Below I Blogged about: How to Acquire a Title or Become a “Top Government Official” the “Old Fashion Way” – Buy it from Obama! – But here’s a little late breaking Bundler News. As a Bonus Perquisite for Obama’s 2012 Bundling Crowd, the Prez is throwing in a free meal at a gala event – all at Taxpayer expense.
According to ABC News, 41 Obama cronies who gave the legal maximum and then gather checks from friends and colleagues who did the same up to $500,000+ were among the 364 “guests” at the 14 Mar 12 White House official dinner in honor of British Prime Minister David Cameron. This Bundling Bunch is responsible for at least $10.7 million of the roughly $250 million Obama and Democrats have amassed to date for this election. Appears this has become a regular Obama “payoff technique” as he feted other Bundlers at the recent the State Dinner honoring South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.
Remember, this is an added perk so members of the "Bundler Bunch" are still in line for a plum Government appointment or an ambassadorship.
Here’s the full list of attending “$500K+ Bundling Bunch” members & where they work. You'll notice lots of Wall Streeters, Hollywooders and Lobbyists are included:
Gerald Acker, Huntington Woods, MI – (Goodman Acker PC)
Mark Alderman, Bryn Mawr, PA – (Cozen & O’Connor)
Jean-Phillipe Austin, Miami, FL – (Physician)
Matthew Barzun, Louisville, KY – (Brickpath LLC)
Tom and Andrea Bernstein, New York, NY – (Chelsea Piers Mgmt)
Neil Bluhm, Chicago, IL – (Walton Street Capital)
Wally Brewster, Jr. & Robert Satawake, Chicago, IL – (General Growth Properties/Keller Williams Realty)
Jim Crown, Chicago, IL – (Henry Crown & Co)
John Crumpler, Durham, NC –(Hatteras Venture Architects)
Meredith DeWitt, Harvard, MA – (Political Consultant)
Fred Eychaner, Chicago, IL (Newsweb Corp)
Joseph Falk, Miami, FL – (Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson)
Rajiv Kumar Fernando, Chicago, IL – (Chopper Trading)
John Frank, Bellevue, WA — (Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft,)
William Freeman, Nashville, TN – (Freeman Webb Co)
Lou Frillman, Seattle, WA – (GVA Marquette Advisors/Financial Designs Ltd)
Anthony Gardner, Washington, DC – (Palamon Captial Partners)
Chad Griffin, Los Angeles, CA – (Chad Griffin Consulting)
Samuel Heins and Stacey Mills, Wayzata, MN – (Heins, Mills & Olson)
Don Hinkle, Tallahassee, FL – (Hinkle & Foran)
Gary Hirshberg, Concord, NH – (Stonyfield Farm)
Barry Karas, Los Angeles, CA – (Perlman & Assoc/Actor)
Janet Keller, Laguna Beach, CA – (Consultant)
Charlie Kireker, Weybridge, VT – (Twin Birches)
Orin Kramer, New York, NY – (Boston Provident)
Mai Lassiter, Los Angeles, CA – (Overbrook Entertainment)
Suzi Levine, Seattle, WA – (Microsoft)
Joe Liemandt, Austin, TX – (Trilogy Enterprises Inc)
James Murray, Keene, VA – (Greenbriar Square Property Management)
Susan Ness, Bethesda, MD – (Susan Ness Strategies)
Michael Monroe Parham, Seattle, WA – (Realnetworks Inc)
Carol Pensky, Washington, DC – (Retired)
Ellen Richman, Greenwich, CT – (Richman Group)
John Scully, San Francisco, CA – (Spo Partners & Co)
Diana Shaw Clark, Washington, DC – (Writer)
Jay Snyder, New York, NY – (HBJ Investments)
Sally Susman, New York, NY – (Pfizer Inc)
John and Sandi Thompson, Woodside, CA – (Fenwick & West)
George Tsunis, Cold Spring Harbor, NY – (Chartwell Hotels)
Harvey Weinstein, New York, NY – (Weinstein Co)
Anna Wintour, New York, NY — (Editor-in-Chief, Vogue Magazine)
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Fisker Karma! What Do You Get When You Cross a Chevy Volt with Solyndra?
