I had to laugh at the AJC coverage of James Peake for new Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Words like, “Nominee to head VA pledges to do right thing by Veterans.” No mention of the fact that he and Principi were head haunchoes in the VA contract for Billions for their company to do the C & P on Veterans. The very minimum C & P; I might add. What a crock and a bunch of self-serving crooks we have inside 495.
Then on top of all that they state he hedged on any specific plans he would implement for the Veterans Administration. Did anyone, especially Veterans and their families except anything differently?
The best thing our government could do is fire every one of them and start over with a totally independent group or at least have the presidential puppet start out with no conflict of interest and an appointed position of at least 15 years so the head puppet does not bow and scrape to the executive branch or any other branch of government as the guide wires are tightened.
About finished the Texas Tech presentation except for formatting, some additions on definitions which is boring and hard to do, and I want to use the Parkinson’s approval on a BVA claim to show that “biological plausibility” is good enough. We do not need to prove what the current level of science itself cannot prove in causation and etiology. Especially if science in general says, the herbicides are neurotoxic. Moreover, in one case I know of at Columbia the science funding was cutoff or at least hard to come by to prove the issues with 2,4, -D and ALS and other neurological disorders. So much for everything being associated with 2,4,5-T.
I also want to show how in this case by Veterans Affairs being the science monitor and science decision makers for the nation, which it is not, and stating what is not presumptive and the influence at the court level it has. This includes the IOM also. Yes, inclusive is OK but not "exclusive" by the very court system you are seeking justice from is wrong.
And just as a coniendcedce I am sure; what VA says, as the nations science monitor on toxicology is not associated; is exactly what Veterans and their families have been saying is associated for at least 28 years. What a coniendcedce in empirical data and study data; yet, Veterans Affairs can spit this stuff out like it is real facts.
I hope those in the House we are working with will realize the wrongness of these Veterans Affairs activities when it comes to getting any kind of fair judgement or concluding points of contention from RO's or judges. Again I state that the Senate on these issues has been missing in action on all fronts.
This would be like going into the court system where the judge has already been given by the supreme court, statements that your defense or presentation of the facts is not scientific nor plausible - before you and your doctor or doctors - even present your case. Not exactly what one would consider justice.
I think I have some good points in recent findings in dioxin cell damages that are now measurable and some good associations to the cytokines that are affected by dioxin isomers and like isomers and the outcomes in immune system issues for death and disability.
We cannot say anything about any network in particular, but I will say there is one that is going through its second rounds of meetings about covering this forum. The point of this forum is to use this election as a platform to remind the American public that wars do not end when service members come home. (Were it only that simple.) We need people to contact the networks NOW urging them to cover the forum: 1) Go to: www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/
There is a pull down menu above the CONTACT US form: chose "OTHER"
2) Email: evenings@cbs.com with "story idea" in the subject line
Presidential Forum on Veterans, Wounded Warriors, and Military Families
MSC is inviting the candidates from both parties to Texas to participate in this Forum at the end of January/no later than Feb. 3, 2008. We have been joined by Veterans and Military Families for Progress (www.vmfp.org), Not This Time Vets (www.notthistimevets.org), Veterans for Common Sense (www.veteransforcommonsense.org), Veterans Village (www.veteransvillage.org), Veterans United for Truth (www.vuft.org), Empowering Veterans (www.empoweringveterans.org), and the Farmers-Veterans Coalition (www.farmvetco.org).
We will most likely have two separate forums, one for each party.
We need your help.
DETAILS BELOW
As much as individual presidential candidates talk about health care plans or personal values, the fact remains that we are electing a war president. We are electing a president who will probably spend the bulk of his or her first term managing military conflicts and performing extensive foreign policy damage control.
In 2008, the next President will inherit at least two wars and the costs of those wars, internally as well as internationally, will continue to grow long after the last service member comes home.
Fort Hood is the largest military installation in the United States. There are almost 46,000 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood and more than 24,000 spouses. On any given day, at least a third of these soldiers are deployed to Iraq and every week at least two soldiers from Fort Hood (on average) are killed in Iraq. (I am 34 and I know more widows than my mother knows.)
