Eric Shinseki fired for failures at VA. Gen Hayden not fired for failures at NSA.

In case you forgot Gen Michael Hayden was the director of the NSA on September 11, 2001.  The failure of the NSA to prevent this disaster resulted in countless lives lost and ruined.  Some believe it was the turning point in the American Empire.  In any event the man responsible, Gen Hayden, was not fired, as Shinseki was, but was put in charge of expanding the security/surveillance state.  Then he was appointed to head the CIA and is now security contractor working for the Chertoff Group. 

Condoleezza Rice, Security Director, was not fired but promoted to Secretary of State.

The director of the CIA, George Tenet was not fired.  Served four more years and was award the Medal of Freedom.

WTF is wrong with this picture?

Information re. Gen Hayden from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_%28general%29

"Instead of Austerity and Slogans, Vets Need a Fully Funding and Accountable VA" (The Nation)

From "The Nation" John Nichols 
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180007/instead-austerity-and-slogans-va-needs-full-funding-and-accountability#

The Republicans want their cake and eat it too.  They want to slash funding for our vets and criticize the Democrats for the vets not getting good care.

(I)ndependent Senator Sanders summed it up to the Republicans, “If you think it’s too expensive (to fund veterans programs), then don’t send them off to war.”

“When we look deeper into this issue of extended wait times for veterans to receive an appointment, we have to recognize that understaffing is a major culprit,” explains AFGE president J. David Cox Sr. “All around the country, medical facilities are understaffed, with numerous frontline care positions going unfilled. How can the VA expect to keep up with the growing needs of our nation’s heroes if it doesn’t properly staff its facilities?”
Republicans get blamed for advancing the austerity agenda, but it is important to remember that more than a few Democrats have compromised with it. And the difference between those who promote austerity and those who make the compromises that allow for austerity means very little to Americans who are stuck on the waiting lists that are created by budgeting that owes more to Ayn Rand tomes than accounting textbooks.

Senate Veteran Affairs Committee chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, tried to get ahead of a host of issues concerning veterans in February, when he proposed comprehensive legislation to improve VA healthcare, education and job-training. Though it was strongly backed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and other organizations representing vets, the measure was blocked when most Senate Republicans opposed it. To Republicans who suggested the measure was too expensive, Sanders said, “If you think it’s too expensive (to fund veterans programs), then don’t send them off to war.”

Some might figure that the Republican's reluctance to help vets is due to the fact they want to damage the Democratic Administration as much as possible.  While that is obviously true, research will prove that the Republicans were voting down funding for veterans even during the Bush decade, even during the Republican War.

The bottom line is that Republican Party and Blue Dog Democrats have no respect for our veterans.

Germany Reached Nearly 75% Renewable Power Use

En route to its 2050 Energiewende goal of 80% of the nation’s power being supplied by renewables, especially spurred on by the phaseout of nuclear reactors, Germany broke another renewable energy record on Sunday, May 11, 2014. Europe’s biggest clean-energy market reached almost 75% renewable power market share noon on that day.

 What’s holding the USofA back?  The powerful oil lobbies. Duh!
 
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/15/germany-reaches-nearly-75-renewable-power-use-sunday/#wrmrPFboBQfXDKkb.99

The Battle for Net Neutrality Isn't Over

“FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is still moving ahead with a proposal that puts the entire future of the Internet in danger,” wrote Evan Greer, campaign manager at the group Fight for the Future, in an email to YES.

Why are we not surprised?

The proposal the FCC just approved includes stronger protections than the FCC’s original plan, which would have allowed telecom companies to place their own subsidiaries’ content into the fast lane.

Earlier this month, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler revised the proposal to forbid that practice. Wheeler's revisions did not satisfy net neutrality proponents, but they took place only because of the significant public outcry that greeted the original plan. That suggests that continued activism can produce even greater results.
 