A lot has been written this week about how the latest “Green Shiny Object,” the Fisker Karma (cost $109K) manufactured at Valmet Automotive in Finland, couldn’t even make it through the Consumer Reports check-in process let alone make it to testing but most of the liberal organs like MSNBC and even Wikipedia fail to fill in the context or how much of your Taxpayer money the Obama-Biden Team has “donated” to Fisker to support another “Green Fiasco” a la Solyndra and the Chevy Volt!
Seems Consumer Reports buys about 80 cars a year and this is the first time anyone can remember a car that was undriveable before it had finished being “checked-in.” Seems CR had owned the car for just a few days so had less than 200 miles on it and was doing speedometer calibration runs on their test track when the car ceased to function. CR contacted the dealer who promptly sent a flatbed truck to haul the piece of junk away! Talk about "Bad Karma!"
A little background, the Fisker Karma was first revealed at the 2008 North American International Auto Show and was supposed to launch sales the next year. After missing its initial late 2009 launch, the launch was re-scheduled several times before the first deliveries took place in the U.S. in late July 2011, and deliveries to retail customers began in November 2011 (top model goes for ~$116K). Within a month in December 2011, the recalls began with the first 239 Karmas built recalled due to battery fires caused by coolant leak. Car fires can certainly affect sales!
Despite the Obama-Biden crowd giving Fisker $529 million in federal government loan guarantee, they began assembling the cars in Finland saying they “could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.“ Vice President Biden heralded the Energy Department's $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company “as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs” but now two years after the loan was announced, the company’s manufacturing jobs are ALL still limited to assembling cars in Finland.
As a façade, Fisker did acquire a former GM plant in Biden’s home state of Delaware but laid off 26 workers there because it ran out of government loan money. Because Fisker failed to meet production and sales milestones it had promised in the loan agreement with the Department of Energy, loan cash was shut off last May and Fisker went on a cash diet while it negotiated a new timetable with DOE. The cash shortage forced the 26 person Delaware layoff of the crew fixing up the former GM plant as well as the layoff of about 45 engineers at their Anaheim, California headquarters although those engineering jobs were always intended to vanish once the cars went into production; the DOE money cutoff might have accelerated those layoffs.
Now neither DOE nor Fisker are willing to forecast how long it will take to agree on a new business plan so the Obama-Biden Crowd can resume shoveling DOE Taxpayer money out the door to this Finish company again but you can bet DOE Political Appointees are “hard at work” working on getting our money flowing again!
…And now you know the “inconvenient truth” that the liberal media never seems to include when it may reflect poorly on the Obama-Biden Crowd!
Friday, March 9, 2012
Obama Claims His New Auto Standards Will Save $8,000 a Year in Fuel Costs BUT Wait -- the Average Yearly Fuel Cost for a Car Is Only $3000 Now?
President Obama told a crowd in Mount Holly, NC on 7 March 2012: “Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they’re going to — all going to be able to go further and use less fuel every year. And that means pretty soon you’ll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week — and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about $8,000 a year.”
Crowd response: “We like that.”
OBAMA: “You like that, don't you?”
Crowd: “Yes!”
OBAMA: “Eight thousand dollars — that's no joke. … It looks like somebody might have fainted up here.”
People in the crowd certainly were fainting because they thought the President had just committed to giving every car owner a $5000 Government check for just driving because they knew the average annual cost for gasoline is less than $3,000 (just ask the Consumer Federation of America).
Obama then went on to claim: “Thanks to new fuel efficiency standards we put in place, they’re building cars that will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade. That’s almost double what they get today. That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time.”
In fact, according Obama’s own National Highway Transportation Safety Administration calculates a driver would have to keep his passenger car 26 years to realize that much fuel savings. How many people do you know that drive the same car for 26 years?
Although Obama made this outlandish claim a few days ago, the White House has made NO attempt to correct the record or even issue an explanation although several news organizations have called him on his “Presidential error.”
Now if he had said “$8,000 at the pump over 26 years” he might have been more accurate but then he might have neglected to mention the costs to the consumer of compliance with his new rules.
Obama’s standards are coming in two phases. The first, for model years 2012-2016, will increase the average cost about $950 while saving ~ $4,000 in fuel so the net savings is about $3,000 over the 26 years. The second set for model years 2017-2025 will add $2,200 to the cost of a car while reducing fuel costs by ~$6,600, for a net lifetime savings of $4,400. Here the analysis presumes gasoline at $3.42 before taxes but everyone knows Obama wants gas at European prices so at $8 a gallon his numbers might be a little more accurate.
For complicated reasons, the predicted fuel savings from the two rules might amount to a MAXimum of $8,000 while the cost of the rules cost about $3,000 a MAX savings of $5,000 over the 26 year but for the 17-25 standards it will take several years if ever to just recoup the higher vehicle cost through gas savings.
For perspective, more than $4,700 of the added cost of a 2009 car is already due to added safety and emission equipment so these rules would add about $3,000 on top of that according to government estimates BUT interestingly the Center for Automotive Research analysis calculates the cost of the new equipment would more than wipe out any fuel savings, even with gasoline selling at $6 a gallon – and which of these two “authorities” has the better track record for accuracy. Certainly not Obama’s Government experts!
Increasing fuel economy as a way to reduce greenhouse emissions and reliance on foreign oil is a laudable goal but the president shouldn’t lie about it to convince a skeptical audience he’s “helping” them, or at least once called out on the lie by the media he should “man-up” and issue a correction with an apology!
Then again, lately the dead give away that President Obama is lying is his lips are moving!
Crowd response: “We like that.”
OBAMA: “You like that, don't you?”
Crowd: “Yes!”
OBAMA: “Eight thousand dollars — that's no joke. … It looks like somebody might have fainted up here.”
People in the crowd certainly were fainting because they thought the President had just committed to giving every car owner a $5000 Government check for just driving because they knew the average annual cost for gasoline is less than $3,000 (just ask the Consumer Federation of America).
Obama then went on to claim: “Thanks to new fuel efficiency standards we put in place, they’re building cars that will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade. That’s almost double what they get today. That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time.”
In fact, according Obama’s own National Highway Transportation Safety Administration calculates a driver would have to keep his passenger car 26 years to realize that much fuel savings. How many people do you know that drive the same car for 26 years?
Although Obama made this outlandish claim a few days ago, the White House has made NO attempt to correct the record or even issue an explanation although several news organizations have called him on his “Presidential error.”
Now if he had said “$8,000 at the pump over 26 years” he might have been more accurate but then he might have neglected to mention the costs to the consumer of compliance with his new rules.
Obama’s standards are coming in two phases. The first, for model years 2012-2016, will increase the average cost about $950 while saving ~ $4,000 in fuel so the net savings is about $3,000 over the 26 years. The second set for model years 2017-2025 will add $2,200 to the cost of a car while reducing fuel costs by ~$6,600, for a net lifetime savings of $4,400. Here the analysis presumes gasoline at $3.42 before taxes but everyone knows Obama wants gas at European prices so at $8 a gallon his numbers might be a little more accurate.
For complicated reasons, the predicted fuel savings from the two rules might amount to a MAXimum of $8,000 while the cost of the rules cost about $3,000 a MAX savings of $5,000 over the 26 year but for the 17-25 standards it will take several years if ever to just recoup the higher vehicle cost through gas savings.
For perspective, more than $4,700 of the added cost of a 2009 car is already due to added safety and emission equipment so these rules would add about $3,000 on top of that according to government estimates BUT interestingly the Center for Automotive Research analysis calculates the cost of the new equipment would more than wipe out any fuel savings, even with gasoline selling at $6 a gallon – and which of these two “authorities” has the better track record for accuracy. Certainly not Obama’s Government experts!
Increasing fuel economy as a way to reduce greenhouse emissions and reliance on foreign oil is a laudable goal but the president shouldn’t lie about it to convince a skeptical audience he’s “helping” them, or at least once called out on the lie by the media he should “man-up” and issue a correction with an apology!
Then again, lately the dead give away that President Obama is lying is his lips are moving!
How to Acquire a Title or Become a “Top Government Official” the “Old Fashion Way” – Buy it from Obama!
