Is Newsweek Magazine Trying to Go Out of Business on Purpose?

I noticed that Newsweek has switched format from News to Fiction. What’s next, replacing Editor Tina Brown with Oliver Stone? Here’s a bit of unsolicited business advice for Newsweek about why it is a dying weekly that probably wasn’t even worth the $1 it recently sold for and why it will probably go under within the next two years. Not only do they fabricate their “facts” but they routinely miss the big story of the Week that WILL SELL copies. Either Newsweek is tone deaf or just trying to go out of business on purpose (a la the movie “Major League”).

Case in point, the week the S&P Downgraded the US Credit Rating along with the Stock Market tanking, that story was on the front pages of every credible newspaper or weekly. What was the best Newsweek could do? Put a demeaning Photo of Michele Bachmann and a snarky caption on the cover! Given Newsweek already had covers with a Photoshopped Mitt Romney head on some kid’s body jumping and the Sarah Palin Runners World cover, one would almost believe they were trying to belittle Republicans and hence ensure they couldn’t sell to that market!

When I was retiring from the Army, Newsweek offered me a multi-year subscription that came out to be about a buck and a half ($1.50) a year and it doesn’t run out until April 2013. My wife will not let it in the house so I only flip through it as it moves directly from the mailbox to the trash. I’d cancel my subscription but I feel I’m performing a patriotic service as I’m confident it cost them more to print and mail my copy than I paid for it. Hence, Newsweek losing money on my subscription hastens their demise – and that’s truly a Public Service.

Newsweek Article Pays Tribute to “Hanoi Jane” Fonda – What’s Next? “Person of the Year” Honors?

Hanoi Jane Fonda Manning a NVA Anti-aircraft Gun

Newsweek’s 22 & 29 Aug 2011 Double Issue featured an extremely laudatory piece on Fonda but this was my favorite passage in this entire article: “….her perceived antipathy for veterans during the Vietnam War ….” If “Hanoi Jane’s” actions could be described as “perceived antipathy,” as a Vietnam Vet (actually extended there) I’d hate to be around if she were to ever really get pissed off at me.

For the record Fonda visited Hanoi in July 1972 and made several false anti-American accusations that the North Vietnamese used for propaganda. During her trip, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals;" her most egregious accusation was she falsely accused them of deliberately targeting the Red River dike system which, if true, might have drown as many as 200,000 people.

A contemporary 7 Aug 1972 Time Magazine article “VIET NAM: The Battle of the Dikes”
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8... ) refuted this allegation and contained this passage:

“During (Columnist Joseph Kraft’s) own current tour of North Viet Nam, Kraft reasoned that if the U.S. Air Force were "truly going after the dikes, it would do so in a methodical, not a harum-scarum way." Summarized Kraft: "I have to conclude from what I have seen that there is no deliberate American drive to bomb the dikes. But the dikes do run parallel to many roads. Some are close to railroad tracks and bridges." Inevitably, some dikes have been hit in error, Kraft believes, and the damage—also inevitably —has been exploited by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes.

Kraft's conclusion supported the US officials version, that the dikes were not being "targeted," but that a few dikes near military targets had been accidentally damaged. The State Department released the results of a photo-reconnaissance of the entire Red River Delta taken in mid-July which revealed bomb craters at only twelve locations in the dike system—ten of them near petroleum storage tanks, and all relatively minor. The evidence showed conclusively that there has been no intentional bombing of the dikes.

I would only point out that Joseph Kraft (1924-1986), a former John F. Kennedy speechwriter, and Washington Post and New York Times reporter with a syndicated column running in over 200 papers was in North Vietnam at the same time as Fonda and was NO friend of Nixon's or the War; he was even on Nixon's "Enemies List" and was highly critical of the Vietnam War. Kraft would have jumped on any opportunity to disparage Nixon or the War if something had been there. There wasn't!

During the visit, Hanoi Jane even had the audacity to be photographed manning an anti-aircraft battery and there are persistent rumors that some POWs were forced to meet with her and she spat on them, called them "baby-killers." Then, when some POWs attempted to sneak notes to her to let their families know they were alive she turned the note over to the North Vietnamese which led to the prisoners being tortured.

When cases of torture began to emerge among the returning POWs, Fonda called the returning POWs "hypocrites and liars.” In my opinion this is the moral equivalent of Hanoi Jane being a “Holocaust Denier.”

To be fair, in a 1988 Barbara Walters interview Fonda expressed regret for some of her comments and actions saying: "I would like to say something … to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did…. I was thoughtless and careless … I want to apologize to them and their families… I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft gun, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes…. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless..."