So Tom Wheeler was forced by activists and a strong public outcry to reduce the power of the telecom companies but he didn’t go far enough.

More at:  http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/four-signs-net-neutrality-isn-t-dead-yet?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20140516

James Trimarco wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. James is web editor at YES! and you can follow him @JamesTrimarco.

Please support YES! Magazine.

"Turns Out Obamacare Premiums Aren't More Expensive After All"

A quick update re. the ACA from http://finance.yahoo.com/news/turns-obamacare-premiums-arent-more-153900650.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons

"When the cost of an employer-provided health insurance plan is compared to the cost of an Affordable Care Act plan bought on a state health insurance exchange, the ACA plan will be more affordable on average, a new analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute finds."

The Right-Wingers predicted the rate would be substantially higher.  Another myth busted. More at the Yahoo News article. 

Thanks Supremes - Down the Slippery Slope To a National Religion

The Supreme Court rules that government meetings can have an opening prayer.  How can that not violate the Constitutional right of separation of Church and State? 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions. "The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-prayer-public-meetings-n97221

Let’s get this straight; Justice Kennedy says that the prayers are only “ceremonial”? I wonder what God thinks about that.  And they should be allowed because they are “traditional”?  Wasn’t that an argument to support slavery?  Oops, shouldn't say that too loudly, next the Court might strike down the 13th Amendment. 

I counter the “ceremonial” and “tradition” argument with the slippery slope argument.  Next thing you know the theists will be including God on our money and in the Pledge of Allegiance.   Seriously, if you allow non-proselytizing prayers, you will start to get more proselytizing prayers. 

As I see it, praying out loud with head bowed and maybe hands together is proselytizing.  In my opinion the words, "and thank Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior" or something similar, is Christian proselytizing and has no business at government meetings.  And it certainly is aimed at impressing someone other than God.  I haven’t seen any evidence that God cares how you pray so why does it have to be demonstrative?   If you want your particular god to bless the meeting, discuss it with him or her in the parking lot before you go into the meeting.

The bad thing about this is that it pressures others to conform to the majority.  Who wants to be the only one in the room that isn’t praying?  And what about other religions?  Do they get to say their own prayers? 

The Constitution is crystal clear in it’s meaning of, “ no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  Having Christian prayers at the beginning of a government meeting qualifies as a test.  You might as well ask public officials to raise their hand if they are not Christian.

The religious Right-Wing has won another battle for "one nation under Christ".

Supreme Court Refuses to Clarify the NDAA Indefinite Detention Controversy

     The NDAA law was passed even though many on the left thought it was to ambiguous relating to the President’s power to arrest and detain those that were deemed supportive of terrorists.

     The law was challenged by some well known liberals arguing that the threat of detention interfered with their Free Speech and Freedom of the press and that the law was not clear in this aspect.

     A judge agree with the ambiguity and issued an injunction against use of the questionable sections of the law.

     An appeal was filed on behalf of the President stating that the injunction interfered with the President’s power to deal with the threat of terror.

     A high court ruled in favor of the President and against the plaintiffs removing the injunction.

     The Supremes ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law which does not mean that they believe that the law precludes arrest and detention of American citizens, it means that they believe the law is so ambiguous that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove there’s a threat.  Or basically saying the  law couldn’t be challenged until someone was arrested and detained. 

     Some claim that the NDAA doesn’t change existing law which isn’t much comfort because under existing law American citizen Jose Padilla was arrested, detained, and by some definitions tortured, with out habeas corpus rights.

     Some on the Right don’t like this President to have such a powerful tool, but Senators McCain and Graham support the law's ambiguity and recognize that this power may some day be in the hands of the Right. 


     After signing the NDAA the President promised that his administration wouldn’t detain American citizens without trial.  I wonder if this promise is reassuring to Mr. Hedges and others on the left fighting to save our Constitutional rights.  And what will Jeb Bush do should he be elected president? 

There is a great article at Wikipedia including great sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama