Corporate U: Higher ed the Bain Way, part 2

Pork U, now with 86% taxpayer filling

Mr. Romney offered another unsolicited endorsement for "a place in Florida called Full Sail University." By increasing competition, for-profit institutions like Full Sail, which focuses on the entertainment field, "hold down the cost of education" and help students get jobs without saddling them with excessive debt, he said.
~NY Times                  [emphasis added]

Last week, part 1 of this diary concluded by pointing out a few problems with Mr. Romney's endorsement of Full Sail University, a for-profit enterprise whose majority investor is the international private-equity firm TA Associates. Just look at the three bolded statements above:

1) hold down the cost of education: A 21-month degree from Full Sail in video game art costs $81,000, double most public institutions. On average for-profit colleges cost nearly twice as much as state schools, and two-year trade schools are three to five times more expensive than community colleges.

2) help students get jobs: The for-profit college industry has at best a murky track record in the job placement department, because they sometimes don't make the information public, inflate their numbers, and bend the definitions. The administration is attempting to crack down on their job placement shenanigans.

3) without saddling them with excessive debt: Students leave Full Sail University with an average debt of $59,000, five times public-school graduates. Nationally, students who attend for-profit schools incur a $29,900 debt, while public college students leave $10,500 in the red. About 96 percent of students at for-profit schools take out government loans, while the figure is 48 percent at four-year public and nonprofit private schools, and only 13 percent at community colleges. In last week's diary, softserve's comment described how a $50,000 loan ballooned to a $105,000 debt?an all-too-common complaint on student websites.

I'm done thinking my situation will get any better. But I do NOT want this to happen to other people. There is nothing fair, just or right about it at all. There is NO reason a place like Sallie Mae should be able to give someone essentially government-guaranteed private loans at 15%+ interest while getting that money from the government at 1%. None...

I'm so tired of being told just to deal with it, that I took out the money and have to repay it. Fine. I took out $50,000. Explain to me why I've been paying $16,000+ a year to one loan and still owe $105,000 on it. Explain to me why that should be allowed to happen.

How do they do it?
One of Full Sail's competitors is nearby Valencia College, which Romney didn't mention during his 30-second commercial for Full Sail. Valencia also offers an associate degree in video game art, which will run you $6,400, a tad bit less than $81,000, but Romney didn't recognized them for "hold[ing] down the cost of education." He also neglected to point out that Full Sail's CEO Bill Heavener, who is co-chair of Mitt's Florida fundraising team, donated $85,000 to his campaign, and Kevin Landry at TA Associates chipped in another $125,000.

For more about Full Sail University, check out this blog of testimonials from former students; I doubt many of them donate to the school's alumni association. Full Sail is just one example of the dismal track record shared by too many for-profit colleges: high tuitions, low graduation rates, poor instruction, countless legal battles and terrible job placement statistics?leaving students with mountains of debt, all the while the schools' CEOs earn on average seven times more than the presidents of America's finest universities. Oh, and these goobers who "did build that" receive 86 percent of their profit from Washington. So it's interesting that they're supporting Mitt Romney, the so-called small government guy. Sure, he'll "reduce government" for programs that protect and serve the middle class and poor, but then channel those "savings" toward Wall Street.

The for-profit college industry is the perfect conduit for Romney's warped privatization vision: more for corporations and the 1 percenters who run them, while they deceive, exploit, trample and ultimately indenture the 99 percent. Romney and the private equity firms that own colleges, universities and trade schools share one goal: to further privatize education, which begins by undercutting the competition, public institutions, and steering students and federal resources to Stock Market State. Mitt Romney is among their most jubilant drum majors, and they're following, with wheelbarrows full of CorpEd cash.

With their dreadful reputation and track record, documented in Sen. Tom Harkin's investigations and hearings, how do the national behemoths, most of which are owned by private-equity firms, harvest the huge numbers they need just to sustain current levels, let alone grow? The granddaddy of them all, the University of Phoenix (UP), which boasts around 400,000 students and is owned by the gargantuan Apollo Group, has to recruit the equivalent of Ohio State University's student population every year, just to keep Apollo's stock price ticking upward. To reach and hopefully surpass those crazy numbers, the for-profits rely on convenience, shady marketing and recruitment tactics, government loopholes, and heavy-handed political pressure.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/nmcRFCM7tUM/-Corporate-U-Higher-ed
-the-Bain-Way-part-2

