Rao bulletin 15 September 2016 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles pg Article Subject
Download 0.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Trump Not Privatizing the VA
- Batteries ► Which to Buy
- Decide on nonalkaline versus alkaline.
- Choose between generic versus name brand.
- Weigh options to expand battery lifespan.
- Choose the most suitable disposable battery.
- Decide whether to buy rechargeables.
- 911 Legacy ► Permanent State of War for 15 Years
- Patton Armored Diesel ► New Cane Spirit Honors WWII General
Air Force One Trump said that Obama’s visits to China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba were “the first time in the history, the storied history of Air Force One” when “high officials” of a host country did not appear to greet the president. That’s not true. Other presidents have encountered similar low-key greetings on foreign trips aboard the presidential aircraft. Trump referred to the fact that Cuba’s president, Raul Castro, did not greet Obama at the airport on his historic visit to Cuba in March, that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman did not meet Air Force One at the start of Obama’s trip to Riyadh in April, and he referred to China’s handling of the president’s arrival in Hangzhou last Saturday for a Group of 20 meeting. Whether or not those arrivals constituted snubs of a U.S. president as Trump claims is a matter of debate. But Trump is wrong on the facts when he claims it has not happened before. It has. In 1984, for example, Ronald Reagan landed in Beijing and was received by China’s foreign minister rather than the president, whom he met only later. Similarly, on a 1985 trip to West Germany, Reagan was met by the foreign minister and not Chancellor Helmut Kohl. These and other examples were dug up by Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post‘s “Fact Checker,” who researched a Trump claim in April that Cuba’s and Saudi Arabia’s handling of Obama’s visits were “without precedent.” Kessler said of Trump, “once again he’s wrong, wrong, wrong.” Kessler also noted that during Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China he was greeted at the airport by the country’s number two man, Premier Zhou Enlai. His boss, Chairman Mao, didn’t even agree to meet with Nixon until after he had arrived at a guest house. Trump Not Privatizing the VA Clinton said that her plan to overhaul the Veterans Health Administration would not include privatization, which she said Trump supports. Clinton: I will not let the VA be privatized. And I do think that there is an agenda out there — supported by my opponent — to do just that. I think that would be very disastrous for our military veterans. But Trump refuted that statement when it was his turn to discuss his plan to help veterans. “I would not do that,” Trump said, referring to Clinton’s claim that he supports privatization. Trump: And by the way, I never said take the VA, the Veterans Administration, private. I wouldn’t do that. Too much respect for our people. I heard it was said that I said that. I would not do that. But I do believe, I do believe, when you’re waiting in line for six, seven days, you should never be in a position like that. You go out, you see the doctor, you get yourself taken care of. Trump’s campaign published “The Goals Of Donald J. Trump’s Veterans Plan” on its website last October. It doesn’t call for the VA to be completely privatized. One of the biggest changes that plan would make to the current VA health care system is allowing veterans to get care at any non-VA medical center that accepts Medicare. “Under a Trump Administration, all veterans eligible for VA health care can bring their veteran’s ID card to any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare to get the care they need immediately,” the plan states. “The power to choose will stop the wait time backlogs and force the VA to improve and compete if the department wants to keep receiving veterans’ healthcare dollars,” the plan says. Trump’s proposal would seemingly go further than the Non-VA Medical Care Program, which allows eligible veterans to access care outside of the VA under certain circumstances, such as when VA medical centers cannot provide services. The program requires pre-approval for veterans to receive care at a non-VA facility in non-emergency situations. Trump’s proposal would also go further than the bipartisan Veterans Choice Act of 2014 that President Obama signed into law, creating a temporary program, separate from the Non-VA Medical Care Program, that allows eligible veterans to receive health care at a non-VA facility if