This kind of event has never been done before and it needs to be done now. Not only because Americans on both side of the aisle need to be reminded (before Super Tuesday) that we are electing the next Commander-in-Chief, but also because our service members and their families deserve to be addressed and heard by the people who wish to be elected in that position.
We also think this country's large veteran community should know which candidates truly value the military and veteran vote (if not for moral reasons, then for practical reasons).
There are approximately 1.4 million active duty service members in America and 1.2 million in the National Guard/Reserves. If you include the spouses, that comes to a total of 4.1 million votes.
Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 1 in 8 adults were veterans (26.4 million) in 2003. If we assume that at least half of those adults were married, then we have approximately 39 million vet couples giving us a total of almost 43 million American adults who are currently serving in the military, have served in the military, or are married to someone serving or who had served. That is not an insignificant number.
As an organization and as military spouses, clearly U.S. foreign policy is important to us. But the American public has an interest in this as well, not only for fiscal reasons (e.g., we have spent 447 billion dollars on the war in Iraq alone), but for national security reasons.
Furthermore, what about the depletion of our states' National Guard and reserve units? How are we going to replenish those units so that individual states can respond to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, another 9/11?
So far 1.5 million service members have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. What are the candidates' positions on the possibility of reinstating the draft if, for example, we become engaged with Iran before he or she enters office?
Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense has reported more than 64,000 wounded and 4,000 killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs, however, has reported treating 200,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, including 95,000 for mental health conditions.
Meanwhile, an estimated 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are expected to seek care from the VA within the next ten years, at a projected short-term cost of 7 to 9 billion dollars and long term cost of 660 BILLION dollars. A recent DoD taskforce assessing the mental health capabilities of the military announced:
"The system of care for psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." http://www.ha.osd.mil/dhb/mhtf...
What do the candidates propose to do for our returning wounded warriors and their families? How do we effectively identify their mental, physical, social, and financial needs and how do we effectively meet those needs?
The suicide rate is the highest in almost 30 years and the propensity to serve is at a 20 year low. Consequently, the Army and Marine Corps are relying on reenlistment and recruiting bonuses that will cost nearly 2.5 billion dollars next year.
Iraq is the defining electoral issue of 2008. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq does not end when the service member comes home and most people do not realize this.
How do we help our military and veteran families receive the help they need emotionally, medically, and/or financially? What are our obligations and responsibilities to them as a nation once they have fulfilled their obligations and responsibilities to us?
What can and/or should we be doing to help our returning warriors successfully reintegrate into peacetime society?
If we don't take adequate care of our veterans and military families, this voluntary force upon which EVERY American today RELIES and ASSUMES will continue, will dry up.
Isn't this a conversation EVERY AMERICAN needs to be having?
The networks hesitate to commit to covering this event b/c they think Americans are not interested. Help us prove that they are wrong...
Please share this with your friends via email, message boards, etc...
I just published this op-ed on military.com. They have asked me to contribute other pieces as well. You can see my profile and get the links to the sources cited within the article at:
In 2006, Congress ordered the Secretary of Defense to assess the mental health needs of the Armed Forces and the ability of the DoD to meet those needs. As a result, the DoD created a Mental Health Task Force that found:
"The system of care for the psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's armed forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." (Read the full report)
While recognizing the existence of these needs is an important step, it is only the first of many important steps that we have to take on behalf of our wounded warriors. The unmet mental health care needs of the men and women we send to wage war in other countries are causing them to wage their own wars, with themselves and with others, in this one.
Consider 1st Lieutenant Whiteside. Lt. Whiteside faces criminal prosecution for trying to kill herself in Iraq. Granted, when she had her psychotic break she waved a gun around at her fellow soldiers to keep them away (so she could successfully shoot herself twice in the abdomen). The DoD acknowledges its institutional inability to ensure that its service members have the support and services they need to cope with extraordinary psychological stress and yet the Army believes Lt. Whiteside should be further penalized for what happened that day?
Research by CBS News revealed at least 120 vets per week in 2005 committed suicide. Seventeen veterans committed suicide every day that year. I wonder how many service members and veterans attempted to kill themselves the day that Lt. Whiteside tried to kill herself? I wonder how many succeeded.
