My friend Lena and Roland got married as teenagers in Chattanooga, Tenn.,
during World War II.
A month ago, the two 85-year-olds got re-hitched in
Buffalo, nearly 50 years after they divorced. Funny how the world works.
I asked Lena why in the world she got divorced to begin with?
She laughed and said, "There was too much to do!"
God Bless her!
So I aksed Roland.
He said, "I always thought it might happen. It was always in the back of
my mind. We're just thankful that we could get back together."
"I think we just kept thinking about each other all the time, even though we
were so far apart," said Lena, a widow after her second marriage.
Well, today they made it official: they are married for a full month!
I hope each of you celebrate your marriage in whatever special way you each see fit!
God Bless the two of you!
Monday, August 27, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Navy SEAL to release book on bin Laden raid, publishing company says
A book company said Wednesday that it will release on September 11 a firsthand account of the raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Christine Ball, director of marketing and publicity for Dutton, a subsidiary of Penguin Group USA, said the book was written by a Navy SEAL under a pen name.
The book is entitled "No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden."
A Department of Defense official said the SEAL is no longer on active duty.
U.S. Special Operations Command has not reviewed the book or approved it, the official said. Officials only recently became aware the former SEAL was writing a book but were told it encompasses more than just the raid and includes vignettes from training and other missions.
They would like to see a copy, the official said, to make sure no classified information is released or the book contains any information that might out one of the team members.
Officials have been told that some of the profits are going to charity.
About two dozen U.S. Special Operations members and two helicopters were involved in the raid early May 2, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed bin Laden.
The raid occurred in a span of 38 minutes, after CIA reports of repeated sightings of a tall man doing "prison yard walks" around the yard of the housing compound in Abbottabad, which was under constant surveillance, an official said on condition of anonymity a few days after the raid.
U.S. authorities did not definitively determine beforehand that the man was bin Laden, but they eventually concluded that there was enough evidence to go through with the operation.
One helicopter made a hard landing when it apparently came too close to a wall. It landed inside the western side of the compound with its tail rotor over the southern wall.
The first man killed in the mission -- which the U.S. official said was code-named Operation Neptune Spear -- was the Kuwaiti courier who had worked for bin Laden. He was shot dead after a brief gunfight in a guest house. From that point on, it is believed no other shots were fired at the U.S. forces, the official said -- which contrasts with early U.S. government reports describing the operation as a "firefight."
The troops then moved into the compound's three-story main building, where they shot and killed the courier's brother. As they went upstairs and around barricades, one of bin Laden's sons rushed at them and was killed. Neither of these men had weapons either on them or nearby, the official said.
The U.S. official said that the team then entered the third-floor room where bin Laden was, along with his Yemeni wife and several young children. The al Qaeda leader was moving, possibly toward one of the weapons that were in the room, when he was shot, first in the chest and then in the head. He never had a gun in hand but posed an imminent threat, according to the U.S. official.
Bin Laden's body was flown to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, then in the North Arabian Sea. After DNA tests and further confirmations of his identity, he was buried at sea within 12 hours of his killing "in conformance with Islamic precepts and practices," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.
President Obama met with some of the Navy SEALs, often referred to as SEAL Team Six and officially as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
The U.S. raid, which was conducted without the knowledge of Pakistan, enraged the Pakistani public and embarrassed its military.
Three months later, 15 members of Seal Team Six were killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
Oscar-winning director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal are working on a movie about the raid.
"Zero Dark Thirty" is about the decade-long hunt for bin Laden. Bigelow and Boal are the team behind the 2008 Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker."
The new movie was said to be set for release just before the election, but after Republicans complained that it was a pro-Obama ad, it was pushed back until December. There is some dispute over whether it was ever meant for release before December.
The movie has been the focus of a Washington partisan fight since last summer.
The Pentagon's inspector general began an inquiry after questions were raised by Rep. Peter King, R-New York.
He demanded investigations by the Department of Defense and CIA inspectors general into what, if any, classified information about Special Operations tactics, techniques and procedures were leaked to the filmmakers, calling the film a "potentially dangerous collaboration" between liberal filmmakers and the administration.
Some of what those investigations found did show collaboration between the administration and the filmmakers, but Defense Department and White House officials have said it's no different than what they give many filmmakers and news reporters on a regular basis.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Will money buy the White House?
By the end of July, Mitt Romney had widened his cash advantageover President Obama by $62 million. Romney has also been raising more money than Obama in the last three months.
In case you haven't noticed, this election season is awash in money.
If Romney continues to outraise Obama, does it mean that he will win the presidential race? Can money buy elections?
Historically, the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win. In recent presidential elections, the only victors whose campaign committees raised less than their opponent were Bill Clinton in 1996 (raising $116.8 million to Sen. Bob Dole's $134.7 million) and Ronald Reagan, who raised less than Jimmy Carter but nevertheless swept into Washington in a 1980 landslide.
In both instances, the comparison of funds raised is limited to their primary campaigns as, unlike today, these candidates relied exclusively upon the presidential public financing system which provided funds in equal amounts to both major party candidates for their general election campaigns.