Want to Know How to Acquire an Honorific Title or Just Become a “Top Government Official” without Starting at the Bottom? – Just Become an Obama BIG Fundraisers, Give Him a Ton of Money and Buy It!
Did you ever have a burning desire for a title? Maybe dream of being addressed as “Sir” as in “Sir Winston” or “your Lordship?” Maybe even toyed with the idea of using some spare cash to purchase a distressed British manor that comes with an “earldom?” Well fret no longer, you too can acquire a lifetime title of “The Honorable” or “Mr. Ambassador,” or even “Madam Secretary,” all you need do is bundle a bunch of cash for “Mr. President” as in President Obama. Now all Administrations have done it but this is the first one to raise it to an art form while campaign promising to make “the most sweeping ethics reform in history” and constantly criticizing the role of money in politics. That hasn’t stopped him from offering government jobs to some of his biggest bundlers – those volunteer fundraisers who gather political contributions from their rich donor cronies.
According to an 8 March 2012 article in the ultra liberal Washington Post exposing Obama’s Big Donors payoffs, more than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least half a million bucks for his campaign, have been given administration jobs. Nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees. Many of these appointees have proven to be as inept at managing as the person who appointed them – no mean feat -- which has proven costly in terms of advancing and protecting our national interests and costly for taxpayers.
At least 24 Obama bundlers have “earned” the title of “Mister or Madam Ambassador and are slaving away at such “hardship posts” as Finland, Australia, Portugal, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
Although The Foreign Service Act of 1980, states: “contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission,” the Obama administration has a disproportionate share of its ambassadors who are political appointees rather than career Foreign Service officers. Obama’s political money bag men have been rewarded with plum high ranking administration positions and ambassadorships in particular.
Obama has appointed 59 ambassadors who were not career Foreign Service Officers which prompted the president of the American Foreign Service Association, which represents career officers to say: “We think that the pendulum has swung a bit too far toward the patronage side of things,”
According to the State Department Inspector General, some of Obama’s bundler-ambassadors have had been exceptionally bad. For instance, Nicole Avant, a music industry executive who raised over $500,000, served as ambassador to the Bahamas until November. The IG reported that her tenure was part of “an extended period of dysfunctional leadership and mismanagement, which has caused problems throughout the embassy.” The IG reported “Avant spent roughly 40 percent of her time out of the country over a two-year period.” Avant’s explanation, “Part of my job as a U.S. ambassador was to travel.” Avant is now helping the Obama campaign raise money from donors in Hollywood. A position far better suited to her rather meager talents.
Another stand-out Obama bundler-ambassador was Luxembourg Ambassador Cynthia Stroum, a Seattle venture capitalist who raised $500,000 for Obama. The IG reported “she sent her staff on a house-hunting mission, billed the government for bedding after being told she couldn’t” and was “keenly interested” in the materials used for remodeling two bathrooms in her residence. Her “subjects” described her “as aggressive, bullying, hostile, and intimidating,” She was replaced by another bundler, Robert Mandell, a Florida real estate developer who raised over $500,000 for Obama’s campaign. Seems $500,000 is the “selling price” for a plum Obama appointment.
But high ranking Obama bundler-appointees are not limited to just ambassadorships, others include Attorney General Eric Holder as well as Julius Genachowski, the Federal Communications Commission chairman. Don’t forget Obama bundler Steve Spinner was the Obama White House Energy Department liaison who, according to internal White House e-mails turned over to congressional investigations, orchestrated the government loan to Solyndra which left taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal loans when the now-shuttered solar company went belly-up. Don’t forget that $535M “donation” was a payback to another campaign bundler, Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, Solyndra’s major investor who, in violation of Federal statute, the Administration allowed to get “in front of the Government” to recover his investment while leaving us Taxpayers “holding the bag.”
Bottom line, why bother spending years starting at the bottom working your way up through the Foreign Service ranks to become an ambassador to some backwater place like Botswana or Azerbaijan when all you have to do is “dial-for-dollars” to get the lush posts like England or Australia. Why slave as a career Civil Servant where, with exceptional luck and talant, you may become a mid-level functionary when “bundling bucks” for Obama lets you not only Start at the Top but for the rest of your life you will be addressed as “Mister or Madam Secretary” or “The Honorable …”
Is this a Great Country or what?
