"The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced" AP
“This story draws misleading conclusions from a handful of examples,” Ed DeSeve, Senior Advisor to the President for Recovery Act Implementation Ed DeSeve charged in a release sent out at 12:15 a.m. on Thursday morning, just minutes alter the first news sites picked up the AP dispatch
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28874.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_jobs
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-29-stimulus-jobs_N.htm
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=111&sid=1797659
Is there any media outlet that is not lying according to this administration?
The economy is going through the worst depression since 1930. Its a cover up, not a recovery.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former hotels, nursing homes and other sites would be used to hold immigrants who are not criminals or violent as part of a larger plan to reform immigration detention proposed by the homeland security secretary, according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
Janet Napolitano is proposing that illegal immigrants awaiting deportation be confined according to the risk they may pose and will detail her plan on Tuesday. The reforms were previewed by the agency in August without as much detail.
The alternative sites are intended to cut the costs of detaining immigrants, which reached nearly $2 billion in 2008.
The plan is based on a review of immigration detention by Dora Schriro, Napolitano’s former detention adviser. She resigned last month to become commissioner of New York City’s jails.
Under the plan, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Homeland Security Department, will develop a way to classify immigrant detainees that will determine the facility where they are detained.
John Morton, head of ICE, will research the hotels and other venues where nonviolent, noncriminal immigrants could be held. The agency expects to save money by not putting everyone in local, state and government jails and prisons as they do now.
ICE also will to submit to Congress in coming weeks a plan for using alternatives to detention. The agency says possible alternatives will cost only about $14 a day compared to about $100 a day for detention.
The agency has completed one of the reforms announced in August, removing families from T. Don Hutto detention center, a former prison in central Texas. The agency plans to detain women there who are now held at three facilities in Texas, saving about $900,000 through the end of the year, the documents state.
The agency said it paid $2.8 million a month at Hutto even when it was not full.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/october/1006_illegal_aliens.shtml
No
hi, i got an email from a friend who gave me a link to exdil.com. i’ve heard mixed reviews about this site, mcafee site adviser sais thatit’s safe as does norton internet security. however i typed it in on google and a strong spam detecter said that it contains spam. It looks slightly dodgy as they sell thing such a nokia n97 which just was released for 150 euros, this is all from china. I’m looking to buy a mobile and i’m not sure whether i should purchase from here or not. what should i do?
If i was looking for a new mobile i wouldn’t buy it from there, put it that way….
All i can say apart from the links like mcafee you have said, would be the wot add on for firefox has it as untrusted on everything…..
I’m in Oman, and there are some financial advisers here but I want to do a little research so I’m not "blinded by science" - is there some sort of review site where I can get basic information?
yes I’ve used the guys at whichoffshore.com - I’m based in dubai so I think its the same. you normally have to email them at info (at) whichoffshore.com cause the site is going through maintenance at the moment. They also recommended me a local ifa but I wont mention this online (PM me)
Article by Colin Kahl in the December 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs.
From the outset of the war:
The U.S. military has put in place several mechanisms to ensure compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality. In the lead-up to the invasion, the Pentagon developed the “joint target list,” an inventory of all potential targets for coalition forces, which was vetted by judge advocates and other legal advisers.
•Certain operations directed against Saddam Hussein’s regime were deemed off-limits because they targeted civilians or risked producing disproportionate damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure.
•Starting in late 2002, the Pentagon also enlisted UN agencies and nongovernmental organizations to help draw up a “no-strike” list including thousands of schools, mosques, sensitive cultural sites, hospitals, water-treatment facilities, power plants, and other elements of civilian infrastructure. The list placed significant constraints on air and land operations. During the initial ground invasion, for example, the artillery batteries used by U.S. forces were programmed with a list of sites that could not be fired on without a manual override.
The no-strike list isn’t the only measure taken to limit collateral damage:
The U.S. military has also tried to limit risks to civilians by reviewing its military targets with the collateral damage estimation methodology (CDEM), which uses computer software and human analysis to estimate possible civilian casualties for every target studied.