Meanwhile, between 2001 and 2006, 22,500 service members, many of whom served combat tours, were involuntarily separated from the military (with no mental health treatment) for "personality disorders." In July, both Houses of Congress introduced legislation (S1817 and HR3167) to stop these discharges until the DoD can explain how it plans to accurately distinguish between PTSD and a bona fide personality disorder. Both bills have languished in their respective committees since then and these discharges continue. Yet PTSD that is undiagnosed, mismanaged, or untreated can manifest itself in violence towards one's self or towards others. Of course, we don't keep official records of these casualties.
Senator Kit Bond recently told reporters that he was going to draft legislation asking the President to create a Special Review Board to re-evaluate the 22,500 service members who were discharged for these alleged "pre-existing" mental health conditions.
Americans like to keep the ugliness of war contained so as to maintain an illusion of civility. In short, we have evolved enough as a species to feel shame about engaging in acts of war but we haven't evolved enough to avoid these acts in the first place. When we see the men and women who have been broken, physically or psychologically, by combat, the degree to which we have failed to truly be civilized is hard to accept.
In "Just and Unjust Wars," the Michael Walzer wrote, "what we conveniently call inhumanity is simply humanity under pressure." Our wounded warriors reflect the side of human nature in general, and America in particular, that most Americans do not want to think about.
So rather than take responsibility for sending these men and women to another country to do and see things that are really quite brutal (even if necessary), we ignore, minimize, or vilify the men and women who, in a very normal fashion, are traumatized in the process. The more our institutions make the service members' problems about them, the less uncivilized, inhumane, and/or unreasonable we are--the socio-national equivalent of putting a rape victim on trial.
My point is this: our discomfort with our wounded warriors makes us even less civilized, not more. The very people whose wounds make us feel the least amount of pride individually are giving us an opportunity to do something to feel the most pride collectively. By tending to the wounds of those who remind us of our inhumanity, we become more humane. That means we have to do more than just bring our troops home, we have to take care of them when they are here.
Pretending that we don't see them -- or trying not to think about them--doesn't make our wounded go away, it only makes it easier not to care.
I would add that yes Iraqi and Afghanistan Vets are in the news but let us not forget what our government did and is still doing to many other era Veterans including Nam and Gulf War Vets and DoD testing Vets.
Vietnam Vets have and are still getting the long shaft from IOM and Veterans Affairs and from our government in general.
While the Gulf War Vets, it is approaching that of our Nam Vets just as soon as we all die off and they are left.
Then VA and the government and all involved in Nam Vets screwing, no different than other era vets, will say we are sorry you were right and we were wrong; our bad. Now who wants to sign up for more treatment just like we did to all the era period Veterans?
I am glad we have the ones we have now but I and I know my entire family including extended family sure as hell would not recommend anyone serving in the military for this government. Not until some changes at DoD and VA and the IOM are made.
Maybe Carissa and her group can get that done if we help.
Engineer: Dow data was bad.......big surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has been bad since this dioxin mess started!
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Engineer: Dow data was bad
Employee claims she was demoted after questioning test results on Tittabawassee River.
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
Dow Chemical Co. knowingly submitted bad data about chemical levels in the Tittabawassee River to state environmental regulators, a company insider alleges in a whistleblower lawsuit.
Priscilla Denney, a Dow engineer who says she was responsible for validating Dow's data about levels of dioxin and other chemicals before it was sent to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, alleges in a lawsuit filed in Saginaw County Circuit Court that she was demoted after raising concerns about the data.
On Wednesday, a Dow spokeswoman denied that the company demoted Denney, who still works for the Midland-based chemical giant. Also, "we do stand by the data that was submitted," Jennifer Heronema said. "It was accurate, reliable data."
By demoting Denney in January and requiring her to work from home, Dow ensured she "would be silenced and not be an obstacle to the submission of unvalidated data" to the state, Denney alleges in the lawsuit, which was served on Dow last week.
Dow admits it discharged dioxin -- a highly toxic cancer-causing chemical -- into the water and air from its Midland plant for many years, though it says it stopped the practice decades ago.
Dow is required to test and report soil and water conditions around the Tittabawassee as part of a 2005 agreement reached with the state to settle a lawsuit filed by Midland-area residents.
