|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sojourner1 wrote: |
| And it was so obvious from the get go that he was incompetent to lead America. |
It was obvious to you and me, maybe. But how was it not even on the radar for the nearly half of the voters who chose him for re-election? How can the disconnect have been so huge?
I know the answer is the media, but the magnitude is still astounding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
The idea of holding either trials or a Truth Commission seems to have a bit of traction in the mainstream media. Dahlia Lithwick debates the pros and cons of the respective proposals...
| Quote: |
There is a growing schism between the cranky legal purists and the pragmatic liberals who were delighted last week when two Obama advisers told the Associated Press that "there's little if any chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations." A Newsweek report this week confirmed that Obama advisers are pushing instead for a 9/11-style commission that would "investigate counterterrorism policies and make public as many details as possible." It would not be in keeping with the spirit of the new president, who reaches across the aisle, for him to do so with an arrest warrant in his hand.
|
| Quote: |
Right now, I can't get enough of this debate at TPM Caf� among Homans, Horton, former Rep. Mickey Edwards, and others as they work through these thorny questions about who should investigate and whether and when to prosecute. But as each of them imagines a perfect truth commission or a perfect congressional inquiry (done by a perfect Congress that had suddenly grown a perfect spine), it occurs to me yet again that we already have a pretty perfect system for investigating terrible wrongdoing and punishing wrongdoers. And we call it the justice system for a reason. For eight years we've been told, time and again, that the U.S. courts just aren't good enough to try terrorists, and that they aren't smart enough to monitor wiretapping, and that they aren't capable of keeping state secrets. Anyone who believes they are also not good enough to investigate government lawbreaking might reasonably be asked what's changed.
|
http://tinyurl.com/5t7pra |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
1. 5. Requests from members of this forum for proof or specifics of allegations made, frankly, bore me � it is precisely the goal of a Truth Commission to find such evidence, and at this time we are discussion whether such an investigation is a beneficial course.
One needs some proof that a Truth Commission needs to be set up though. You can't just set them up whenever you want. They need a list of allegations with some supporting evidence. People on the side of this seem to be engaging in throwing all sorts of mud at Bush and hoping it sticks. Let's see some evidence for this Truth Commission to get its teeth into and we can go from there. Or would you rather prefer it investigates every vague accusation from here until Doomsday?
6. One suspects that a lot of the opposition to a Truth Commission stems from what I�ve elsewhere called The Bart Simpson Defense: They didn�t do it, no one saw them do it, and no one can prove a thing � with the cute tautological addendum that since guilty verdicts have not been handed down so far, it therefore follows that no such evidence CAN be found, and so what is left is legal innocence, and anything further is just maneuvering, witch-hunts and attempts to control the political agenda. As I said, it�s all very cute, but it�s also self-serving, convenient, and represents an obstacle to exactly the kind of change that so many voters said they wanted at the start of this month.
Actually this opposition is not opposition to a Truth Commission per se, it's opposition against the kind of people (on this forum) who are calling for it. They've made up their minds that Bush is guilty, (never mind the inconvient fact that it's never been proved in a court of law..that's not necessary for them) Now it doesn't matter so much about them, but rather whether some people in a position of power to call and organize a Truth Commission have the same mindset. Because then it doesn't become a Truth Commission but a witchhunt.
? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I want to know about all those no-bid contracts for Haliburton and KBR.
The utter rip off of the taxpayers at their extortionary prices for basic services delivered to troops ie: laundry and what not. Any attempts to audit the books have been consistently blocked by Bush & Co. Millions "missing" and unaccounted for.
How much per month to run these wars? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Profitless Profiteering
Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq?
By Daniel Gross
Posted Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 3:47 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it war profiteering if you barely make a profit on your war work?
In March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton, the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraq�everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR's central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars.
But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.
The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own�higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.
An excellent front-page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold shows that, depending on how you look at it, KBR has either made the best of a horrible situation or has screwed up big time. At times, KBR seems to function more like a dot-com on its last legs than the ultra-efficient logistics unit of a Fortune 500 company. Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices�not to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.
When you're a logistics company�and one working on a 1 percent profit margin�inefficiency is a killer. That's why for service companies like Halliburton, landing huge contracts is less than half the battle. Improperly executed, a huge contract can become a gigantic liability. So while KBR may land deals because of its connections and experience, it hasn't shown much ability of late to carry them out profitably.