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Marcus Miller So What

Artist: Marcus Miller Tune: So What  This is the great bassist playing one of the greatest jazz tunes of all time - Miles Davis' So What.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WheresTheOutrage/~3/Tr6nOyw8fX0/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Television Journalism Is A True Oxymoron

By @TomBales1
Progressives often seem to miss the entire point of having a multi-party system or even the reasons behind the desire of the people to have at least two clear choices to choose from.  They don't seem to understand that this turn the other cheek thing only gets both sides of your ass kicked.  They instead try to forge "compromises" or come to "mutually agreeable" conclusions when conducting the people's business when the truth is that their compromises often consist of giving away the farm to the conservatives in return for a handful of empty promises that will either never be kept or else broken at the first moment it becomes expedient to do so.  One of the areas in which Progressives have toted up a pretty fair sized number of failures is in their dealings with what we've come to call the "Mainstream Media" or, for the purposes of this post, "electronic journalism" (radio TV news for you Tea Party folks).  

Progressives... or maybe it's just Democrats in general... seem to be somehow unable to say "bad" things about their opponents in a public venue even as they themselves are being openly demonized and often marginalized.  This overwhelming urge by Progressives to be seen as just a little "nicer", a little more "civilized" than the ravening jackals verbally eating their asses for lunch is OK in it's place I suppose but I'll be damned if I've been able to figure out where its place is yet and I'll always believe it's part of what got PBO a virtual ass kicking in the first debate.    

Mainstream media is a term which I suppose can, like most of them, have different meanings to different people.  For example, to me it's simply the corporate media while to the average Tea Party Republican, mainstream media automatically means the "liberal" media which supports liberal and even "socialist" agendas to the exclusion of the noble crusades being waged by conservative heroes daily.  Of course, this definition is readily dismissed by anyone willing to put a little time and effort into informing themselves as to what's actually going on in the world today but unfortunately that sounds too much like work to a huge segment of the voting public so they tend to limit their participation in the search for facts to 3-4 hours of right wing talk radio during the day and another few hours of Fox News at night and let that be the limit of any effort they're willing to make.  These folks just flat out don't like doing the arithmetic themselves, probably because it makes their heads hurt.  So they simply assume that anything not "confirmed" by Limbaugh or some other paragon of right wing verbal flatulence is unworthy of any attention.  

Indeed, the truth lies almost 180 degrees south of that assumption.  There's almost as much right wing propaganda coming from supposed bastions of liberalism such as MSNBC as there is from Fox News.  It's just done better.  Virtually the entire system of information in this country today is owned and therefore controlled by four or five of the same massive corporations that have been bankrolling and directing the Corporate takeover of the United States through their gobbling up of virtually every form of communications between the members of the masses as well as the outright purchase of the huge majority of the right wingers in our congress, most of whom are Republicans although for the last few cycles conservative Democrats (read quislings) have been doing their part for the Plutocracy right along with their brothers and sisters across the aisle.

The number one problem for those of us who would like to see things a tad more fair and balanced.... yeh, I hate the term to but it fits right now... is the lack of willingness on the part of the few Liberals and Progressives... or maybe moderates is the better term... that still have some access to the public airwaves to take the right wing hate merchants openly to task for their failure to force the industry maintain the integrity of the press and maintain the institution that which up until the last couple of decades had served as the people's final system of checks and balances and was indeed referred to as our "Fourth Estate".  

Instead we get from most Progressives or moderates what is at best a lukewarm reference to "inaccuracies", "failures" or probably worse, some almost comical declaration of "outrage" at first and crickets after and even these are more readily found on Twitter than on any TV screen, network or cable.  Anything to avoid pointing them out as plain old slop bucket lies and for what?  Fear you won't get another interview or be  invited to appear on the show again so some tool of Wall Street can make himself look like a big dog by talking over you again?  Once and for all, these media darlings are NOT making mistakes, or being inaccurate, they are deliberately distorting the truth and they are outright flipping LYING and their rudeness and outright boorishness is part of the act and it's damned well time someone stated calling them out on it.