Of course her apology came at a time when a group of New England Veterans had launched a campaign to disrupt a film project she was working on so Hanoi Jane's apology might ring a tad hallow and have been motivated more by self economic interest than remorse.

NEWSWEEK Changes Format to Fiction - Rewriting the Bay of Pigs History

Where Obama's “Blame My Predecessor” Political Strategy Originated
I hadn’t realized Newsweek had switched formats from News to Fiction until I read “The Untold Story of the Bay of Pigs” in this week’s (22 & 29 Aug 11 Double Issue) edition. What's next? Is Oliver Stone going to replace Tina Brown as their new editor? Anyone wishing to know the truth rather than this whitewash intended to relieve JFK of his richly deserved ‘credit” for the Bay of Pigs fiasco should access the C-SPAN website at: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PigsM to hear Professor Irwin Gillman’s excellent (and factual) presentation entitled “The Coming of the Bay of Pigs: Myth and Reality” which was most recently broadcast on C-Span just last week, 14 Aug 2011. Liberals would have you believe that Eisenhower had it all planned and left office leaving Kennedy “holding the bag.” In truth, Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.''

The following is plagiarized almost verbatim from the C-SPAN Website:

Professor Gellman is the visiting scholar of history at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., and has written four books on U.S. and Latin American history, including "Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and Sumner Welles,'' published in 1995 and nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

The Professor points out that historians in recent years have tended to shift the blame for one of the greatest U.S. foreign policy disasters in the 20th century on Kennedy's predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower. They say Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan to use Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and oust Fidel Castro. But they've got it all wrong, Gellman said, basing their scholarship on the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen. Both men sought to defend their boss, who was assassinated in 1963, from criticism by fixing blame on Eisenhower.

"Sorensen wishes you to believe that Kennedy had no choice, that when Eisenhower leaves office, Kennedy was stuck. There was no option for the guy. And that's how history is written, and that's the story that's told,'' Gellman said.

Instead, Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.''

According to Gellman, these are things many historians never take the time to read before thinking that Eisenhower was at fault for the plan.

"If you are a good liberal, do you go on the position that because Eisenhower initially started a movement to get rid of Castro, that makes him the player of the Bay of Pigs? Which by the way, anybody that reads the documents will tell you that there was no Eisenhower involvement. He wasn't even consulted,'' Gellman said.

The Bay of Pigs invasion was an unsuccessful attempt by the U.S. government to overthrow Castro. A group of about 1,400 Cuban exiles was assembled and trained by the CIA for several months to invade the Bahia de Cochinos, or Bay of Pigs, on April 17, 1961. But Castro was ready for the invasion and his 25,000 troops defeated, killed or captured many of the invaders, embarrassing the United States and causing Castro to form a closer alliance with the Soviet Union.

Gellman called the plan "crazy'' and marked by "stupidity,'' including lack of air support and leaving its execution in the hands of the CIA, an intelligence organization, not a military one.

But if there was going to be an invasion, Gellman argued, it would have fared better under Eisenhower, a decorated five-star general who was Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, whose maxim was “If you're going to use force, then you better win.” (End of C-SPAN Quote)

So if anyone is wondering where President Obama came up with his “Blame My Predecessor” strategy for his failure to fix the US economy, one need look no further than President Kennedy. Appears this has been in the Democrat’s political playbook for at least 50 years!

Honor All Vets But Reserve a Special Place for Those of World War II

In today’s Washington Post (19 Aug 2011) there was an excellent article: “World War II veteran remembers historic B-17 attack against Germany" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/world-war-ii-veteran-remembers-historic-b-17-attack-against-germany/2011/08/18/gIQAdipVOJ_story.html) and it got me to thinking, most Americans today don’t realize how costly in lives World War II really was, especially when compared to our present wars. Actually, the 8th Air Force alone in WWII sustained more than 27,000 killed; that’s more than the entire Marine Corps (24,500) lost in that war. Although they had the highest casualty rate, the 8th Air Force was only one of 16 numbered Air Forces in the War. Americans of today owe a real debt of gratitude to the WWII generation for their sacrifices.

Understand as a Vietnam combat Vet who spent 30 years in the Army (and was in Afghanistan as a civilian last year), I consider every service member’s life precious and I don’t wish to diminish the death of a single one but to put things into perspective, here are the stats from our most recent wars compared to WWII:

In the 10 years we’ve been in Afghanistan (Oct 2001-Today/Aug 2011), we’ve lost 1726 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (1192 Soldiers, 357 Marines, 84 Airmen and 93 Sailors). That averages less than ½ person lost per day.