Did you ever have a burning desire for a title? Maybe dream of being addressed as “Sir” as in “Sir Winston” or “your Lordship?” Maybe even toyed with the idea of using some spare cash to purchase a distressed British manor that comes with an “earldom?” Well fret no longer, you too can acquire a lifetime title of “The Honorable” or “Mr. Ambassador,” or even “Madam Secretary,” all you need do is bundle a bunch of cash for “Mr. President” as in President Obama. Now all Administrations have done it but this is the first one to raise it to an art form while campaign promising to make “the most sweeping ethics reform in history” and constantly criticizing the role of money in politics. That hasn’t stopped him from offering government jobs to some of his biggest bundlers – those volunteer fundraisers who gather political contributions from their rich donor cronies.
According to an 8 March 2012 article in the ultra liberal Washington Post exposing Obama’s Big Donors payoffs, more than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least half a million bucks for his campaign, have been given administration jobs. Nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees. Many of these appointees have proven to be as inept at managing as the person who appointed them – no mean feat -- which has proven costly in terms of advancing and protecting our national interests and costly for taxpayers.
At least 24 Obama bundlers have “earned” the title of “Mister or Madam Ambassador and are slaving away at such “hardship posts” as Finland, Australia, Portugal, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
Although The Foreign Service Act of 1980, states: “contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission,” the Obama administration has a disproportionate share of its ambassadors who are political appointees rather than career Foreign Service officers. Obama’s political money bag men have been rewarded with plum high ranking administration positions and ambassadorships in particular.
Obama has appointed 59 ambassadors who were not career Foreign Service Officers which prompted the president of the American Foreign Service Association, which represents career officers to say: “We think that the pendulum has swung a bit too far toward the patronage side of things,”
According to the State Department Inspector General, some of Obama’s bundler-ambassadors have had been exceptionally bad. For instance, Nicole Avant, a music industry executive who raised over $500,000, served as ambassador to the Bahamas until November. The IG reported that her tenure was part of “an extended period of dysfunctional leadership and mismanagement, which has caused problems throughout the embassy.” The IG reported “Avant spent roughly 40 percent of her time out of the country over a two-year period.” Avant’s explanation, “Part of my job as a U.S. ambassador was to travel.” Avant is now helping the Obama campaign raise money from donors in Hollywood. A position far better suited to her rather meager talents.
Another stand-out Obama bundler-ambassador was Luxembourg Ambassador Cynthia Stroum, a Seattle venture capitalist who raised $500,000 for Obama. The IG reported “she sent her staff on a house-hunting mission, billed the government for bedding after being told she couldn’t” and was “keenly interested” in the materials used for remodeling two bathrooms in her residence. Her “subjects” described her “as aggressive, bullying, hostile, and intimidating,” She was replaced by another bundler, Robert Mandell, a Florida real estate developer who raised over $500,000 for Obama’s campaign. Seems $500,000 is the “selling price” for a plum Obama appointment.
But high ranking Obama bundler-appointees are not limited to just ambassadorships, others include Attorney General Eric Holder as well as Julius Genachowski, the Federal Communications Commission chairman. Don’t forget Obama bundler Steve Spinner was the Obama White House Energy Department liaison who, according to internal White House e-mails turned over to congressional investigations, orchestrated the government loan to Solyndra which left taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal loans when the now-shuttered solar company went belly-up. Don’t forget that $535M “donation” was a payback to another campaign bundler, Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, Solyndra’s major investor who, in violation of Federal statute, the Administration allowed to get “in front of the Government” to recover his investment while leaving us Taxpayers “holding the bag.”
Bottom line, why bother spending years starting at the bottom working your way up through the Foreign Service ranks to become an ambassador to some backwater place like Botswana or Azerbaijan when all you have to do is “dial-for-dollars” to get the lush posts like England or Australia. Why slave as a career Civil Servant where, with exceptional luck and talant, you may become a mid-level functionary when “bundling bucks” for Obama lets you not only Start at the Top but for the rest of your life you will be addressed as “Mister or Madam Secretary” or “The Honorable …”
Is this a Great Country or what?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Chevy Volt - Another Obama Crony Capitalism Fiasco!