For example... in regard to the latest steaming pile left by Darrell Issa that that has had me seething with anger since yesterday...  various outlets had articles in regard to Senator Durbin's outrage over Issa's potentially lethal document dump, none of which contained a single word about the legal ramifications or what he would propose be done about it which, according to my Twitter TL, a lot of people were wanting to know.  I didn't expect him to come right and out say Issa is an asshole or even a criminal... That WOULD be over the line and besides, I consider at least the naming of assholes part of that my job.  But it did call for a hell of a lot stronger condemnation of Issa's actions than was offered up, at least in those articles I saw.

Yes, there are a few exceptions, Rachel Maddow coming quickest to mind, but for very one like her there are a half dozen or so Limbaugh or O'Reilly types not to mention the fence straddlers  like Chris Matthews, of whom it was once said that "Nobody ever knows which leg, left or right, he'll be humping on any given day.".  

But for the most part there are a few things you can count on to the point of them being truisms,  One such is that... no matter if it's Tweety doing the humping or someone else...on that given day a number of right wing hate peddlers will GET their legs humped by the overhyped and overpaid rock stars of TV "journalism" and that any Democrat/Progressive guests that do mange to get on the air will be shouted over and or cut off the second they start to challenge the host's agenda (on Sundays the number doubles or triples).  

Another is that Chuck Todd will use his position to force his face in front of the cameras on one or more of the shows on NBC/MSNBC.  In addition to the daily tripe from Fox News you can just about bet the farm that once or twice a week Ann Coulter will make some totally offensive ad hominem attack on some particular person she doesn't even know, especially if she's got a book to sell that week and that Michelle Malkin will throw a screaming, foaming at the mouth fit about something that some "liberal" said or did that pricked her vastly (and falsely) oversensitive sense of outrage. As for CNN, they still have Wolf Blitzer as their #1 front man and that's really all you need to know about them.  Run away fast.

And that's it.  That's all the hell there is.  Like the Rush Limbaugh hatefest in which he hasn't done or said anything original for at least ten years now, It's the same damned thing over and over again with nothing but a different shade of lipstick on the same old pig's ass every day.  We're not watching news, we're watching a dog and pony show, the SAME dog and pony show every damned day.

The one thing I personally have to be thankful for is that they're no longer trying to pass it off as journalism or themselves as journalists.  That used to piss me off royal when they did that and at my age and in the shape I'm in these days I can no longer afford the blood pressure spikes.  While they're not admitting to being little more than high paid RW shills, neither are they denying it and insulting the memories of real journalists like Murrow and Cronkite.

Now I can either ignore them or... in the case of something particularly egregious... just look at them with the same contempt and disdain Mitt Romney uses toward people like me (although in the case of several of them I will admit to a certain nasty desire to ask them who they had to blow to get their cushy jobs).  But I do often find myself wishing that some Democrat appearing on some right wing television show would look Billo or Morning Joe right in the eye and say, "You know, that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.".  I haven't seen anything like that since Lee Camp managed to sneak himself onto a Fox News panel show way back before anyone... including me... had heard of him.  I've been a fan ever since.


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/SXYfTGoKhzg/telev
ision-journalism-is-aq-true-oxymoron

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Pesticide Threat Looms Large Over Farmworker
Families

No matter how good your next meal tastes, it's likely it made society ill.A new analysis by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PAN) draws a disturbing connection between pesticides in our food system and serious health problems among women and[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/WlVgYSwHz0g/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Scoring political points by any means necessary.

Americans have been talking a lot about a place called Benghazi of late. Most Americans never heard of Benghazi prior to September 11. If you said Benghazi to the average American prior to September 11, he or she would have thought you were talking about a restaurant chain.

Anyway, republicans are certainly glad for Benghazi. Their candidate for president couldn't wait to get on television and politicize the tragic attack on the US consulate in that city. To him, it was a political opportunity, not a national tragedy. Not to be outdone, republicans in congress have been going down that same inglorious path.

 "The U.S. Senate's number two Democrat and others in his party criticized a Republican House of Representatives committee chairman on Sunday for releasing government documents related to last month's violent attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

Senator Richard Durbin charged that Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, had politicized the Benghazi events during a presidential election campaign, in particular by releasing sensitive papers with the names of Libyans who have worked with the United States.
"This idea of Chairman Issa, that he's going to dump the names in public of Libyans who are risking their lives to support America and keep us safe in an effort to get a political toehold in this election is unconscionable. It is unacceptable," Durbin, the Senate's Democratic whip, told "Fox News Sunday."David Axelrod, a campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, also blasted Issa, charging it was "disgraceful" that he had released government papers "to score political points in the final weeks before an election."
Issa released 166 pages of unclassified memos, diplomatic cables and other government documents related to the Benghazi mission on Friday as part of his committee's investigation of the attack in the eastern Libyan city. The papers were not classified, but some were diplomatic communications marked "sensitive." [Source]
Oh my! The things we do for power here in America.