In the 8½ years we’ve been in Iraq (Mar 2003-Today/19 Aug 2011), we’ve lost 4565 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (3283 Soldiers, 1022 Marines, 57 Airmen, 103 Sailors and 1 Coast Guardsmen).

Theoretically the Vietnam War lasted 10 years but 51,585 of the total 58,220 killed occurred during the real 5 years (1966-70) of the war when we were heavily engaged. At the height of the war in 1968 we were losing 50 a day killed!

The Korean War lasted 3 years and one month (Jun 1950 – Jul 53) and total US Killed was 36,516. That averages ~32+ killed a day

All these conflict pale in comparison to World War II where the US lost almost half a million men. The Battle of the Bulge alone lasted 40 days (16 Dec 44 – 25 Jan 45) with almost 90,000 U.S. casualties; 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded, and 23,000 captured or missing. The 36-day Iwo Jima assault resulted in more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead while the 82-day Battle for Okinawa lasted from early April until mid-June 1945 and U.S. (5 Army and 2 Marine Corps Divisions) casualties were over 62,000 with over 12,000 killed.

Honor ALL Veterans but reserve a special place for the Heroes from World War II!

"The One" for 2012 is Anyone But Obama! and Maybe Perry Will Be Ready in 2016.

It's unfortuate that Texas Gov Rick Perry self destructed so will not be the Republican nominee and next President -- this time around. The main issue concerning Americans for the 2012 election will be … In the words of VP Biden: “it’s a 3-letter word… JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! (Nobody ever accused Biden of being very bright).

Rick Perry was the ONLY candidate of either party, declared or undeclared, that could boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas! Pretty impressive! By contract, according to the Fact Checker in the 19 Aug 11 Washington Post, "...job growth is measured from the start of a presidency. That would show nearly 2.4 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, the worst record of the modern presidency."

According to a 21 Jun 11 USA Today article – “Texas Wins in US Economy Shift” – “Texas became the USA's second-largest economy during the past decade — displacing New York and perhaps heading one day toward challenging California — in one of the biggest economic shifts in the past half-century.”

According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, over the past decade Texas experienced the biggest economic increases in 50 years surpassing $1 trillion in annual economic output. The state’s share of the US economy during the past decade gained nearly a full percentage point reaching 8.3% in 2010 – a feat matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s oil boom. By contrast, according to the article California’s “share of the national economy peaked in 1990 but shrank faster than all but three states from 2000 to 2010.”

As this country’s longest serving Governor (since Dec 2000) and the chief executive of our second largest state by both size and population, he presided over this entire decade of growth and is by far the best qualified and most experienced executive in all of US Government. Compare this to our present Commander-in-Chief who had never held an executive position in his life prior to his election as President – and it shows. His 3 terms in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the US Senate hardly prepared him to be a decision-maker and it certainly didn’t make him an inspirational leader or speaker – as evidenced by the market dropping almost 700 points almost while he was on the air speaking on TV trying to “inspire” the Nation and quell the markets during a recent almost 700 point drop.

I would also add that, with the exception of Ron Paul, Perry was also the ONLY candidate that has ever served in the Military which the President presides over as Commander-in-Chief. Perry was commissioned in the Air Force in 1972 out of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets ROTC program and after completing pilot training, flew C-130 tactical airlift in the States, Middle East, and Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977as a captain. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, was an Air Force active duty flight surgeon from 1963 to 65.

With Gov Perry we would have gotten a seasoned decision-making executive and leader –and at least nobody would have needed to teach Perry how to salute or identify the insignias of rank.

With Perry we still need a Republican "The One" replacing "The Great Pretender" Obama.

The Newsweek Bachmann Cover - Are They Trying to Go Out of Business?

Here’s a bit of unsolicited business advice for Newsweek about why it is a dying weekly that probably wasn’t even worth the $1 it recently sold for and why it will probably go under within the next two years. When the biggest story going that WILL SELL copies this week is the S&P Downgrade of the US Credit Rating along with the Stock Market tanking and what is the the best they can do? Put a demeaning Photo of Michele Bachmann and a snarky caption on the cover! Given they already had covers with a Photoshopped Mitt Romney with his head on some kid’s jumping body and the Sarah Palin Runners World cover, one would almost believe they were trying to belittle Republicans. Is Newsweek tone deaf or are they just trying to go out of business on purpose?