According to Halliburton's most recent quarterly results, released yesterday, its KBR unit lost $15 million in the first quarter, largely because of a $97 million loss on an ill-fated project in Brazil, even though revenues for the unit doubled to $3.7 billion. Iraq was a fairly dim bright light. "Halliburton's Iraq-related work contributed approximately $2.1 billion in revenues in the first quarter 2004 and $32 million in operating income," the company reported. That's a margin of 1.5 percent.
The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 million�a 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 million�a 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.
What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.
KBR is now under criminal investigation by the Pentagon over claims it overcharged for fuel delivered from Kuwait. The Pentagon is also looking into dining-hall contracts allegedly awarded without competitive bids. And annoyed at repeated billing screw-ups, the Pentagon is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to KBR. Any of these conflicts could further erode KBR's margins.
KBR hasn't lost money on its sweetheart Iraq contracts�yet. It has made a small profit. But the amounts are nothing to write home about�and they're certainly not worth starting a war over.
Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek. You can e-mail him at [email protected]. He is the author of Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2099680/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Canuckistan: are you trolling? Just how wide a scope would you grant this so-called truth commission? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Exposing war profiteering must be part of any commission. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mises: do change your name here to Ken Starr when you get a chance. You, like him, would take this "investigation" whereever you needed to take it in order to hunt down your target.
Neither the Obama Administration nor the American people will get on board that train. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| At a time of severe economic crises, I think the American people would be happy to know about the financial raping they've taken from the contractors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hasty, desperate Google searches do not interest me very much, Mises. The "Drudge" allegation and your propagandistic "documentaries" interest me less. The most attn I have ever paid these sources is here, where people like you apparently regularly consult them to keep stoking those fires of outrage that keep you so warm. I had never heard of Drudge until you cited it. You can take it or leave it.
This entire "project," from start to finish, has had clear enough objectives for me to know that not only do I want no part of it, but I will oppose it where I can -- that is, should the Obama Administration actually move to do this, which I still doubt it will, wishful thinking here notwithstanding. It cloaks open-ended political "investigation" as historical inquiry and will meet with extreme opposition.
I do not know why you need any such investigation to begin with. Sounds clear enough that you have already drawn the conclusions that you will defend to the death. You are looking to legitimize your allegations and worldviews through an official report. No more, no less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Hasty, desperate Google searches do not interest me very much, Mises. |
Nothing much seems to.
| Quote: |
| The "Drudge" allegation and your propagandistic "documentaries" interest me less. |
How do you know it is "propagandistic" if you haven't seen it. That sounds like allegation driven discourse to me.
| Quote: |
| The most attn I have ever paid these sources is here, where people like you apparently regularly consult them to keep stoking those fires of outrage that keep you so warm. |
Well, the war profiteering is outrageous.
| Quote: |
| I had never heard of Drudge until you cited it. You can take it or leave it. |
I leave it. That is simply not possible. Not for someone who is familiar with the internet. Just not possible.
| Quote: |
| This entire "project," from start to finish, has had clear enough objectives for me to know that not only do I want no part of it, but I will oppose it where I can -- that is, should the Obama Administration actually move to do this, which I still doubt it will, wishful thinking here notwithstanding. It cloaks political "investigation" as historical inquiry and will meet with extreme opposition. |
In other words, you don't give a shit. Fair enough. Just be more clear then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Nothing much seems to. |
Actually, quite a lot interests me, Mises. And I take my information mostly from peer-reviewed publications, and other published information, including memoirs and novels. I take other information from real documentaries, such as La batalla de Chile, WGBH's Vietnam documentary, or R. McNamara's Fog of War. I watch cable news and listen to the radio. Sometimes I read news on the internet from the same two sources -- that is, at CNN.com and NPR.org.
Your Drudge source does not interest me any more than A. Coulter, R. Limbaugh, or B. O'Riley. About as worthy of my time as A. Franken, M. Moore, or K. Olbermann, for that matter. I have far more important things to take in than the trash these sensationalist extremists offer me. But that is just me, Mises.
If hasty, desperate Google searches and Drudge float your boat, however, then keep on sailing... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Actually, quite a lot interests me, Mises. And I take my information mostly from peer-reviewed publications, and other published information, including memoirs and novels. I take other information from real documentaries, such as La batalla de Chile, WGBH's Vietnam documentary, or R. McNamara's Fog of War. I watch cable news and listen to the radio. |
http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004040206_Display-35.gif |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