they would have to wait more than 30 days for an appointment at a VA medical center, or if they live more than 40 miles from the nearest VA hospital. Trump stuck to the idea of allowing veterans to choose between public and private hospitals when he released his most recent “Ten Point Plan To Reform The VA” in July. Point 10 of the plan says: “Mr. Trump will ensure every veteran has the choice to seek care at the VA or at a private service provider of their own choice. Under a Trump Administration, no veteran will die waiting for service.” Trump reinforced that part of his plan during the NBC News forum as well. Trump: Under a part of my plan, if they have that long wait, they walk outside, they go to the local doctor, they choose the doctor, they choose the hospital, whether it’s public or private, they get themselves better. To be clear, Trump supports giving veterans a choice between VA hospitals and private ones. That’s not the same thing as supporting the complete privatization of the system that provides care to veterans. [Source: FastCheck.org | Eugene Kiely, Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D'Angelo Gore and Vanessa Schipani | September 7, 2016 ++] ***************************** Batteries ► Which to Buy When it comes to powering our toys, cameras and flashlights, we face an array of battery choices — and ring up quite a bill. In trying to cut those costs, we appear to face an endless array of questions:
Here’s the skinny: 1. Decide on nonalkaline versus alkaline.Many stores carry only alkaline, or mostly alkaline batteries, although discount stores still have a lot of nonalkaline products on the shelves, usually at a lower price. Which choice makes more sense? Rhett Allain, physics professor from Southeastern Louisiana University, says that tests show name-brand, disposable alkaline batteries beat cheap, dollar-store nonalkalines. “If you buy the cheaper (nonalkaline) batteries, you’re paying a little bit now, and then you’ll pay a little bit later,” Allain says. “It’s thinking more short-term. If you buy the more expensive batteries, you pay more upfront but they last longer. In the end there’s not that big a difference, it’s the same amount of energy per price.” But if you opt for the alkaline product, you will save on the hassle of swapping out batteries frequently and on trips to the store for new batteries. 2. Choose between generic versus name brand. Generics are proven ways to save 20 percent to 50 percent on many of the things we buy, from groceries to medicine, says Money Talks News founder Stacy Johnson. So suppose you decide to buy alkaline batteries, and you are at the store facing a shelf of similar products — some sold under brand names and others with generic packaging. Turns out that when choosing between generic and name-brand batteries, there’s no significant difference in performance, according to bargain-spotting website DealNews at http://dealnews.com/features/Test-Results-That-Will-Change-the-Way-You-Buy-Batteries-Forever/449005.html. DealNews found one notable exception: The Energizer Advanced Lithium battery pushed out far more initial voltage than the others in a test — and when it finally corrected down to the expected 1.5 volts, it kept going and going and going. 3.Weigh options to expand battery lifespan. Some battery makers say their products have a shelf life of 10 years — although it never seems that way when you dig out a stored flashlight or battery-powered toy to find it has a dead battery. It turns out that there’s no need to store batteries in the fridge, like your grandparents did, in an effort to extend their life: It won’t make any difference. But a new product, Batteriser, claims it can make your disposable battery last eight times longer by tapping into unused power, even when the battery appears to be dead. 4.Choose the most suitable disposable battery.What type of battery is best for you? It depends on how you plan to use it. Battery makers, Consumer Reports and retailers such as REI offer these suggestions:
5. Decide whether to buy rechargeables. If you’re going through a lot of disposable batteries, you may want to consider rechargeables. They cost more upfront, but depending on the device, they can pay for themselves over time:
[Source: MoneyTalksNews | Jim Gold | June 14, 2016 ++] ***************************** 911 Legacy ► Permanent State of War for 15 Years In the quarter-century from the end of the Vietnam War in the 1970s until Sept. 11, 2001, the United States rarely went to war, and when it did, the conflicts were so brief they were measured in days. The Gulf War in 1991 lasted 43 days. Airstrikes in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 went on for 22 days, followed by another round in 1999, that time for 78 days. But since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States has been fighting every single day for 15 straight years, the longest unbroken period in American history. The U.S. has carried out airstrikes, sent in ground forces, or both, in seven countries stretching from Pakistan in the east to Libya in the west. None of these conflicts has been resolved, and all signs point to years of strife ahead. Sept. 11 has reshaped the U.S. in countless ways, but perhaps the most profound has been the transformation from a country where peacetime was the norm into one seemingly locked into a permanent state of war. Yet strangely, the country doesn't feel much like it's at war. "Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, the war for the greater Middle East has become a permanent fixture in American life and is accepted as such," writes Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and professor at Boston University. America's overwhelming military strength has made victory look deceptively easy. Yet time and again, swift battlefield victories have been followed by frustrating setbacks. The U.S. greatly weakened al-Qaida in several countries, only to see the Islamic State emerge in others. The Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan, but regrouped as insurgents. Saddam Hussein was ousted in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, yet their dictatorial reigns were replaced by nasty civil wars in both countries. Nearly 7,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded in these assorted conflicts. The financial tab is in the trillions. Many college-age Americans can barely recall a time when the country wasn't at war. Despite the disappointing results, there's still a broad consensus among U.S. political and military leaders, including the two leading presidential candidates, that the battle against radical Islamist groups must continue — even if they can't say how and when these wars might end. But critics argue the U.S. has precious little to show for sustained involvement in a region that's going through a period of historic upheaval and, by most every measure, is worse off today than 15 years ago. And the longer the wars last, the less clear U.S. goals become, Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who previously worked at the Pentagon, says in her new book, How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything. "It has grown steadily more difficult to define our enemies," writes Brooks. "When you wage war against a nameless, stateless, formless enemy — an enemy with goals as uncertain as its methods — it's hard to see how that war can ever end." The U.S. has tried multiple approaches that, in general terms, have been large, medium and small. President George W. Bush went large, launching two major ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that proved far more costly and complicated than advertised. President Obama went small, pledging to wrap up American involvement in those two wars. He declared an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq at the end of 2011, and in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. But with the rise of the Islamic State, U.S. forces are back to Iraq as part of a bombing campaign. Obama's original timetable for a full departure from Afghanistan has been delayed repeatedly. And after seeking to avoid direct involvement in Syria, the president announced a bombing campaign that's now 2 years old. As Obama's days in office wind down, the approach can now be described as the medium track. The U.S. is waging three wars, though on a much smaller scale than the two he inherited. "It's hard to argue that Obama's policies have been successful if you just look at where we are on the ground," Joby Warrick, a Washington Post reporter and the author of Black Flags: The Rise Of ISIS, told NPR's Morning Edition. "A lot of things that could have gone wrong have gone wrong in the Middle East under his watch." On a typical day, U.S. war planes strike in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, while relying on a relatively small number of U.S. forces to work with local forces on the ground. The U.S. now has fewer than 10,000 forces in Afghanistan, a bit more than 5,000 in Iraq and a few hundred in Syria. This has been politically palatable. Compared to ground wars, the costs and casualties are low. Republicans and some Democrats complain about the specifics, but there's no strong opposition. And Obama and his supporters can point to some progress.