When I was retiring from the Army, Newsweek offered me a multi-year subscription that came out to be about a buck and a half ($1.50) a year and it doesn’t run out until April 2013. My wife will not let it in the house so I only flip through it as it moves directly from the mailbox to the trash. I’d cancel my subscription but I feel I’m performing a patriotic service as I’m confident it cost them more to print and mail my copy than I paid for it. Hence, Newsweek losing money on my subscription hastens their demise – and that’s truly a Public Service.

Standard & Poor’s or Should It Be Renamed “Slander and Boor’s”

Anyone that follows my Blog knows I’m no fan of the Obama Administration’s financial policy but I have to agree with them this time in their assessment of the credibility of S&P with their downgrading of the US credit rating. Trusting an S&P credit rating is like accepting investment advice from Bernie Madoff. Both have proven to be equally unreliable over the past five years.

First, S&P is the only one of the Big Three credit-rating agencies (CRAs), (the other two are: Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings), to take this unprecedented step to embarrass and slander the credit worthiness of the United States.

Second, what is the definition of the highest AAA rating from which the US was just downgraded from to AA+? AAA: best-quality borrowers, reliable and stable (many of them sovereign governments)

A trivia question: what do ALL the countries that still have an across the board AAA Rating have in common? Hint: They are Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (and separately Guernsey & Isle of Man).

Answer: They all depend on the United States for protection and it is that very blanket of protection that even enables their economies to exist yet they now enjoy a higher credit rating than the country that secures their very existence. Now that’s ironic.

So exactly which of these AAA Rated countries does S&P really believe is more “reliable and stable” than the United States? Also, why does S&P think the entire World flocks to US Treasury instruments as their safest investments in times of uncertainty? Is S&P really smarter than not only the other CRAs but also all the other investors in the World? Regardless of what’s been happening in Washington over the past quarter, does S&P really believe the US has a chance in Hell of defaulting on any of its debt obligations? The AAA Rating is supposed to evaluate the safety of the investment and nothing else.

With all this said, let’s examine the recent S&P track record. S&P has taken some well earned criticism in the wake of large losses beginning in 2007 in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite S&P assigning their top AAA credit ratings to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans. Investors trusted the low-risk profile that an S&P AAA implies and purchased large amounts of CDOs that later became unsellable or those that could be sold took staggering losses. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of S&P AAA rated CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million. To quote Time Magazine: S&P “granted AAA rating to Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that were chock-full-of crap mortgages, thereby helping to precipitate the 2008 financial collapse” and The Washington Post put it a little more bluntly: "Standard and Poor's didn't just miss the bubble. They helped cause it."

Because companies pay S&P to rate their debt issues, S&P is beholden to these issuers so its ratings are not always objective. Now with this US downgrade, I believe S&P is causing further damage for its own agenda. Add to that S&P even acknowledges they made a $2 Trillion (that’s with a “T”) Math error in its justification for downgrading the US credit rating so I have to agree with the Treasury Department that "A judgment flawed by a $2 Trillion error speaks for itself." S&P is not only “The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight,” they can’t even add straight yet here a bunch of “unidentified” company employees have made an arbitrary decision that could adversely affect the lives of 300+ Million Americans. Not only are they not elected by the public, they are not accountable for their decision making process, have a dubious track record to say the least and there is no appeals process against their credit-rating decisions.

I strongly urge Congress to hold hearing as soon as possible to examine the decisions of all the CRAs but especially S&P and while they are at it, the inquiry needs to be expanded to determine S&P’s liability in the CDO fiasco. I suspect the result will be they are as responsible for losses as any of the financial institutions that issued these worthless instruments so should be financially responsible to investor for losses resulting from any investment decision that relied on an S&P AAA ratings.

One final comment, S&P is a Division of McGraw-Hill and is run by Harold Whittlesey "Terry" McGraw III (born 1948) who is the chairman, president and chief executive officer (CEO). McGraw’s total 2009 compensation was $5,905,317 ($1,390,500 Base Salary +, $1,261,000 cash bonus + $924,060 stock granted + $1,854,583 option grants + $475,174 other compensation) while everyone else was losing their shirts over the CDO melt down he was responsible for causing. Where’s the justice? One final insult, born in 1948, “Terry” was of prime draft age during the Vietnam War yet was a successful Draft Dodger!

I can only deplore the slander heaped upon my Country by Standard & Poor’s so maybe they should be renamed: “Slander and Boor’s”