Fortunately, for candidates in any given race, money alone provides no guarantee of victory. Candidates need exceptional campaign skills, a solid election team, charisma, name recognition and it helps to be an incumbent who usually has these attributes and whose viability often attracts more donations.
Over the last decade, we've seen that in the vast majority of congressional races, those who raised the most money emerged victorious. In 2004, Senate candidates who raised the most moneywon 88% of the time and House candidates who raised the most money won an astonishing 97.8% of the time. It is a testament to money's influence that even in what was widely considered to be a "wave election" in 2010, when the political environment favored the GOP, candidates with the most money still held sway in most of the races.
Still, money is essential. For example, in the 2010 cycle (including both primaries and general elections), only 9 winning House challengers spent under $1 million. Candidates need a lot of resources to conduct a meaningful campaign and, these days, that costs $1.4 million for an average House seat and up to hundreds of millions to take the White House.
In 2012, money is even more important because candidates are not just competing with their electoral opponent anymore, but also with the messages and money from highly professionalized super PACs and nonprofits with lots of campaign experience. These unfamiliar groups' agendas may or may not be clear to candidates, or the voters they're trying to influence.
Outside spending is now the hallmark of America's elections, particularly in tight races.
Expect to see record spending this year, which will largely come from very few donors. While the presidential campaigns are raising less money overall than in 2008, money spent by super PACs and secretive nonprofits, ostensibly independently, to influence elections is soaring. Groups across the political spectrum are making "independent expenditures" and "issue ads" that talk about candidates and issues without explicit "vote for" messages.
This is the evolutionary effects of two critical changes in the campaign finance world. One is the demise of the presidential public funding program and the other is the formal legal sanctioning of unlimited and unrestricted spending directed at candidates.
Since 1976, the presidential public financing system included matching funds for small contributions in primaries and equal grants for the two general election nominees. Beginning with George W. Bush rejecting public matching funds in the 2000 primary campaign (and the spending limits that went with them), that system was diminished incrementally until 2008 when Obama's rejection of general election funding spelled its final demise.
The system was far from perfect, but it offered an equal base from which the two presidential candidates could conduct the eight or nine week sprint to the finish. And it would reduce the fundraising frenzy that now surrounds this presidential race.
Witness how Paul Ryan began his tenure as Romney's running mate with a stop at the Venetian Hotel to meet Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has previously said he will spend up to $100 million to ensure President Obama's defeat. Team Obama, meanwhile, is holding exclusive, coast-to-coast fundraisers in homes of the super-rich, giving face time (with the president, vice president, first lady and various other celebrities) to those who can bring $70,000 or so to the table.
Similarly, a series of judicial and regulatory decisions in recent years has yielded a system in which unlimited funds from virtually any source can be brought directly into the campaign at any time, often with no indication of who is paying the bill. The maze of obscure organizations designed to coordinate these outside efforts and obfuscate their financial sources is just one more example of the cynical efforts of the political class to bend the rules and manipulate the process in hopes of gaining some small advantage on Election Day. It's an attitude that is not lost on an already frustrated electorate that finds little in the political process worthy of respect.
The result is an atmosphere where candidates and parties must raise upwards of $20 million or more each week or risk falling behind. The airwaves are saturated in an unprecedented effort to influence voters in the dozen states up for grabs this year. In the largest of these states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) the campaigns, super PACs and other shadowy groups have spent an average of nearly $30 million each month since May, levels not seen until late fall in the closest of previous presidential races.
We've reached the point in the campaign where groups running issues ads that identify a candidate would normally have to disclose their donors. But in a cynical move, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Crossroads GPS readily admit to employing evasive tactics which, ironically, require that they take a more aggressive position for or against the candidate, in exchange for which they may completely dodge disclosure of their donors.
Meanwhile, we move toward fall pretending that our campaign finance system remains sound and will protect us when, in some key respects, the rules and disclosure that the Citizens United decision, and the entire system, depends on no longer exist.
Partisan advantage appears to have replaced institutional dysfunction as the driving forces behind the eroding disclosure of those "paying the piper" in this election. The question is whether and when enough people will engage their representatives and collectively demand more authentic dialogue and intellectually honest leadership from lawmakers in Washington. If there is to be any hope of change, this is step No. 1. Otherwise, we shouldn't be surprised when, come 2013, we start hearing a new tune, but can't see who's calling it.
Meanwhile, Romney, Obama, their parties and the outside groups that support them are all locked in an exhaustive race for funds. While Romney has done well compared to Obama in the last few months, the Obama campaign has raised far more overall this cycle. Both camps will have enough money to get their message out, but only one will win the election. In the end, money may not be the only reason, but if history is any indication, whichever candidate raises more of it will likely be our next president.
In case you haven't noticed, this election season is awash in money.
If Romney continues to outraise Obama, does it mean that he will win the presidential race? Can money buy elections?
Historically, the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win. In recent presidential elections, the only victors whose campaign committees raised less than their opponent were Bill Clinton in 1996 (raising $116.8 million to Sen. Bob Dole's $134.7 million) and Ronald Reagan, who raised less than Jimmy Carter but nevertheless swept into Washington in a 1980 landslide.