Yet no one is forecasting a near-term resolution to any of these conflicts. This has saddled the U.S. with the burdens of war, yet offers little prospect of a clear success, argues Bacevich, the Boston University professor. "The United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course midway in between. In effect, it chose aggravation," Bacevich writes in his recent book, America's War For The Greater Middle East. The instrument of that aggravation: drones. In a word, this is why the U.S. has gravitated toward this type of limited warfare. The advance of drone technology and Obama's desire for a smaller U.S. footprint have merged into a policy designed to deliver powerful blows at minimal cost in dollars and lives. It's clear why this is an attractive option. But when NPR recently asked Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, if Air Force capacity was keeping up with the demands it faced, he said: "Actually, it isn't, in many ways. You know, we have, you know, far more mission than we have Air Force today, which is something that we're dealing with." The Air Force now has 1,200 pilots flying unmanned aircraft — its largest single category of pilots — and yet the demands keep growing, Goldfein said. "We have struggled over the last several years to stabilize this [pilot] community because the demand signal has been so great," he said. "In many ways, it's become the oxygen the joint force breathes, right? If you have it, you don't think about it. But if you don't have it, it's all you think about and you want more of it." While drones are a potent weapon in striking key targets, they have not been decisive in resolving wars. "The U.S. government persists in thinking it can solve complicated political problems through air power, and especially through 'targeted assassinations' in distant lands," Harvard professor Stephen Walt writes in Foreign Policy. He argues drones can be useful in some limited instances, like pushing back the Islamic State in parts of Libya, though not as a comprehensive approach in places like Afghanistan or Syria. "But because both the Pentagon and the CIA are committed to these tools, and because they give presidents a cheap way to 'do something' without putting a lot of boots on the ground, this reflexive response to messy problems in faraway places is becoming another bad habit," Walt argues. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have indicated they would continue the current wars, possibly with greater force. "I think we know that Hillary Clinton will probably be a continuation of the strategy we have now, perhaps more muscular," says Warrick, the Washington Post reporter. "She's known as a bit more hawkish on foreign policy. She wants a no-fly zone in Syria to protect Syrians and protect refugees and also Syrians who are fighting on our side. She's wanting to do things quicker, pick up the tempo." Trump hasn't offered detailed plans and his foreign policy pronouncements have ranged widely. He's critical of the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, but also promises tough action against the Islamic State. Congress gave President Bush the right to use military force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. President Obama is still relying on that 15-year-old measure for the current wars, though much of the focus is now on the Islamic State, a group that didn't exist in 2001. As the wars have dragged on, Congress has grown increasingly reluctant to formally take a position. The most glaring example is Syria, which the U.S. has been bombing for two years without Congress weighing in. And that 2001 measure, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, was invoked by the administration just last month to justify airstrikes against the Islamic State in Libya. Congress didn't object, even though its brief resolution was written 15 years ago and directed at different groups operating on a different continent. "Americans increasingly treat the military as an all-purpose tool for fixing anything that happens to be broken," writes Brooks. "Terrorists and insurgents in Syria are beheading journalists and aid workers? Afghanistan's economy is a mess? The Egyptian army needs to be encouraged to respect democracy? An earthquake in Japan has endangered nuclear power plants? Call the military." [Source: NPR | Greg Myre | September 6, 2016 ++] ***************************** Patton Armored Diesel ► New Cane Spirit Honors WWII General The newest product from Boundary Oak Distillery in Radcliff, Kentucky, is connected with the legendary life of a World War II combat hero. But it also is rooted in local tourism and a lifelong friendship that began in elementary school. Bottles of the barrel-aged liquor will carry the likeness of Gen. George S. Patton, who was known for his rapid deployment of armor troops when he commanded the U.S. Seventh Army and later the Third Army during the war. Known as Patton Armored Diesel, the product borrows its name from a mobile bar that accompanied the general’s forces as they crossed France and Germany after D-Day. Brent Goodin, owner and master distiller of Boundary Oak, said the product is in distribution. “Everybody who has seen this has been equally as excited as we are about it,” Goodin said. While the cane spirit will create another revenue stream for the young craft distillery, it also benefits the General George Patton Museum and Center of Leadership at Fort Knox. Boundary Oak will pay licensing rights to a trust that helps finance the museum foundation. Goodin, who is developing his Radcliff distillery off Kentucky 313 as a tourist destination, will offer the product in its gift shop. He expects to stimulate conversations with guests that will cause them to add the Patton Museum to their visit and stay longer in Hardin County. Mark Hinton, who is chairman of the museum foundation, is a childhood friend of Goodin and has served as brand manager for the product. His work included securing necessary legal approval from the Army and alcohol regulators as well as the blessing of the Patton family. "From my perspective, I get to use a totally different medium to create a conversation about Patton," Hinton said. "Because everybody knows the name Patton, but they don't know what he did. If this causes one person to look up what George Patton did, that's pretty neat."   