Denney, represented by Saginaw attorney Victor Mastromarco, was a project engineering specialist responsible for the validation of chemical samples collected by a Dow contractor, Ann Arbor Technical Services Inc., and analyzed by another contractor, TriMatrix Laboratories of Grand Rapids.
Project Enhancement Corp., the Germantown, Md., company hired to validate data from samples collected in August 2006, rejected the data that November because of "major technical non-compliance," Denney alleges in the lawsuit.
Heronema confirmed Project Enhancement rejected the data, but said Dow had it tested by another company, which she could not identify. That company said Project Enhancement applied the wrong standards and the data was acceptable, she said. The samples in question did not relate to dioxin, but to other chlorinated chemicals and some metals, she said.
Denney alleges she reported the flaws to her supervisors, but Dow "submitted said bad data to the (state) on or about Feb. 1, 2007."
In retaliation for reporting the data validation problems, Denney alleges she was demoted.
Robert McCann, a spokesman for the DEQ, said that in response to the lawsuit, the state asked Dow Monday for the backup information showing the data the company provided is valid.
"We expect to have it by the end of the week," McCann said.
There is no indication in the lawsuit whether the alleged data flaws would result in chemical levels being understated or exaggerated.
Last month, scientists found a spot in the Saginaw River where the dioxin reading was 1.6 million parts per trillion -- 20 times higher than any previous sample in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency archives, officials said. Levels above 90 parts per trillion trigger state action.
Ricardo Martinez, president of Project Enhancement, did not return a phone call. According to the complaint, Project Enhancement terminated its contract with Dow as a result of the data problems in December 2006.
Peter Simon, project manager for Ann Arbor Technical Services, declined comment.
Farmington Hills attorney Martin Bordoley said TriMatrix "felt their data was completely accurate."
You can reach Paul Egan at (313) 222-2069 or pegan@detnews.com.
Question
allan
This and That
I had to laugh at the AJC coverage of James Peake for new Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Words like, “Nominee to head VA pledges to do right thing by Veterans.” No mention of the fact that he and Principi were head haunchoes in the VA contract for Billions for their company to do the C & P on Veterans. The very minimum C & P; I might add. What a crock and a bunch of self-serving crooks we have inside 495.
Then on top of all that they state he hedged on any specific plans he would implement for the Veterans Administration. Did anyone, especially Veterans and their families except anything differently?
The best thing our government could do is fire every one of them and start over with a totally independent group or at least have the presidential puppet start out with no conflict of interest and an appointed position of at least 15 years so the head puppet does not bow and scrape to the executive branch or any other branch of government as the guide wires are tightened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About finished the Texas Tech presentation except for formatting, some additions on definitions which is boring and hard to do, and I want to use the Parkinson’s approval on a BVA claim to show that “biological plausibility” is good enough. We do not need to prove what the current level of science itself cannot prove in causation and etiology. Especially if science in general says, the herbicides are neurotoxic. Moreover, in one case I know of at Columbia the science funding was cutoff or at least hard to come by to prove the issues with 2,4, -D and ALS and other neurological disorders. So much for everything being associated with 2,4,5-T.
I also want to show how in this case by Veterans Affairs being the science monitor and science decision makers for the nation, which it is not, and stating what is not presumptive and the influence at the court level it has. This includes the IOM also. Yes, inclusive is OK but not "exclusive" by the very court system you are seeking justice from is wrong.
And just as a coniendcedce I am sure; what VA says, as the nations science monitor on toxicology is not associated; is exactly what Veterans and their families have been saying is associated for at least 28 years. What a coniendcedce in empirical data and study data; yet, Veterans Affairs can spit this stuff out like it is real facts.
I hope those in the House we are working with will realize the wrongness of these Veterans Affairs activities when it comes to getting any kind of fair judgement or concluding points of contention from RO's or judges. Again I state that the Senate on these issues has been missing in action on all fronts.
This would be like going into the court system where the judge has already been given by the supreme court, statements that your defense or presentation of the facts is not scientific nor plausible - before you and your doctor or doctors - even present your case. Not exactly what one would consider justice.
I think I have some good points in recent findings in dioxin cell damages that are now measurable and some good associations to the cytokines that are affected by dioxin isomers and like isomers and the outcomes in immune system issues for death and disability.
