Rumors

A rumor is a disseminated report of fact without substantial authority for its truth.  It does not mean that it is untrue, merely that it is not supported by verified sources.  A rumor is not necessarily untrue, any more than being paranoid means that there is not a real reason to be afraid.

However before you can claim a rumor to be a false report of fact then it is necessary to show why it is false.  Merely saying that it is unsubstantiated is not enough.  Proving a rumor to be true is the burden left to those who wish credibility for their statements, but proving   that a statement of fact is indeed a rumor does nothing more than just that—establishing it is a rumor, true or false.

There were and are rumors that under the national health plan being presented to Congress that there will be “death panels” to determine the feasibility of providing continuing health care to individuals who are judged to be terminal or so near to end of life that continuing health care or extraordinary measures are not “cost effective.”

For starters the phrase “death panels” is pejorative from the git-go.  It brings to mind the eugenics of the Third Reich.  If there was any truth to the rumors, then the those who would be making such decisions would most certainly not call themselves by that name, but that begs the question.  It is a rumor.  As far as anyone can tell there is no verifiable truth to the tales being told.

Senator Charles Grassley (R, IA) said that he and a small group of senators in negotiating the health care proposal had dropped any “end of life” provisions from consideration.  It may be inferred that because provisions were dropped from consideration that they were there in the first place.  But not necessarily.  It may have been agreed that no consideration would be given to any such provision even if it were not present to begin with.  This is the nature of negotiating and negotiating strategy.  You decide beforehand what is an acceptable item for consideration even if it is not currently on the table.

Now, is this what Grassley was trying to imply—that there was such a provision on the table while at the same time giving himself wiggle room to back out if questioned on it?  “I didn’t say . . .”  The only person who can probably answer that with any certainty is the senator.  I certainly wouldn’t put it past any politician, Republican or Democrat, to pull such a trick.

It is a well worn and effective trick in politics to start a rumor and force the other side to deny it.  I have a favorite story about Lyndon Johnson spreading a story about carnal relations with swine that I may relate some time.  The point is nobody ever sounds good denying a dirty rumor, and the “Death Panel” rumor is indeed a dirty one—because it plays to fears of the public and there may be kernels of truth therein that have been exaggerated out of all reasonable proportion.

Do doctors have consultations with one another and their patients about end of life situations?  It happens every day.  I have been a party to two such discussions myself.  One involved my mother and the other involved my son.  So, I know it happens.  The fear and the implication here is that if the health care proposal passes that these discussions will be made by government bureaucrats and the concerned parties will be left out.  The fear is that regulations concerning the reduction of health care to terminal and end of life patients will be passed and adhered to in a cold and regulatory fashion.  This, my friends, sounds plausible and gives strength to the rumor.

Calling them “Death Panels” is meant to inspire fear and loathing.  Former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is credited for popularizing the phrase which is not a surprise to me, unfortunately.  But having her say it makes no more impact on me than if Rush Limbaugh popularized it first.  To me both are jokes of the Republican party.  Which is a shame, seeing as how I lean to the right.

Anyway . . .

There you have it.  It’s a rumor.  It’s unsubstantiated.  It’s out there.  They had to deny it.  And it distracts both sides from the actual substantial debate on the health care proposal.  That may or may not have been the intent, but regardless it was the effect.

Next?

c.e.s.

Politics Will Out

(source New York Times Tuesday, May 12, 2009)

U.S. journalist Roxana Saberi was imprisoned in Iran on ultimate charges of espionage for a sentence of eight years.  The New York Times reported on Monday that the Iranian appeals court reduced her sentence and ordered her immediate release.  The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to the court urging fairness.

Why was a letter necessary?

Is it not the job of Iran’s appeal court–indeed of ANY court–to be “fair?”  Or, is the Rule of Law something of which they need to be reminded?  I suspect the latter.  Iran is not known for its liberal legal system.  But I also strongly suspect something else.