On 28 February, President Obama told a United Auto Workers gathering that he'll buy a Chevrolet Volt after his presidency but his Secret Service prohibits him from driving now (strange, given President Bush drove while president but then again, Bush might have been a better driver). Obama said he “enjoyed sitting in a Volt” and plans to pick one up after his tenure is over "five years from now." Given how Volt sales are going, it’s doubtful it will even be around next year when he’s no longer president so he might want to buy one soon if he wants to make good on that promise. Even as “Obama friendly” GM is, even “Government Motors” can't afford to keep a clunker like the Volt in productions when it’s bleeding red ink like this one is!
Chevrolet announced on 2 March 2012 that it was temporarily halting production of the Volt and laying off 1300 workers at its Detroit Hamtramck plant because of poor consumer demand for the vehicle. GM has sold a piddly 1,626 Volts so far this year! Even with Obama’s more than $2 Billion “taxpayer donation” for electric car battery system design and a $7,500 tax credit for buying one of these clunkers, GM still can't sell this piece of junk!
There are three reasons why Volts don't sell: Price, Hassle and Safety (not to mention resale value - they lose most of their value driving off the dealer lot).
The Volt starts at about $41,000, or twice as much as the company’s high-mileage Cruze Eco compact sedan. Even if you never used gasoline in the Volt, you’d wait about 12 years before you saved enough on gas to make up for the Volt’s price difference.
The Cruze gets 40 miles to the gallon of gas reliably while the Volt’s battery performance varies with weather and driving conditions. Plugging in to charge can also be a chore most drivers choose to avoid.
Finally, battery fires broke out in three Volts after safety crash-testing last year thus creating a perception of a safety risk which has also hurt sales. GM and federal officials believe that the fires were caused by coolant leaking from damaged plastic casing around the batteries after side-impact test crashes.
Given all the strikes against it, the Volt is going to be the Edsel of the 2010 decade. With Obama’s “money is no object – as long as it’s Taxpayers’ money” attitude and his “Crony Capitalism” business philosophy, Taxpayer subsidies may keep it on life support until the next election to postpone another Solyndra but after the election when he’s no longer in office, I'm confident GM will let it die a quite death.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Dispelling Some Myths About Women in Combat
Despite all the brouhaha over the 9 Feb 12 Pentagon announcement opening about 14,000 combat related positions to women, in reality this is a technicality that will actually result in absolutely NO change in how many women are exposed to the dangers of combat – which if you examine the combat statistics is still very little. Most of the positions being opened are in maintenance and intelligence units supporting combat formations and these women are already serving “with” but just not “in” these units. Now instead of been “attached” to these units they will be “assigned” to them. A distinction without a difference. Women will remain barred from direct combat units – Infantry, Combat Engineers, Artillery, Special Forces, and Armor.
So how dangerous has it been for “women in combat?” In the past 10+ years of US combat operations in Afghanistan there have been (as of 19 Feb 12) 1896 causalities of which 1506 have been due to hostilities. Women accounted for 31 of the total with 20 of them attributed to hostile action, mostly IEDs. This means women have accounted for about 1½% of the causalities. Certainly much higher than the Vietnam experience where 104 women were among the 51,585 killed during the real 5 years of heavy combat (1966-70) or about .2% of the causalities but still not a significant portion of the losses.
One final myth that needs some “qualification” is the common one that recently appeared in the Washington Post: “Israeli women … serve in the military — indeed, in combat roles denied to women in the U.S. military.” That needs to be put into context because people are already quoting it as a reason to open US Combat formations to women. In 2000 the IDF opened Infantry up to women by forming the Caracal Battalion which is 70% female/30% male with mixed Jews and Arabs. The Battalion is part of the 512th "Sagi" Brigade which is a Territorial Brigade assigned to the relatively quite western sector of the Southern Territorial Command. It is the IDF's ONLY "women in combat experiment."
With as relatively good as the IDF may be, in comparison to the US Military it shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath. Hence, one should not be impressed by a second rate army’s token use of females in “a quasi-combat unit” nor should one try to extrapolate their experience to US combat formations.