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/tt.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did get e-mail from Debra at krasu@msn.com
as follows:
URGENT: Call to Action to Raise Public Awareness
Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:31:42 AM EST
We cannot say anything about any network in particular, but I will say there is one that is going through its second rounds of meetings about covering this forum. The point of this forum is to use this election as a platform to remind the American public that wars do not end when service members come home. (Were it only that simple.) We need people to contact the networks NOW urging them to cover the forum: 1) Go to: www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/
There is a pull down menu above the CONTACT US form: chose "OTHER"
2) Email: evenings@cbs.com with "story idea" in the subject line
3) Go to:
www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/breaking.news.html and http://www.cnn.com/feedback/fo...
Info w/ data and stats at:
http://militaryspousesforchang...
Local news clip on our efforts:
www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=195555
Details Below Break
Presidential Forum on Veterans, Wounded Warriors, and Military Families
MSC is inviting the candidates from both parties to Texas to participate in this Forum at the end of January/no later than Feb. 3, 2008. We have been joined by Veterans and Military Families for Progress (www.vmfp.org), Not This Time Vets (www.notthistimevets.org), Veterans for Common Sense (www.veteransforcommonsense.org), Veterans Village (www.veteransvillage.org), Veterans United for Truth (www.vuft.org), Empowering Veterans (www.empoweringveterans.org), and the Farmers-Veterans Coalition (www.farmvetco.org).
We will most likely have two separate forums, one for each party.
We need your help.
DETAILS BELOW
As much as individual presidential candidates talk about health care plans or personal values, the fact remains that we are electing a war president. We are electing a president who will probably spend the bulk of his or her first term managing military conflicts and performing extensive foreign policy damage control.
In 2008, the next President will inherit at least two wars and the costs of those wars, internally as well as internationally, will continue to grow long after the last service member comes home.
Fort Hood is the largest military installation in the United States. There are almost 46,000 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood and more than 24,000 spouses. On any given day, at least a third of these soldiers are deployed to Iraq and every week at least two soldiers from Fort Hood (on average) are killed in Iraq. (I am 34 and I know more widows than my mother knows.)
This kind of event has never been done before and it needs to be done now. Not only because Americans on both side of the aisle need to be reminded (before Super Tuesday) that we are electing the next Commander-in-Chief, but also because our service members and their families deserve to be addressed and heard by the people who wish to be elected in that position.
We also think this country's large veteran community should know which candidates truly value the military and veteran vote (if not for moral reasons, then for practical reasons).
There are approximately 1.4 million active duty service members in America and 1.2 million in the National Guard/Reserves. If you include the spouses, that comes to a total of 4.1 million votes.
Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 1 in 8 adults were veterans (26.4 million) in 2003. If we assume that at least half of those adults were married, then we have approximately 39 million vet couples giving us a total of almost 43 million American adults who are currently serving in the military, have served in the military, or are married to someone serving or who had served. That is not an insignificant number.
As an organization and as military spouses, clearly U.S. foreign policy is important to us. But the American public has an interest in this as well, not only for fiscal reasons (e.g., we have spent 447 billion dollars on the war in Iraq alone), but for national security reasons.
Furthermore, what about the depletion of our states' National Guard and reserve units? How are we going to replenish those units so that individual states can respond to a natural disaster or, heaven forbid, another 9/11?
So far 1.5 million service members have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. What are the candidates' positions on the possibility of reinstating the draft if, for example, we become engaged with Iran before he or she enters office?
Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense has reported more than 64,000 wounded and 4,000 killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs, however, has reported treating 200,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, including 95,000 for mental health conditions.
Meanwhile, an estimated 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are expected to seek care from the VA within the next ten years, at a projected short-term cost of 7 to 9 billion dollars and long term cost of 660 BILLION dollars. A recent DoD taskforce assessing the mental health capabilities of the military announced:
"The system of care for psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." http://www.ha.osd.mil/dhb/mhtf...
What do the candidates propose to do for our returning wounded warriors and their families? How do we effectively identify their mental, physical, social, and financial needs and how do we effectively meet those needs?
The suicide rate is the highest in almost 30 years and the propensity to serve is at a 20 year low. Consequently, the Army and Marine Corps are relying on reenlistment and recruiting bonuses that will cost nearly 2.5 billion dollars next year.