First, she was arrested.  For what?  The original charge was for buying a bottle of wine—which is illegal in Iran, as it should be for any self-respecting Islamic theocracy.  My source didn’t mention, but it should go without saying that the purchase of illegal items must be done on, for whatever passes for it in Iran, the Black Market.  For doing this, her actions can best be described in three words;

Stupid, Stupid and Stupid.

I feel more sorry for her dealer than I do for her.  At least the Black Marketier probably did not know who she was.  Allow ME to tell you who she was.  She was;

1. A Female,
2. An American, and
3. A Journalist.

With those three strikes already against her, how could she have NO clue that she was a “subject of interest” to the government?  Put more simply; how could she NOT have minimally suspected that she was being watched??  And then, as a female, American journalist, she turns around and breaks the law and violates the religious doctrine of her host country.  Stupid, stupid person.

Then, Iran trumps up the charges.  From a stupid female American journalist buying religiously and legally prohibited alcoholic spirits on the Black Market she is suddenly transformed into an International Spy.  Bear in my mind that there is no prejudice in my mind against her gender.  We are talking about Iran here, guys.  So now from a petty criminal, she becomes the Great American Satan.

Now I ask you, was that really so unexpected?

She was in a country that is notorious for its illiberal legal system which has a BIG history of seething animosity towards the U.S..  So, while it may not have been legally fair, it is a perfectly acceptable and fair practice of war.  Let there be no doubt and no discussion, the U.S. is on the verge of, if not actually involved in, war with Iran.  It is de facto, if not de jure.  All that is missing is an actual exchange of physical hostilities—the possibility of which is still highly unpredictable.

This is diplomacy at nearly its most intense.  The tension between Iran and the West, particularly Israel and Israel’s ultimate ally the U.S., is well known.  Iran’s intent—or at the very least the capability—is thinly veiled and has been the focus of a LOT of diplomatic, propagandistic, and journalistic Hoo Rah for quite a while now.

• What can and should be done?
• What sanctions could or should the West impose?
• Just how effective would any such sanctions be?
• Will Israel launch an airstrike against nuclear production facilities as they did to Iraq during the reign of Sadaam?
• SHOULD they?
• What would be the repercussions of such a move by Israel?
• If it develops the capability, then can there be any doubt that Iran will arm itself with nuclear weapons?
• Is there any doubt, likewise, that Iran dreams of becoming a regional hegemon, especially now that its thousands of years old adversary is struggling to rebuild itself from a smoking ash heap?

Questions, Questions, Questions.  Each leads to three more and each of those leads to another three each and so on arithmetically.

But, here I am lead back to my original point about what else I suspect to be the motivations of Ahmadinejad for urging the Iranian appeals court to be “fair.”  It is but another well practiced step in the diplomatic dance among international adversaries.  It is another subtle, yet not so subtle, move in the ever intensifying game of chess.  Roxana Saberi is but an abundantly apparent pawn in the game.

It is (was) not about Saberi.  She should be fired and perhaps even spanked (for which I volunteer my services).

This is about the U.S. and Iran and conflicting interests in West Asia.  It was another opportunity for Iran to poke at the Great Satan and to gain another point in the minds of its people about how evil we are.

I wonder if I can get an interview with Roxana.  If she agrees to it, I will bring the wine.

Doc

Delivering Democracy from 30,000ft

Reaping the rewards of democracy

The Obama administration and its allies in Afghanistan continue to escalate George Bush’s good fight in the name of bringing democracy to the people of Afghanistan. Obviously in this case greater democracy promotion translates into record numbers of bombs dropped last month;

“Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show.

In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever.

April also marked the fourth consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline starting last July.

The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support sorties.

The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles.”

George must be proud.

Great philosophical quotes updated

This week, Karl Marx;

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Today’s version;

“From each according to his ability to obtain cheap pre-recession credit, to each according to his need for a flat screen TV”

Coming Home

Obama did make mention when he was in Europe that gone are the days of U.S. unilateralism. He intends to foster and support a new era of multilateralism. That ought to give our European allies a welcome sigh.