Every American has the right to have an opinion about “Women in Combat” but to have an “informed opinion” they should at least read the Feb 2012 “DOD Report to Congress: Review of Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces” Then at least they might have a better understanding of the issues and the impacts of such a decision.
So how dangerous has it been for “women in combat?” In the past 10+ years of US combat operations in Afghanistan there have been (as of 19 Feb 12) 1896 causalities of which 1506 have been due to hostilities. Women accounted for 31 of the total with 20 of them attributed to hostile action, mostly IEDs. This means women have accounted for about 1½% of the causalities. Certainly much higher than the Vietnam experience where 104 women were among the 51,585 killed during the real 5 years of heavy combat (1966-70) or about .2% of the causalities but still not a significant portion of the losses.
One final myth that needs some “qualification” is the common one that recently appeared in the Washington Post: “Israeli women … serve in the military — indeed, in combat roles denied to women in the U.S. military.” That needs to be put into context because people are already quoting it as a reason to open US Combat formations to women. In 2000 the IDF opened Infantry up to women by forming the Caracal Battalion which is 70% female/30% male with mixed Jews and Arabs. The Battalion is part of the 512th "Sagi" Brigade which is a Territorial Brigade assigned to the relatively quite western sector of the Southern Territorial Command. It is the IDF's ONLY "women in combat experiment."
With as relatively good as the IDF may be, in comparison to the US Military it shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath. Hence, one should not be impressed by a second rate army’s token use of females in “a quasi-combat unit” nor should one try to extrapolate their experience to US combat formations.
Every American has the right to have an opinion about “Women in Combat” but to have an “informed opinion” they should at least read the Feb 2012 “DOD Report to Congress: Review of Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces” Then at least they might have a better understanding of the issues and the impacts of such a decision.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Washington Post Fact Checker Debunks Obama Mini-Whopper That Some (Republicans) Wanted the Auto Industry to Fail!
I would invite anyone that’s interested in knowing what the Washington Post Fact Checker actually said unedited to enlarge the below graphic and read it for yourself but here is my take on the subject,
Here are two quotes from recent Presidential “campaign speeches” where it is obvious that President Obama is accusing Republicans in general and Mitt Romney in particular of advocating to let the U.S. Auto Industry go under last year. Thankfully, the Fact Checker debunks that lie in his 3 February 12 article.
“It’s good to remember that the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die. Because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world.”
--President Obama, at the Washington Auto Show, Jan. 31, 2012
“On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.”
--Obama, in the State of the Union address, Jan. 24, 2011
The Fact Checker pointed this is “an unfortunate, and remarkably ungracious, tendency to distort the record” of George W. Bush on the auto industry rescue and that it was Bush that loaned billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler so that Obama was not confronted with an auto-industry collapse in his first days in office. He also says the President has a fondness for using rhetorical straw men in his speeches, wondered: Did anyone really say the auto industry should simply die?
The Facts
Reporters assume that the president’s words are aimed at his likely GOP rival former Gov Mitt Romney who penned OpEd titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” The basic thrust of the article was that the companies should go through a managed bankruptcy, mainly to shed labor costs, rather than just get a “bailout check” but he certainly did not say that the industry should die. In the end Obama did exactly what Romney advocated, he arranged for both GM and Chrysler to go through the bankruptcy process.
When asked by the Fact Checker about Obama’s baseless utterances, the White House did not provide any quotes from Romney thus trying to give the appearance Romney was not Obama’s intended target. Instead, they provided a seven-page document highlighting 30 Republican lawmaker statements criticizing both the Bush and Obama efforts to stabilize the auto industry but virtually all of these comments were questions of tactics, such as not enough pressure had been put on auto industry unions. It is clear that Republicans were pressing for an immediate auto industry bankruptcy to break the United Auto Workers.