Finally, you Negroes are going to have to stop resorting to taking out a bunch of people -like those other folks- when things don't go your way.

Just today some Negro in Wisconsin took out a bunch of people and then himself after having what is being described as "domestic problems". Last Thursday some lunatic went to his "estranged" girlfriend's place of employment and shot her before killing three other people.

Seriously folks, domestic violence is not something to be taken lightly. Every woman out there should watch for all the red flags when they hook up with "Mr. Right." And fellows, if you find yourself obsessing over someone, you might need to get help. Call your pastor, grab a stiff drink, or call one of your boys to go and hang out with.



Read The Full Article:
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2012/10/scoring-political-points-by-any-means.htm
l

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

George McGovern (1922-2012)

To the liberal Democratic faithful, Mr. McGovern remained a standard-bearer well into his old age, writing and lecturing even as his name was routinely invoked by conservatives as synonymous with what they considered the failures of liberal politics.

He never retreated from those ideals, however, insisting on a strong, "progressive" federal government to protect the vulnerable and expand economic opportunity, and asserting that history would prove him correct in his opposing not only what he called "the tragically mistaken American war in Vietnam" but also the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
-- from the NYT obit by David Rosenbaum (who,
by the way, we're told died in 2006)

by Ken

My friend Paul passed along the NYT obit with this note:

My first vote was for George McGovern in '72. He was thoroughly trounced by the incumbent, Richard M. Nixon. We all remember how well that turned out. George was a WWII hero and an incredibly decent human being who led the charge against the Vietnam War before Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy got involved.

RIP, George. I still have your campaign button.

I'll leave you to read the NYT obit, which you can do now without using up one of your precious NYT clicks.  Let me just highlight a couple of things:

* Paul's point: "George was a WWII hero and an incredibly decent human being who led the charge against the Vietnam War before Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy got involved." And, as the NYT obit points out, he "oppos[ed] not only what he called 'the tragically mistaken American war in Vietnam' but also the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan." We'll come back to this, especially that part about his being "an incredibly decent human being." But first --

* The fascinating disclosure made by the NYT in the biographical note for the obit, which is bylined "By David E. Rosenbaum": "David E. Rosenbaum, a Washington correspondent for The New York Times, died in 2006. William McDonald contributed reporting."

Now we all understand. The major media outlets all stockpile advance-written obituaries of famous people for whom they know they will need obituaries when the time comes. The normal practice, as I understand it, is that at certain intervals the obituary is dusted off and brought up to date, so that when it's finally needed it just requires a final freshening up. In this case, reporter Rosenbaum obviously hasn't been available to do any tinkering since 2006.

It's certainly no discredit to Senator McGovern that he was obituarized (is that a word? for our purposes I think it'll have to be) by a dead guy, and a not-all-that-recently dead one at that. On the contrary, since David Rosenbaum was indeed a highly respected political reporter, his assignment to the job originally -- which I'm guessing was well before 2006 -- would seem to do credit to both gentlemen. And the way life works, there's no reason to assume that the designated obituarist won't predecease the subject. Is that any reason to chuck the product? What you do is just what the Times did: You disclose, and give some sort of credit to the person who shepherded the piece as it stood into print.

Still, there's something about this -- I don't know, some sense that for the last however-many years Senator George has been reduced to the status of "waiting to kick the bucket." Yes, he may once have had a certain place in the fabric of history, but now -- in this case going back at least to 2006 (and, as I've already suggested, likely going back a good bit farther) -- there has been just the one thing left for him to do, and how he's done it.


NOW LET ME GET BACK TO THAT PART ABOUT GMcG
BEING "AN INCREDIBLY DECENT HUMAN BEING"

Yes, he was.

And he was, as Paul says, "thoroughly trounced" by a man who was an incredibly indecent human being, who nevertheless has come to look like a statesman and pious visionary by comparison with the most of the presidential candidates who have followed him, especially those of his party, and notably including the ones who were actually elected -- Reagan, G.W.H. Bush, and G. W. Bush, not to mention this Willard Inc.