OOPS! Wait a moment! If the U.S. stops acting unilaterally then that means that either nothing will get done or others might actually have to step up and take a multilateral role. Who is willing to do that? the U.K.? France? Who? It’s so much easier to blast the U.S. for acting unilaterally than to actually take part in the activities that the West seems to feel like needs doing.

Acting multilaterally means that you can’t blame the unilateral actor anymore, especially if you are one of the multilateralists.

How about this scenario . . . The U.S. pulls completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also brings home all its troops in S. Korea and brings home all its troops worldwide

• Germany
• Australia
• Bulgaria
• Ecuador
• Greece
• Greenland
• Guam
• Italy
• Japan
• Kyrgyzstan
• The Netherlands
• Portugal
• Spain
• Turkey, and (lest we forget)
• the United Kingdom.

Quite a list, eh?

So we bring home ALL our troops, dismantle all our overseas bases, withdraw from NATO and any other strategic treaty alliances.

Remember this is JUST a scenario.

In effect we go completely isolationist. At this point it seems a good idea to start testing a new generation of nuclear weapons. Oh, don’t fear. If one of our old allies needs us to intervene militarily we will but they have to try defending themselves for a while first–just like before WWII and Chamberlain let Hitler walk away with Czechoslovakia and Austria. Somebody can even boldly invade and take over another country and maybe we’ll start a new Lend-Lease act. We’ll help all we can as long as we don’t have to act first and all by ourselves.

Iran has our implicit permission to politically overwelm Iraq and even install a puppet government there if they wish. Nuclear Weapons in Iran? OH COME ON!  We all know it’s going to happen anyway, right?

O.K. so now here we are all tucked safely away on our North American continent, leaving the rest of the world to do exactly as it pleases.  Let the Taliban take Afghanistan again–what do we care.  We have Homeland Security now.  we’ll just have to take away some more freedoms from our own citizens is all.  We’re used to it.  Sure there was a lot of griping about the Patriot Act but we knuckled under pretty well.  Maybe we can forbid any person from traveling abroad for any reason except business.  No more international tourism from the U.S.  That ought to erase any chances of international terrorism against our people.  They have to come onto American soil if they want to get at us.  While we’re at it we can also put draconian restrictions on tourism coming INTO the United States.

Now that we have ALL our military back home it ought to be pretty easy to make our borders non-porous.

O.K.  We’re all set.  Safe and snug.  We’re going to really get banging on that technology and get S.D.I. so it works 100%.  Sure, that’ll take some money, but look at all the money we’ll save by keeping out of everyone else’s business.

So, we’re good.  Thank you for stopping giving us a bunch of shit about being unilateralists.  Oh, by the way, how y’all doing?  Call us if you need something.  This doesn’t mean we don’t love you anymore.  Let’s be friends.

Uncle Sam

Doc

Truly Revolting

Somebody tickled my ass with a feather.

I dare you to read the whole thing.

In this post I will tell you how to change the constitutional make-up of  the government of the United States by PEACEFUL means.  (Federal web-crawlers, please note the word “peaceful.”  No need to send Homeland Security pounding on my door, please and thank you.  )

Yesterday I posted a bit on the Constitutional framework of the government of the United States of America.

Constitutional Framework

In that post I stated;

Article V outlines the procedures necessary to amend it.  Amending the Constitution requires a proposal by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress or by a national convention called for at the request of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in as many states.  So, you see, although the Constitution may be amended to allow for necessary changes and interpretations it is not an easy thing to do.  It require much more than a simple majority vote as might be accomplished by any one group or other coming into majority power.  It requires what is called a Super Majority.

There has NEVER been a National Convention called by two-thirds of the states.  The only national convention of any such sort was the very first one which formed the Constitution itself and effectively overturned the Articles of Confederation.  This may or may not be a good thing depending on your political leanings.

A National Convention leaves the entire document wide open to change or even nullification.

It was out of a National Convention that the Articles were junked.  Single proposed amendments coming out of Congress in the previously mentioned manner is a much safer way to preserve the integrity of the document itself.