Iraq is the defining electoral issue of 2008. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq does not end when the service member comes home and most people do not realize this.
How do we help our military and veteran families receive the help they need emotionally, medically, and/or financially? What are our obligations and responsibilities to them as a nation once they have fulfilled their obligations and responsibilities to us?
What can and/or should we be doing to help our returning warriors successfully reintegrate into peacetime society?
If we don't take adequate care of our veterans and military families, this voluntary force upon which EVERY American today RELIES and ASSUMES will continue, will dry up.
Isn't this a conversation EVERY AMERICAN needs to be having?
The networks hesitate to commit to covering this event b/c they think Americans are not interested. Help us prove that they are wrong...
Please share this with your friends via email, message boards, etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, e-mail from Carissa Picard at http://www.militaryspousesforchange.com/
I just published this op-ed on military.com. They have asked me to contribute other pieces as well. You can see my profile and get the links to the sources cited within the article at:
http://www.military.com/Military/NewDesign/Commentary
At War With Themselves
In 2006, Congress ordered the Secretary of Defense to assess the mental health needs of the Armed Forces and the ability of the DoD to meet those needs. As a result, the DoD created a Mental Health Task Force that found:
"The system of care for the psychological health that has evolved over recent decades is insufficient to meet the needs of today's armed forces and their beneficiaries, and will not be sufficient to meet their needs in the future." (Read the full report)
While recognizing the existence of these needs is an important step, it is only the first of many important steps that we have to take on behalf of our wounded warriors. The unmet mental health care needs of the men and women we send to wage war in other countries are causing them to wage their own wars, with themselves and with others, in this one.
Consider 1st Lieutenant Whiteside. Lt. Whiteside faces criminal prosecution for trying to kill herself in Iraq. Granted, when she had her psychotic break she waved a gun around at her fellow soldiers to keep them away (so she could successfully shoot herself twice in the abdomen). The DoD acknowledges its institutional inability to ensure that its service members have the support and services they need to cope with extraordinary psychological stress and yet the Army believes Lt. Whiteside should be further penalized for what happened that day?
Research by CBS News revealed at least 120 vets per week in 2005 committed suicide. Seventeen veterans committed suicide every day that year. I wonder how many service members and veterans attempted to kill themselves the day that Lt. Whiteside tried to kill herself? I wonder how many succeeded.
Meanwhile, between 2001 and 2006, 22,500 service members, many of whom served combat tours, were involuntarily separated from the military (with no mental health treatment) for "personality disorders." In July, both Houses of Congress introduced legislation (S1817 and HR3167) to stop these discharges until the DoD can explain how it plans to accurately distinguish between PTSD and a bona fide personality disorder. Both bills have languished in their respective committees since then and these discharges continue. Yet PTSD that is undiagnosed, mismanaged, or untreated can manifest itself in violence towards one's self or towards others. Of course, we don't keep official records of these casualties.
Senator Kit Bond recently told reporters that he was going to draft legislation asking the President to create a Special Review Board to re-evaluate the 22,500 service members who were discharged for these alleged "pre-existing" mental health conditions.
Americans like to keep the ugliness of war contained so as to maintain an illusion of civility. In short, we have evolved enough as a species to feel shame about engaging in acts of war but we haven't evolved enough to avoid these acts in the first place. When we see the men and women who have been broken, physically or psychologically, by combat, the degree to which we have failed to truly be civilized is hard to accept.
In "Just and Unjust Wars," the Michael Walzer wrote, "what we conveniently call inhumanity is simply humanity under pressure." Our wounded warriors reflect the side of human nature in general, and America in particular, that most Americans do not want to think about.
So rather than take responsibility for sending these men and women to another country to do and see things that are really quite brutal (even if necessary), we ignore, minimize, or vilify the men and women who, in a very normal fashion, are traumatized in the process. The more our institutions make the service members' problems about them, the less uncivilized, inhumane, and/or unreasonable we are--the socio-national equivalent of putting a rape victim on trial.