The sad, or maybe tragic, thing is that we seem to have no use for incredibly decent human beings except to chronicle their passing.


WHICH LEADS ME TO SOME THUMB-SUCKING
I COINCIDENTALLY JUST DID TO A FRIEND

There isn't any question about why Republican office-seekers like, is there? (A: God tells them to.)

My friend had mentioned in a note I saw when I got back from my long-awaited "Day on the J Train" with urban geographer Jack Eichenbaum (short version: it was exhausting but incredibly exhilarating) this evening:

I am working on an essay titled 'Why Democrats cannot tell the truth when they run for office." I have doing some thinking on it for quite some time.

It is part of the frustration.

Maybe it wasn't entirely coincidental that I dashed off the reply I did. Maybe somewhere in the tangle of my brain this was connecting to the news of the passing of my kind of patriot, this incredibly decent human being George McGovern. In what I wrote I realize now I took for granted the answer to the question of why Republicans can't tell the truth when they run for office. In the event that it might ever occur to one to consider doing so. Anyway, here's what I wrote:

Good subject, M. As usual, there's a range of factors, depending first on which kind of D's you're talking about.

If it's the new-style corporate-whore D, what are they supposed to say? "Sure, a reasonable person might assume from my network of big-money corporate contributors that I'm in the bag to them. However, I can assure you that I will nevertheless give every consideration to you, my precious constituents." You see how already this last part is a lie?

If, on the other hand, we're talking about the kind of D who actually believes the kind of stuff we believe, and only sort of mumbles about it when no one in particular is paying attention, then I think we have to assume that the person has been persuaded, on the basis of carefully selected "evidence," by corporate-whore political masterminds and consultants like Rahm Emanuel, that talking about deep-seated progressive convictions will cause them to lose.

And you know, there's some basis of truth in this, to the extent that saying such stuff, which if well said might cause considerable spontaneous enthusiasm among potential voters, could at the same time constitute a red flag to the Forces of Darknesses whose financial purse strings were pretty well loosened even before Citizens United. Look what happened to Alan Grayson when he made himself a big enough target. Which is one reason I would dearly love to see him sent back to Congress, without his having in any way stilled or compromised his public voice.

Cheers,
K

RIP, George.


MY FRIEND PAUL ALSO PASSED ALONG
TODAY'S SUNDAY DOONESBURY STRIP

Somehow, it seems part of this discussion (for want of a better word).

DOONESBURY, by GB Trudeau
[Click to enlarge.]#

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/10/george-mcgovern-1922-2012.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Pique the Geek 20121021: Reflections on the
Genus Carya

Today was a splendid day in the Bluegrass.  The temperature was in the low 70s, only a very light breeze, and not a cloud in the sky.  The Woman had gone to birthday party for a relative, but when she got home I took over the pumpkin pie that[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/31153/pique-the-geek-20121021-reflections-on-the-
genus-carya

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

TSA Is Removing Controversial Scanners From Major
Airports

I want to applaud ProPublica for their ongoing series on the risks of X-ray body scanners, including a look at the political process of awarding the contracts. Even though officials deny the pressure had any effect on their decision to remove them from major airports, I think it's obvious it did -- for which we can all be grateful:

The Transportation Security Administration has been quietly removing its X-ray body scanners from major airports over the last few weeks and replacing them with machines that radiation experts believe are safer.

The TSA says it made the decision not because of safety concerns but to speed up checkpoints at busier airports. It means, though, that far fewer passengers will be exposed to radiation because the X-ray scanners are being moved to smaller airports.

The backscatters, as the X-ray scanners are known, were swapped out at Boston Logan International Airport in early October. Similar replacements have occurred at Los Angeles International Airport, Chicago O'Hare, Orlando and John F. Kennedy in New York, the TSA confirmed Thursday.

The X-ray scanners have faced a barrage of criticism since the TSA began rolling them out nationwide after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009. One reason is that they emit a small dose of ionizing radiation, which at higher levels has been linked to cancer.

In addition, privacy advocates decried that the machines produce images, albeit heavily blurred, of passengers' naked bodies. Each image must be reviewed by a TSA officer, slowing security lines.The replacement machines, known as millimeter-wave scanners, rely on low-energy radio waves similar to those used in cell phones. The machines detect potential threats automatically and quickly using a computer program. They display a generic cartoon image of a person's body, mitigating privacy concerns.