(emphasis added)

A reader took umbrage with my post blaming the web (and implicitly me) for desiminating false information.  He said that Article V outline only the method of amending the document and he took special exception to my claim that a National Convention called for by two-thirds of the states’ legislatures could effectively put the whole ducument in danger of change or nullifaction.

He was right–and he was wrong.  He was right in that the article states only that the purpose of a state called convention would be for amendment.  He was wrong in the assumption that once convened that the convention would not be free to do MUCH more than that if they so wished.

I responded to him in Constitutional Framework and you may go there to view that response.  I also wish to elaborate on it here.

I will begin here, as I did there, by providing the text of the article itself from the Constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Note first please that the only recourse for altering the document is NOT Congress.  It may be done at the state level and does not require the approval of the government in Washington.  It DOES say “on the application” but if two-thirds” (34 out of the present 50 ) states get organized enough to actually CALL for a National Convention come together and ask for a convention, what’s Congress gonna do?  Say “no?”  I hardly think so.  If we distribute the population of the U.S. evenly we are talking about the state representatives of 200 million people.  So, “on the application” is just a pro forma technicality.

Now, we have 34 states meeting in convention using delegagtes of their own choosing.  Delegates may be actual elected officials to the national government or they may be state legislators or governors or they may even be homeless people from the streets of New York City.  There are no rules at the federal level and indeed the federal goernment doesn’t get to make the rules.  This is a convention of the states.

OK, now we have all these delegates meeting in some large city and they have rented some really large venue–say the New Orleans’ Superdome (I hope they’ve fixed the roof by now).  They are not just going to mingle in the middle of the arena and start shouting all at once (oh it may COME to that but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, shall we? )  They are going to have to form some sort of order of business.  They are going to need a President of the Convention, a Parliamentarian, a Rules Committee, and all sorts of other pompous officials.

Then they need an agenda and an order of business.  I mean when they left home they told their spouses that they were going to New Orleans for something pretty important.  For the sake of their marriages they better come home with something more than a maxed-out credit card and a STD.  So what’s it going to be?  An amendment?  Two?  Three?

What say we just scrap the whole thing and start fresh, eh?  Why not?  If enough people think the whole thing is screwed up enough it just may be the thing.  Put too much Duct Tape on a gadget and after a while you just might as well get a whole new gadget, what?  what?

And that’s ALL the Contitution of the United States of America is folks, PLEASE admit it.  It is JUST a gadget!  I’ll grant you that it’s an important gadget and that we just might possibly even need one.  (but England doesn’t have one and they do ok.  And France gets a new one every time a Frenchman changes his underwear–about 3 or 4 times in the past 150 years ) .

SO WHO IS TO SAY THAT WE CAN’T JUST START ALL OVER WITH A NEW CONSTITUTION?

CONGRESS??

NOPE!

Don’t forget, please.  This is a STATE party.  Congress wasn’t invited.

What’s the Federal Government gonna do if they don’t like what’s going on in the convention?  Is the president going to send in troops?  Nationalize the National Guard?  I hardly think so.  Not unless they want 34 states in open rebellion against the Feds.  And don’t forget, as LONG as they are folloing Article V they STILL have to get ratification from even MORE of the states that are in the convention.  They need three-fourths, 38 out of 50.  That’s the state representation of 225 million people.

OK, this has all been great fun (for me and I hope for you), but I don’t really believe that anything close to this is ever going to happen.  There has only been one National Convention called for in this manner, and it was the one that wrote the blame thing in the first place.  So let not get all heated up, eh?

I just wanted to make a VERY good point that it can be done.  I leave you with a quote from the Declaration of Independence which is the whole foundation for why something like this not only could happen but is reasoanble for it happen if necessary in the first place.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

And We Thank You For Your Support.

