TROOPS GO INTO BATTLE WITH ONLY THEIR BOOTS

Not since Valley Forge as the American army been in such pityful shape. From the beginning, the American people have heard from the media and from letters send home by our troops serving in Iraq that they are without essential equipment necessary to preform their role. While Donald Rumsfield, Secreatary of Defense dismissed such concerns with his famous quote, the American army hasn't faced this type of crisis since the American Revolution.

THIS POST FROM 'THINK PROGRESS' - JANUARY 31 BY PAYSON

The Bush administration claims that any congressional resolution opposing escalation would hurt the morale of U.S. troops. “It would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops,” Vice President Cheney said last week.

Cheney should spend less time on non-binding resolutions and more on equipping our forces. An audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector General released to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) shows that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missions” and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General’s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

“As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,” reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

More bombshells are likely to come soon. Following a letter last year from Slaughter to the Pentagon, the Inspector General’s office reported two ongoing audits into the procurement of armored vehicles and body armor for American soldiers. “The results of those studies will be available in July and October of 2007, respectively,” Slaughter’s office says.

The following articles offer further information:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/01/30/humvees/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901584.html

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2007/db20070130_624241.htm

HEALTH CARE 7.1

I plan this to be the first in a running series on health care and health care insurance.

The Shrub SOTU Plan.

The Bush health care plan is DOA and all of us know it but the problem is horseshit like this is often taken seriously and typically frames further discussion.

Inherent problems that I see immediately:

- A set tax deduction regardless of the actual cost of health insurance - can anyone in their right mind imagine the price being less? And like you're going to be able to pocket the difference (holy welfare queens!). This reminds me of energy deregulation and all of its promises. I would expect costs to go through the roof because we will all be buying insurance as individuals - not groups.

- What's to stop every employer from dropping health insurance all together. Most want to now. I mean the cost of insurance is suddenly pure profit. They wouldn't be required to raise wages/salaries accordingly.

- I don't believe insurers are going to step in to serve this new market. Think - Excessively high administrative costs! And if they do premiums will go through the roof as costs surge.

I'll deal with Bush's mindset later.

We need health care, not health care insurance . . . B.L.Dancer

I can't take you to lunch or let you fly . . .

on my plane , but here's $50,000 for your vote on my $5 billion tax cut.

Most of us are really tired of the corruption and the corporate ownership of our political process. After all the Constitution of the United States doesn't mention corporation/company anywhere. Their rights descend from judicial decisions in the 19th Century (talk about activist courts!), leading to the foundation of the modern corporate economic system.

So what's my solution? Simple.

Only those eligible to vote may contribute to political candidates and parties. A company, a corporation, trade association, interest group doesn't have a vote so no campaign contributions.

Yes I support lots of interest groups that finance candidates I support and who share my interests. But in all fairness if you want to end corporate ownership of politics there can be no exceptions. Exceptions have gotten us into this mess.

An eligible voter can only contribute financially to a candidate who is their representative or elected official. Too many candidates/politicians are owned by special interests. Often its a politican from a district where the special interest has no business activity.

I'm sure there's a loop-hole I haven't covered. But collectively we can arrive at campaign finance reform and, most importantly, accountability from our politicians to the voters.

A MESS BY ANY OTHER NAME

This country has became just one huge mess or so it seems. I mean during my lifetime the decision making structure of the US has avoided dealing with one problem after another or applied a series of bandaids to postpone the day of reconning until someone else's watch. Well it seems we are on the verge of having to make a number of major decisions soon or face the consequences from a falling house of cards.

Here in Obviousland the solutions always seemed, well pretty obvious. What I couldn't understand growing up was why was there such an inherent, underlying resistance to making and implementing true, realistic solutions to the problems we collectively confront in the United States. It always seemed most of the people wanted a certain outcome but a small group would block any significant change. So we typically ended up with a piss poor half measure that didn't satisfy the majority.

It was a paradigm shift that started in my teens that made me see that activism was the difference. Those who understood that they had a stake in the game were very active and/or had the resources to make the outcome favorable to them. So throughout my life I went through periods of activism - trying in my own way to change things around me, with so-so success.

Following a period of inactivity regarding activism, the events here at the start of the 21st Century have raised my blood pressure enough to realize I have to get back in the game if things are going to change. So I have come to three simple conclusions:

- Change doesn't happen unless one is part of the change. So you have to get active.

- The internet is one of the greatest tools to come along to promote change.

- Got to change the mind set. Typically the common people are either poorly informed until its too late or feel they have no stake in the game. Yes, I believe that's simple.

So as 2007 gets underway I have decided to become the 'decider'. Yes we all are the 'deciders'.
The past year was another watershed year. After significant health problems I'm still here and I'm not going anywhere soon. The time has come to implement the plan. More on this later.