In both instances, the comparison of funds raised is limited to their primary campaigns as, unlike today, these candidates relied exclusively upon the presidential public financing system which provided funds in equal amounts to both major party candidates for their general election campaigns.
Fortunately, for candidates in any given race, money alone provides no guarantee of victory. Candidates need exceptional campaign skills, a solid election team, charisma, name recognition and it helps to be an incumbent who usually has these attributes and whose viability often attracts more donations.
Over the last decade, we've seen that in the vast majority of congressional races, those who raised the most money emerged victorious. In 2004, Senate candidates who raised the most moneywon 88% of the time and House candidates who raised the most money won an astonishing 97.8% of the time. It is a testament to money's influence that even in what was widely considered to be a "wave election" in 2010, when the political environment favored the GOP, candidates with the most money still held sway in most of the races.
Still, money is essential. For example, in the 2010 cycle (including both primaries and general elections), only 9 winning House challengers spent under $1 million. Candidates need a lot of resources to conduct a meaningful campaign and, these days, that costs $1.4 million for an average House seat and up to hundreds of millions to take the White House.
In 2012, money is even more important because candidates are not just competing with their electoral opponent anymore, but also with the messages and money from highly professionalized super PACs and nonprofits with lots of campaign experience. These unfamiliar groups' agendas may or may not be clear to candidates, or the voters they're trying to influence.
Outside spending is now the hallmark of America's elections, particularly in tight races.
Expect to see record spending this year, which will largely come from very few donors. While the presidential campaigns are raising less money overall than in 2008, money spent by super PACs and secretive nonprofits, ostensibly independently, to influence elections is soaring. Groups across the political spectrum are making "independent expenditures" and "issue ads" that talk about candidates and issues without explicit "vote for" messages.
This is the evolutionary effects of two critical changes in the campaign finance world. One is the demise of the presidential public funding program and the other is the formal legal sanctioning of unlimited and unrestricted spending directed at candidates.
Since 1976, the presidential public financing system included matching funds for small contributions in primaries and equal grants for the two general election nominees. Beginning with George W. Bush rejecting public matching funds in the 2000 primary campaign (and the spending limits that went with them), that system was diminished incrementally until 2008 when Obama's rejection of general election funding spelled its final demise.
The system was far from perfect, but it offered an equal base from which the two presidential candidates could conduct the eight or nine week sprint to the finish. And it would reduce the fundraising frenzy that now surrounds this presidential race.
Witness how Paul Ryan began his tenure as Romney's running mate with a stop at the Venetian Hotel to meet Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has previously said he will spend up to $100 million to ensure President Obama's defeat. Team Obama, meanwhile, is holding exclusive, coast-to-coast fundraisers in homes of the super-rich, giving face time (with the president, vice president, first lady and various other celebrities) to those who can bring $70,000 or so to the table.
Similarly, a series of judicial and regulatory decisions in recent years has yielded a system in which unlimited funds from virtually any source can be brought directly into the campaign at any time, often with no indication of who is paying the bill. The maze of obscure organizations designed to coordinate these outside efforts and obfuscate their financial sources is just one more example of the cynical efforts of the political class to bend the rules and manipulate the process in hopes of gaining some small advantage on Election Day. It's an attitude that is not lost on an already frustrated electorate that finds little in the political process worthy of respect.
The result is an atmosphere where candidates and parties must raise upwards of $20 million or more each week or risk falling behind. The airwaves are saturated in an unprecedented effort to influence voters in the dozen states up for grabs this year. In the largest of these states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) the campaigns, super PACs and other shadowy groups have spent an average of nearly $30 million each month since May, levels not seen until late fall in the closest of previous presidential races.
We've reached the point in the campaign where groups running issues ads that identify a candidate would normally have to disclose their donors. But in a cynical move, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Crossroads GPS readily admit to employing evasive tactics which, ironically, require that they take a more aggressive position for or against the candidate, in exchange for which they may completely dodge disclosure of their donors.
Meanwhile, we move toward fall pretending that our campaign finance system remains sound and will protect us when, in some key respects, the rules and disclosure that the Citizens United decision, and the entire system, depends on no longer exist.
Partisan advantage appears to have replaced institutional dysfunction as the driving forces behind the eroding disclosure of those "paying the piper" in this election. The question is whether and when enough people will engage their representatives and collectively demand more authentic dialogue and intellectually honest leadership from lawmakers in Washington. If there is to be any hope of change, this is step No. 1. Otherwise, we shouldn't be surprised when, come 2013, we start hearing a new tune, but can't see who's calling it.
Meanwhile, Romney, Obama, their parties and the outside groups that support them are all locked in an exhaustive race for funds. While Romney has done well compared to Obama in the last few months, the Obama campaign has raised far more overall this cycle. Both camps will have enough money to get their message out, but only one will win the election. In the end, money may not be the only reason, but if history is any indication, whichever candidate raises more of it will likely be our next president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)