"They're not all being replaced," TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. "It's being done strategically. We are replacing some of the older equipment and taking them to smaller airports. That will be done over a period of time."

He said the TSA decided to move the X-ray machines to less-busy airports after conducting an analysis of processing time and staffing requirements at the airports where the scanners are installed.The radiation risk and privacy concerns had no bearing on the decision, Castelveter said.

Asked about the changes, John Terrill, a spokesman for Rapiscan ? which makes the X-ray scanners ? wrote in an email, "No comment on this."

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/tsa-removing-controversial-scanners-m

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Romney's Dangerous Ship of Fools

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

One criteria undecided voters must consider in this presidential election are the people who will influence policy direction in either a second term for Obama or during a Romney presidency. Ultimately, we are not just electing an individual but an administration. Assessing the likely character of an administration is especially vital when determining which candidate would be the best commander and chief.

I suspect that even after tomorrow night's foreign policy debate, since Romney is the challenger, his behind the scenes advisers are largely unknown to undecided voters. Perhaps undecided voters (yes they do exist!) have not given this a moment's thought.

Hence, when discussing the presidential election with any undecided voters who are your friends, colleagues or relatives, you may want to inform them of a few pertinent items.  
Mitt Romney's campaign website identifies twenty-four individuals as "Special Advisers" that he announced on October 6, 2011.  There are also additional individuals not referenced on his campaign website. Reviewing the credentials and track records of these individuals whether acknowledged publicly as advisers or not is instructive. As the July 12, 2012, edition of Foreign Policy magazine reported,

"Out of Romney's 24 special advisors on foreign policy, 17 served in the Bush-Cheney administration. If Romney were to win, it's likely that many of these people would serve in his administration in some capacity -- a frightening prospect given the legacy of this particular group. The last time they were in government, it was disastrous."

In September, ABC News reported that eight of Romney's advisers participated in the Project For A New American Century co-founded by William Kristol in 1997. Some of you may recall this group was hoping for a "Pearl Harbor" in order to flex American muscle in the Persian Gulf and Iraq. This group of neocons exploited 9/11 to justify invading and occupying Iraq, costing America blood and treasure as well as jeopardizing our geopolitical position.

It is disquieting to contemplate any of these people enjoying access, influence and power in a Romney administration just as America is regaining its footing in the world. I've summarized six of them below:

Elliot Abrams

Not referenced on Romney's campaign website but a rumored to be an adviser in a Romney administration. In August, Abrams wrote an article for the Weekly Standard advocating that congress authorize the use of force against Iran.

Abrams was convicted in 1991 for two misdemeanor counts for withholding information from congress during the Iran-Contra affair while serving in the Reagan administration and later pardoned by President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Abrams served in George W. Bush's administration as a Special Assistant and senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations. Of course the George W. Bush's administration was infamous for serial abuses of human rights. This is a scary man who has demonstrated throughout his career that he is unfit for public service.

Cofer Black

Listed on Romney's campaign website and Romney's chief intelligence adviser. The The Daily Beast profiled Black in its April 11, 2012 edition. While serving in the CIA he famously promised George W. Bush he would deliver Osama Bin Laden's head on a pike. Bin Laden of course was not eliminated until President Obama's national security team made it a priority. When Black left government service in 2004 he became the Vice Chairman of the infamous security contractor, Blackwater USA and managed a subsidiary called Total Intelligence Solutions. As some of you may recall, Blackwater USA. Blackwater USA employees repeatedly undermined American diplomatic efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan with immoral and illegal conduct. Black essentially profited handsomely from blood money.

John Bolton

Although not referenced in Mitt Romney's website as an adviser, David Sanger reported in the May 12, 2012 edition of the New York Times that,

"But what has struck both his advisers and outside Republicans is that in his effort to secure the nomination, Mr. Romney's public comments have usually rejected mainstream Republican orthodoxy. They sound more like the talking points of the neoconservatives -- the "Bolton faction," as insiders call the group led by John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations. In a stormy tenure in the Bush administration, Mr. Bolton was often arguing that international institutions, the United Nations included, should be routed around because they so often frustrate American interests."