C.E. Spots

NATO talks democracy, practices imperialism

elected president Karzai to be sidelined

When it comes to democracy promotion, the United States and her NATO/European allies talk a good game. In regards to the war in Afghanistan, we’re on a 19th century style civilising mission to bring liberal democracy to a god forsaken corner of the Earth where the locals don’t know their hanging chads from their hung parliaments.

First the Afghanistan war was revenge for the 9/11 attacks (even though the invasion was planned months before said attacks). Then when the citizens of the invading nation’s realised that no one directly involved in the 9/11 attacks would be affected by the attacks on a nation already back in the dark ages, it became a purely altruistic endeavour. We were to spill the blood of many of our young boys and spend billions of our own treasure, but if it was to help others out, we’d pay that price.

When the killing of so many civilians became a reality to even those watching the mainstream news media, a more pragmatic approach was taken. We’re now in the game to maintain security and help promote stability in the region, which is in our own interest, apparently a ‘new realism’. Barack Obama has been won over to this new form of pragmatism, which has led him this weekend to be locked in at empire HQ at Camp David to decide on a plan which would see the elected president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, sidelined by a new prime minister, installed by the United States and her allies.

Of course, Karzai has come under attack for alleged corruption, weakness and lack of control of regions other than Kabul. Of course, in a truly functioning democracy such allegations would be put to the people to decide the presidents fate. A fully functioning democracy in Afghanistan is of no interest to the occupying forces.

Perhaps the real reason he is becoming an annoyance is that he has shown less and less patience towards US airstrikes in recent months, which have lead to the deaths of scores, if not hundreds, of innocent people. Following this, it seems likely Karzai will win the presidential election later this year, making it even more necessary that the occupying forces put their own man in, to ensure that the Afghan people are aware that in a democracy, it’s not the people’s opinion that counts, it’s those with power (whether internal or external actors) who matter.

-Kennedy

Violence Inherent in the System

One of my favorite Monty Python scenes

The Tet Offensive

Series Contents;

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon

Part I

The Tet Offensive was a military campaign conducted by the Vietcong (opposition guerrilla army in South Vietnam) and the Army of North Vietnam beginning on the 30^th of January and ending on the 23^rd of September 1968. It was aimed at the Army of South Vietnam and the United States armed forces in the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). The purpose was to strike military and civilian control centers in South Vietnam and create a popular uprising in that country that would culminate in the fall of Saigon (capital of S. Vietnam).

It is called “Tet” because Tet is the official New Year’s Day in Vietnam. North and South Vietnam announced by radio that in honor of the most important holiday in Vietnam that there would be a two-day cease-fire. However, in the early morning hours of January 30^th (New Year’s Day) the Viet Cong began a wave of attacks in the I and II Corps Tactical Zones. At first the attacks did not cause widespread alarm or lead to extraordinary allied defensive measures. The next morning however more than 80,000 Viet Cong troops struck more than 100 towns and cities, including 36 of 44 provincial capitals, five of six autonomous cities, 72 of 245 district towns and the national capital (Saigon) itself. It was the largest military operation by either side up to that point in the war.

The South Vietnamese Army and the allied forces were surprised and stunned, but most of the attacks were successfully repulsed. The communists suffered massive causalities. There were two exceptions; the old imperial capital of Hue and the U.S. combat base at Khe Sanh where fighting lasted for more than one month and two months respectively.

President Lyndon Johnson

It was a military disaster for the Vietcong but a public relations victory. The American public and even top administration officials had come to believe that because of previous defeats that the communists were unable to launch an offensive anything close to the scope of Tet. Most Western historians concluded that Tet ended in June, but it in fact lasted through two more phases. The second began in early May and lasted until the end of the month. The third began on August 17^th and lasted until September 23^rd.

In the summer of the preceding year, General William Westmoreland (commander Military Assistance Command, Vietnam: MACV ) believed that who was winning the war could be calculated by determining the replacement rate of enemy troops. To do this he took the total number of enemy combatants in-country and subtracted the number of those eliminated. Then he added back to that the number of enemy combatants replacing those eliminated and if the first calculation was greater than the second then the conclusion was that the S Vietnamese and U.S. forces were winning.