The general's grandson, George Patton "Pat" Waters, endorses the concept and sees it as an honor for his grandfather "and a real tribute to all those soldiers who served over there with Gen. Patton." A South Carolina resident and fellow member of the museum foundation, Waters plans to be part of promoting the product, although his schedule did not allow him to be in Kentucky for its introduction. "They've produced a product that will live forever, I think," Waters said. In addition to the Patton family, approvals were sought and received from the Alcohol Beverage Control Board and the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. The bottle carries a disclaimer stating the product is not affiliated or associated with, authorized or endorsed by the U.S. Armed Forces. Individual bottles being distributed across Kentucky and to military posts through Army Air Force Exchange Stores will carry a distributor's suggested retail price of $46. Boundary Oak also is distributing a limited edition collector's item with bottles displayed in an olive green case designed to look like Patton's Army footlocker, including stenciled lettering on top. The 5,000-run limited edition product has a suggested retail price of $265. Inside the case, a bottle with a unique label appears along with a quote from the general, a replica of his signature and four stars, depicting his rank. A reproduction of signage from the general's bar and a map showing troop movements also appears inside. With the international interest in Kentucky's bourbon industry, Goodin said many collectors want a distinctive product and a story to share with fellow collectors. Although Armored Diesel is not a bourbon, the special packaging will appeal to the same buyers. Goodin said the story of this 80-proof product also is unique because Hinton and Waters, who were deeply involved with its development, are non-drinkers. "We're not trying to glorify alcohol; we're just trying to glorify him," Goodin said. "This generation, they enjoy craft American spirits, and we want to give them a history lesson along with a good drink." [Source: The News-Enterprise via The Associated Press | Ben Sheroan | September 12, 2016 ++] ***************************** 114th Congress Update 03 ► Can It Do what it Couldn't in Last 11 Months Now that August is over, along with Congress’ annual August recess, they have a massive amount of work to try and get done in the 17 days they will be in session before they once again recess to run for re-election. The biggest item facing them is to pass legislation to keep the federal government running after Sept. 30, which is the end of the 2016 fiscal year. Both parties have pledged that there will be no shutdown of the government this year, but no agreement on what to do has been reached. Unless Congress can agree on all 12 spending measures before the end of this month, which no one believes will happen, they must pass a “continuing resolution” or “CR,” which will keep the government open for a specified length of time with funding at the same levels as FY2016. The purpose of the CR is to give them more time to come up with a final spending bill(s) for FY2017. Some members of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives have said they’ll agree to a three-month CR, which would keep the government open through the end of the year, during which time Congress would presumably be able to agree on full funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year. However a significant minority of the Republican caucus wants a six-month CR, giving the next Congress the power to determine what spending will be for the rest of FY2017. On the Senate side, the Democratic minority have said they will only agree to a three-month CR. Although Republicans control the majorities in both the House and the Senate, Senate rules give great power to all Senators, regardless of whether they belong to the majority or minority party. And without the agreement of the Democrats, no CR can move through the Senate. The second item thought by many to be must-pass legislation is funding to fight the Zika virus. However that, too, is caught up in election year politics and if it does not pass by the end of September, you can bet it will be a campaign issue. As far as defense bills go, the Defense Appropriations bill is in the same boat as the rest of the funding bills for the federal government and some observers believe it must pass first before Congress can pass the Defense Authorization (NDAA) bill. What is not known is whether the Republican majorities want to try to push through the authorization bill and risk a presidential veto, or it they also want to hold off on it until after the election. The most controversial parts of the legislation have not been resolved despite meetings by congressional staff members during the summer and the President has threatened to veto the measure if it contains the funding mechanism that is in the House bill. [Source: TREA Update | September 6, 2016 ++] ***************************** Download 0.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|