•The CDEM requires commanders and their legal advisers to ask themselves five questions to determine whether a given target is a legitimate one.
oCan they positively identify the person or the site according to the current ROE?
oIs there a protected civilian facility or significant environmental concern within the range of the weapon to be used?
oCan damage to that concern be avoided by attacking the target with a different weapon or a different method?
oIf not, how many people are likely to be injured or killed in the attack?
oMust a higher commander be called for permission?
When the targets considered represent a risk of “high collateral damage,” the CDEM requires political approval by the secretary of defense and, during major combat, the president.
The rules of engagement have also sought to achieve a balance each troop’s legitimate right to self-defense with the importance of complying with the laws of war:
They attempt to maintain this balance by providing troops with a clear sense of what constitutes a legitimate military target. During major combat in Iraq, the criterion was status-based. Individuals or groups, namely Iraqi military and paramilitary forces, that were “declared hostile forces” under the ROE, could be attacked on sight until they were wounded or they surrendered. As the war transitioned into a counterinsurgency mission and U.S. forces confronted adversaries who were largely indistinguishable from the civilian population, the criterion became conduct-based:
•U.S. troops must now positively identify a “hostile act” (such as the firing of an automatic weapon in their direction) or a “hostile intent” (such as the brandishing of a rocket-propelled grenade or the planting of an improvised explosive device) before they may fire their weapons.
If the naked eye isn’t sufficient to positively identify a hostile force, act, or intent before attacking:
U.S. forces rely on advanced optics. Forward observers are used to identify and “paint” targets, or provide coordinates for laser- or GPS-guided bomb attacks. Air force, navy, and marine fighter aircraft have also been retrofitted with new reconnaissance pods that allow real-time overhead surveillance and streaming video, thereby helping ground forces distinguish insurgents from civilians during raids and combat missions.
Another precaution pertains to the choice of weapons:
U.S. forces have been reluctant to use artillery against insurgents, even when they have been under mortar and rocket fire. Artillery systems (such as howitzers, mortars, and ground-launched rockets) have a large radius of destruction and so have a high potential for collateral damage, especially in densely populated areas. Instead, U.S. forces have either relied on close air support and ground forces that can keep their “eyes on the target” or refrained from attacking altogether. This summer, for example, as I was conducting interviews in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the Green Zone was hit by two rockets and two mortars. Although the attack’s point of origin—a residential neighborhood near Sadr City—was determined quickly, the U.S. military chose not to fire back with artillery.
Our rules of engagement have also emphasized the importance of using proportionate force when engaging legitimate military targets in order to minimize collateral damage:
The current rules explicitly require U.S. troops to respond to a hostile act or intent with “graduated” force. Under many circumstances, U.S. forces may engage in deadly violence only after warning their targets and trying nonlethal measures against them to no avail. The U.S. military also frequently engages in “weaponeering”—selecting the most specifically tailored type and quantity of weapon necessary to produce a desired effect. When air strikes are required, it increasingly relies on precision-guided munitions, such as laser-, GPS-, and optically guided weapons. During the major combat phase of the war in Iraq, 68 percent of the munitions used were precision-guided, compared with 7-8 percent during the 1991 Gulf War, 30 percent in Kosovo, and 60 percent in Afghanistan. The U.S. military has also developed munitions with smaller payloads to ensure that it uses the smallest force necessary, and it relies heavily on penetrating munitions with delayed fuses to confine the damage caused by blasts and fragmentation to the area of impact. Additional mitigation techniques, including adjusting the timing, angles, and azimuths of attacks, have also been regularly employed to reduce risks to civilians.
The number of U.S. air strikes has declined sharply since the end of major combat operations, indicating the U.S. military’s heightened concern for proportionality:
Official figures suggest that U.S. planes launched 18,695 strikes during the first 30 days of the war, compared with just 285 strikes in 2004 and 306 in 2005. Other estimates put the 2005 total at 654. Even with the higher number, however, there were almost as many air strikes per day during the major combat phase (an average of 623) as there were during all of 2005.
Question - So do you believe we can win in Iraq now , with this kind of nonesense ?
as an OIF VET i have to tell you that the rules can change to suit the situation.
for a period of time when i was there we had permission to kill anyone wearing a certain uniform.
and i dont think this is a war per say, it is a conflict tho. and winning and losing isnt the object. it is freeing the iraqi ppl
Disclaimer: Remember, anything that you see in these videos are for informational purposes only. Nothing should be taken as trading or investing advice. Please consult your personal investment adviser if you have any investing needs.