The problem was that MACV estimates and CIA estimates differed on how many combatants were in country to begin with. The difference was 130,000. MACV estimated 300,000. The CIA estimated 430,000.

General William Westmoreland

The military routinely gave estimates of enemy strength to the press and the MACV figures that were being used. If the CIA figures were reported then that would seriously undermine the impression that was being made to the American public. The military was trying to show that the U.S. was winning the war. Giving a figure of 130,000 more than previously reported not only would make enemy troop strength and determination look stronger but also would undercut the credibility of MACV.

MACV tried to force a compromise on the CIA by insisting that they not count V.C. militias but the CIA said that was ridiculous because militias accounted for inflicting more than 50% of U.S. causalities. A final solution to the problem occurred when a report was issued using the MACV figures with an addendum at the end of the report stating CIA objections to the figures. Interagency rivalry and bureaucratic bullshit was responsible for misleading the public on the advisability of continuing the war which resulted in untold loss of additional life among American and South Vietnamese young men.

It was a decline of public support during the latter half of ’67 that upset the administration of Lyndon Johnson. 45% of the Americans polled felt that the U.S. had made a mistake in sending troops to S.E. Asia. It wasn’t because people felt that the cause was not a worthy one. It was because people were beginning to believe that it was unwinnable. Their taxes were also going up. Another poll (55%) stated that Americans wanted a stricter policy—“let’s win or get out.” So instead of concentrating on winning the war the administration concentrated on changing the public’s perception of the war. The goal was to convince the public that we were not losing but had, rather, reached a stalemate and conversely that the administration’s policies were succeeding.

The administration began pushing statistics that indicated progress; “kill ratios,” “body counts,” and “village pacification.” Vice President Hubert Humphrey went on the Today Show and stated “We are on the offensive. Territory is being gained.” And, “We are making steady progress.” President Johnson summoned General Westmoreland and U.S. Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker to Washington who claimed that the U.S. policy was creating successes in the war.

Westmoreland gave an address at the National Press Club stating that the Vietcong was “unable to mount a major offensive . . . I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing . . . We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view.”

(to be continued)

Mr. Obama

From the New York Times

President Obama announced through “White House Officials” that he will authorize sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.  This comes on top of the 36,000 currently there.  Bringing the total to 53,000-an increase of more than 50%.

Mr. Obama is choosing a middle ground . . ..   M r. Obama said that deteriorating security in Afghanistan demands “urgent attention and swift action” to address a problem that “has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”  The decision does carries some political risks for Mr. Obama, whose election was interpreted by many Americans as a mandate to bring troops home from Iraq. But Mr. Obama has now announced additional American troops are headed to Afghanistan before he has withdrawn any troops from Iraq.  Mr. Obama will still have to make a decision on the additional troops that are part of Gen. David D. McKiernan’s standing request. Defense officials say that Mr. Obama cannot satisfy the full request from Gen. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, without withdrawing a substantial number of forces from Iraq.  Mr. Obama is expected to press America’s European allies at the summit for additional troops for Afghanistan, along with more development help.

This was no surprise was it?  At least I hope not and especially those of us who followed the campaign.  Candidate Obama said repeatedly while he was campaigning that it was a definite possibility (if not probably) that this was coming.  So, I am not surprised.

But answer me this;

Why are they still addressing President Obama as Mr. Obama?  He’s President now, right?  They haven’t done this before for other sitting presidents, have they?  Seriously, I’m not completely sure.  Let me know if this is a standard practice for the Times.  If this is not new, then it’s the first time I noticed it.  And I think I would have before now . . .

But STILL, even if this is their regular practice, I don’t like it!  The guy is president now, right?  He deserves the respect of addressing him with his unique title.  After all, he’s sending 17,000 of our nation’s youth directly into harm’s way.  ONLY a “President” can do that.  The article makes him sound like the Manager of a Lowe’s Home Improvement Store!

SHEESH!  What do YOU think?