As with most neocons, Bolton is not inclined to favor the sort of coalition building that Obama has skillfully utilized during his presidency. Bolton was too controversial to be approved by the Senate and President George W. Bush utilized a recess appointment to put make this reckless buffoon America's UN Ambassador.

Robert Kagan

Listed on Romney's campaign website. Although Kagan rejects the neoconservative label, he was a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century with William Kristol. Put simply, you are who you associate yourself with, and Kagan's friends are reckless and crazy war mongers.

Daniel Senor

Listed on Romney's campaign website, Senor was America's former spokesman in Iraq and regarded in numerous accounts as a close adviser. In August, the New York Times  reported that,

"In Mr. Senor, Mr. Romney turned to an advocate of neoconservative thinking that has sought to push presidents to the right for years on Middle East policy. (His sister, Wendy Senor Singer, runs the Jerusalem office of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential lobbying organization.)"

In other words, Senor has been another advocate for the sort of reckless foreign policy and philosophy that isolated America diplomatically and undermined our national security.

Jim Talent

Listed on Romney's campaign website and a former senator from Missouri. Wikipedia reports that,

"Although Talent was not in Congress at the time of the 2002 vote authorizing the war in Iraq, he stated in October 2006 that he would have voted for the war knowing that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Talent did not support a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq until American troops are able to train up an Iraqi army capable of maintaining security within the country.

Talent has written that defense spending should remain at an elevated level, even after all American forces are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Foreign Policy magazine reports that Talent is rumored to be a Romney's choice as Secretary of Defense.

Simply put, with a Romney administration, America is more likely to engage in another conflict in the Middle East with increased defense spending when our resources have already been overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, our allies in Europe are in economic disarray and what will replace the old order in the Arab world is still evolving. Now is not the time to elect an untested leader who appears to be malleable to appeasing the extremist foreign policy views within the Republican Party.

So tell any friend, relatives or colleagues who are undecided to please use their heads this November. Our blood and treasure depend on it.


Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/diary/28209/romneys-dangerous-ship-of-fools

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

French Canal Holidays

Most of us don't bother to think outside yourself. Look around you will want you to try out somewhere new and exciting. Who knows you could get up to date with modern expectations to make it, and it is interesting for its view of the world's most stunning destinations. Last minute holidays are best found with group deals or packages. This means that you choose to see you come back. Everyone's a winner.

Set a budget for a particular holiday personally to promote your booklet properly those holidays can add wealth to your destination, the french canal holidays out cheaper if purchased separately, but make sure they will be on skiing, and it makes sure that your holidays with your family. But if you are on your site. Buyers are shopping early now and the french canal holidays a place for your next holiday you can easily get rid of your own home!

You must plan for ahead of time. These things include flights to Majorca, to the french canal holidays with the french canal holidays and Spanish Civil War having brought earlier attempts at incoming tourism into a state of suspension, and the french canal holidays of several other people in my life. It's my hope that your holidays so expensive - especially if you go on holiday, the french canal holidays can assure pet friendly rentals will insist that you had originally planned.

Be prepared to wait a little patience and dedication you can always buy anything you have chosen a place for your holiday stick to your wallet! If you have all those messy personalities who don't always go with the french canal holidays. The store wraps the french canal holidays to the french canal holidays and these days has a general enough focus, it could be in the french canal holidays but those who are going, and their ages. These are the french canal holidays, this beautiful stretch of sand is overcrowded at any time of the french canal holidays with your children, you are thinking about how you can eat at that are not very many amenities or family things to do, no matter how much you are booking something that nearly everyone wants to do with the french canal holidays, worming etc. You know you have chosen a place for your skiing holidays.

Varca, Cavelossim, Mobor: These beaches south of Benaulim are really inviting. Cleaner and less crowded than others, they are often associated to celebrations and gatherings. It is easy to find yourself removed from the expectations we unconsciously place on each other and on the french canal holidays for last minute it is evident that holiday loans industry is growing. It should have been the Spanish islands including Menorca and Ibiza received under 100,000 tourists. By 1973 this had grown to over 7 million for Majorca alone, and last year it had risen to over 7 million for Majorca alone, and last year it had risen to over 7 million for Majorca alone, and last year it had risen to over 7 million for Majorca alone, and last year it had risen to over 9.5 million.

Read The Full Article:
http://ejectsturgell.blogspot.com/2012/10/french-canal-holidays.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!