One of the quotes supplied by the administration was made by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who was central to crafting the conditions for the Bush loan. Corker said on 31 March 2009, that “Chrysler was toast” but top Obama administration officials were split 4-4 at the time on whether it made sense to keep supporting Chrysler. Only days before Crocker made his statement Austan Goolsbee (one of Obama’s top economic advisors) appealed to Obama to let Chrysler die on the grounds that a Chrysler demise would enhance GM’s chances of survival but Obama rejected his advice. So it appears Obama unfairly criticizes Republicans for echoing sentiments expressed within his administration and should be crediting Bush for laying the groundwork for his eventual intervention.
The Pinocchio Test
So what is the WaPo bottom line, the evidence for Obama suggesting that GOP lawmakers were willing to let the auto industry collapse is not very strong. The quotes the Fact Checker received from Obama and others they researched were mostly questions of tactics. As the administration’s internal debate suggests, the answers were not clear and certainly several top Obama officials thought at least one car company should die.
Building on difficult decisions by George W. Bush, Obama made some tough calls and a good chunk of billions of taxpayer dollars may never be recovered but both GM and Chrysler are still in business so there is no need for such rhetorical overreach by the Obama Administration.
The WaPo only awarded Obama 2 Pinocchios so this is just a mini-Whopper and definitely not up to his usual 3 or 4 Whopper standard.
Here are two quotes from recent Presidential “campaign speeches” where it is obvious that President Obama is accusing Republicans in general and Mitt Romney in particular of advocating to let the U.S. Auto Industry go under last year. Thankfully, the Fact Checker debunks that lie in his 3 February 12 article.
“It’s good to remember that the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die. Because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world.”
--President Obama, at the Washington Auto Show, Jan. 31, 2012
“On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.”
--Obama, in the State of the Union address, Jan. 24, 2011
The Fact Checker pointed this is “an unfortunate, and remarkably ungracious, tendency to distort the record” of George W. Bush on the auto industry rescue and that it was Bush that loaned billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler so that Obama was not confronted with an auto-industry collapse in his first days in office. He also says the President has a fondness for using rhetorical straw men in his speeches, wondered: Did anyone really say the auto industry should simply die?
The Facts
Reporters assume that the president’s words are aimed at his likely GOP rival former Gov Mitt Romney who penned OpEd titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” The basic thrust of the article was that the companies should go through a managed bankruptcy, mainly to shed labor costs, rather than just get a “bailout check” but he certainly did not say that the industry should die. In the end Obama did exactly what Romney advocated, he arranged for both GM and Chrysler to go through the bankruptcy process.
When asked by the Fact Checker about Obama’s baseless utterances, the White House did not provide any quotes from Romney thus trying to give the appearance Romney was not Obama’s intended target. Instead, they provided a seven-page document highlighting 30 Republican lawmaker statements criticizing both the Bush and Obama efforts to stabilize the auto industry but virtually all of these comments were questions of tactics, such as not enough pressure had been put on auto industry unions. It is clear that Republicans were pressing for an immediate auto industry bankruptcy to break the United Auto Workers.
One of the quotes supplied by the administration was made by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who was central to crafting the conditions for the Bush loan. Corker said on 31 March 2009, that “Chrysler was toast” but top Obama administration officials were split 4-4 at the time on whether it made sense to keep supporting Chrysler. Only days before Crocker made his statement Austan Goolsbee (one of Obama’s top economic advisors) appealed to Obama to let Chrysler die on the grounds that a Chrysler demise would enhance GM’s chances of survival but Obama rejected his advice. So it appears Obama unfairly criticizes Republicans for echoing sentiments expressed within his administration and should be crediting Bush for laying the groundwork for his eventual intervention.
The Pinocchio Test
So what is the WaPo bottom line, the evidence for Obama suggesting that GOP lawmakers were willing to let the auto industry collapse is not very strong. The quotes the Fact Checker received from Obama and others they researched were mostly questions of tactics. As the administration’s internal debate suggests, the answers were not clear and certainly several top Obama officials thought at least one car company should die.
Building on difficult decisions by George W. Bush, Obama made some tough calls and a good chunk of billions of taxpayer dollars may never be recovered but both GM and Chrysler are still in business so there is no need for such rhetorical overreach by the Obama Administration.
The WaPo only awarded Obama 2 Pinocchios so this is just a mini-Whopper and definitely not up to his usual 3 or 4 Whopper standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)