the report says. Another [Autumn note: Help Hospitalized Veterans] paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in compensation and benefits last year, a Washington Post analysis of tax filings showed.

There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead, fundraising or giving. But the institute’s report suggests that 20 of the 29 military charities studied were managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct-mail fundraising fees and, in some cases, providing their leaders with six-figure salaries.

The 12 charities rated as failing by the institute — including the Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation, the AMVETS National Service Foundation and the Freedom Alliance — collected at least $266 million in the past fiscal year.

The Navy Times lists out the12 charities receiving failing ratings from the American Institute of Philanthropy:

- American Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation

- American Veterans Coalition

- American Veterans Relief Foundation

- AMVETS National Service Foundation

- Disabled Veterans Association

- Freedom Alliance

- Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation

- National Veterans Services Fund, NCOA National Defense Foundation

- Paralyzed Veterans of America

- VietNow National Headquarters

- Chapin’s Help Hospitalized Veterans/Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on December 13th on the subject, where Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated:

This morning’s hearing is about deceit and a sickening betrayal of our most fundamental values. And I hope it is the first step in fixing an intolerable fraud.

As a disabled veteran, I couldn’t agree more with Rep. Waxman’s characterization of this Veterans Charities’ situation as a “sickening betrayal of our most fundamental values” — as well as a sickening betryal of our nation’s homeless and wounded veterans.

~~~~~
Video:

Veterans’ Charities Don’t Make the Grade

“The senator embraces ‘earmarks’ as a way to help N.Y. She’s received campaign funds from project beneficiaries.”

If you like our congresspeople frequently bypassing the normal, annual budget process to insert narrowly drafted spending provisions directly into legislation (without public review), and then receive sizable campaign contributions from the beneficiaries of the ‘earmarked’ legislation — well, then you should love this story about Sen. Clinton from the Los Angeles Times.

…One thing is clear, however: Destiny is a classic example of how New York’s junior senator has embraced old-fashioned pork-barrel politics, first to build power in the state, then to extend it nationwide as she becomes a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And to fuel her rise, Clinton has relied on the controversial funding device known as “earmarking.” The earmarks enabled her to win favor with important constituents, many of whom provided financial support for her campaigns.

Since taking office in 2001…

Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate…

[More about the pork after the break.]

Read the rest of this entry »