Duration : 0:7:40
Read the rest of this entry »
There are two kinds of crooks. The first cuts a deal. He tells the government what he knows and forever after is ostracized and hunted by his old partners in crime. The second is “stand-up.” He keeps his mouth shut. After serving his time, he is welcomed back into the fold. He might even get a “bump up” in rank from his grateful bosses.
No, we’re not talking about The Sopranos. What we have in mind is a new episode of a tawdry soap opera that began in the 1990s. Welcome to the case of disgraced former national security adviser Sandy Berger — and what it portends about a potential President Hillary.
Now Berger is back in business at Camp Clinton, advising New York’s junior senator in her bid for the White House. This warrants a review of Berger’s recent history. After his stint as national security adviser, he became Bill Clinton’s liaison to the 9/11 Commission as it investigated intelligence failures (many of which happened on Berger’s watch). Berger was accordingly given access to the national archives, both to prepare his own testimony and to get the former president ready for an interview with the commission.
Berger used his privileged access to steal top-secret national-defense documents. On at least two occasions he stuffed them into his clothing and briefcase, smuggling them out of the archives. He secreted some of these stolen papers under the wheel of a truck at a nearby construction site so that he could return for them later. Other documents he intentionally destroyed. These actions were serious felonies.
Berger’s behavior was so strange that the government noticed and investigated. Berger then lied to the authorities, denying what he had done and absurdly claiming he had taken the documents in an honest mistake. Only later did he fess up to his theft.
Because the archives lacked filing controls, it is impossible to know exactly how much Berger stole. Yet — as our Byron York has reported — among the highly classified haul were various drafts of an “after-action report” prepared by top Clinton counterterrorism officials after the Customs Service, in a stroke of luck, foiled the millennium plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. That report has been widely described as a scathing internal assessment of the Clinton administration’s performance and state of preparedness for domestic terrorist attack. It was highly relevant to the 9/11 Commission’s investigation, as was the manner in which it was finalized and the question whether the Clinton administration acted on its recommendations.
Yet the commission was not told about Berger’s unlawful actions. He was not questioned about them, and the public has never been permitted to see copies of what he took (such copies are said to exist). President Clinton and the Clinton Library are conveniently immune to Freedom of Information Act disclosure requests for 12 years. And the Bush Justice Department shamefully tucked this whole affair under the rug by permitting Berger to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, effectively shielding him from public disclosure of the evidence.
What kind of advice is Berger giving Mrs. Clinton, anyway? It can’t be legal advice: Berger forfeited his law license. It’s unlikely he’d be much help on Iran: The Clinton administration didn’t respond to the Khobar Towers bombing (in which19 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed) because Berger and others were convinced that then–Iranian president Mohammed Khatami was going to “reform” the hard-line mullahs. Berger failed on al Qaeda, too: Clinton declined to respond to the terror network’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. Navy personnel killed) because, according to Clinton, Berger’s intelligence services couldn’t tell him who did it.
Sandy Berger was a failure as national-security adviser. Then he became a criminal. As Americans contemplate making Hillary their president, they would be wise to consider the company she keeps.
I am glad you are not partisan. People like you are the reason I hope Hillary wins, to drive you crazy.
In this episode, the Beggar Blogger reviews a financial website/blog (http://helmihakim.com) managed by Helmi Hakim (a financial advisor with NTUC Income). Find out how Helmi and YOU can enhance your personal blog to attract more prospects!
Duration : 0:5:40
Read the rest of this entry »
I am having trouble with my personal statement for university because i have been out of the accademic loop for 9 yrs… writing this statement took me ages but i have recently been informed that my grammer and layout are out of date but don’t know any other way to do things…..i need to find an inpartial adviser to read my statement and if pos give me constructive critism or tell me where my grammer is wrong……
Try www.getintouni.com
I want to use deviant art or imageshack, but I have McAfee site advisor and when I read the reviews people acted like they were dangerous. I always thought they were safe.
A .swf file is a flash file. I would recommend Deviant art, and image shack for images, deviant art is more of a thing for your work, or to show it off, mostly for artists, image shack will do anything.