My point is this: our discomfort with our wounded warriors makes us even less civilized, not more. The very people whose wounds make us feel the least amount of pride individually are giving us an opportunity to do something to feel the most pride collectively. By tending to the wounds of those who remind us of our inhumanity, we become more humane. That means we have to do more than just bring our troops home, we have to take care of them when they are here.
Pretending that we don't see them -- or trying not to think about them--doesn't make our wounded go away, it only makes it easier not to care.
--
Carissa Picard
President
Military Spouses for Change
254.213.1101
406.498.2134 ©
Involve. Inform. Inspire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would add that yes Iraqi and Afghanistan Vets are in the news but let us not forget what our government did and is still doing to many other era Veterans including Nam and Gulf War Vets and DoD testing Vets.
Vietnam Vets have and are still getting the long shaft from IOM and Veterans Affairs and from our government in general.
While the Gulf War Vets, it is approaching that of our Nam Vets just as soon as we all die off and they are left.
Then VA and the government and all involved in Nam Vets screwing, no different than other era vets, will say we are sorry you were right and we were wrong; our bad. Now who wants to sign up for more treatment just like we did to all the era period Veterans?
I am glad we have the ones we have now but I and I know my entire family including extended family sure as hell would not recommend anyone serving in the military for this government. Not until some changes at DoD and VA and the IOM are made.
Maybe Carissa and her group can get that done if we help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineer: Dow data was bad.......big surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!
It has been bad since this dioxin mess started!
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Engineer: Dow data was bad
Employee claims she was demoted after questioning test results on Tittabawassee River.
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
Dow Chemical Co. knowingly submitted bad data about chemical levels in the Tittabawassee River to state environmental regulators, a company insider alleges in a whistleblower lawsuit.
Priscilla Denney, a Dow engineer who says she was responsible for validating Dow's data about levels of dioxin and other chemicals before it was sent to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, alleges in a lawsuit filed in Saginaw County Circuit Court that she was demoted after raising concerns about the data.
On Wednesday, a Dow spokeswoman denied that the company demoted Denney, who still works for the Midland-based chemical giant. Also, "we do stand by the data that was submitted," Jennifer Heronema said. "It was accurate, reliable data."
By demoting Denney in January and requiring her to work from home, Dow ensured she "would be silenced and not be an obstacle to the submission of unvalidated data" to the state, Denney alleges in the lawsuit, which was served on Dow last week.
Dow admits it discharged dioxin -- a highly toxic cancer-causing chemical -- into the water and air from its Midland plant for many years, though it says it stopped the practice decades ago.
Dow is required to test and report soil and water conditions around the Tittabawassee as part of a 2005 agreement reached with the state to settle a lawsuit filed by Midland-area residents.
Denney, represented by Saginaw attorney Victor Mastromarco, was a project engineering specialist responsible for the validation of chemical samples collected by a Dow contractor, Ann Arbor Technical Services Inc., and analyzed by another contractor, TriMatrix Laboratories of Grand Rapids.
Project Enhancement Corp., the Germantown, Md., company hired to validate data from samples collected in August 2006, rejected the data that November because of "major technical non-compliance," Denney alleges in the lawsuit.
Heronema confirmed Project Enhancement rejected the data, but said Dow had it tested by another company, which she could not identify. That company said Project Enhancement applied the wrong standards and the data was acceptable, she said. The samples in question did not relate to dioxin, but to other chlorinated chemicals and some metals, she said.
Denney alleges she reported the flaws to her supervisors, but Dow "submitted said bad data to the (state) on or about Feb. 1, 2007."
In retaliation for reporting the data validation problems, Denney alleges she was demoted.
Robert McCann, a spokesman for the DEQ, said that in response to the lawsuit, the state asked Dow Monday for the backup information showing the data the company provided is valid.
"We expect to have it by the end of the week," McCann said.
There is no indication in the lawsuit whether the alleged data flaws would result in chemical levels being understated or exaggerated.
Last month, scientists found a spot in the Saginaw River where the dioxin reading was 1.6 million parts per trillion -- 20 times higher than any previous sample in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency archives, officials said. Levels above 90 parts per trillion trigger state action.
Ricardo Martinez, president of Project Enhancement, did not return a phone call. According to the complaint, Project Enhancement terminated its contract with Dow as a result of the data problems in December 2006.
Peter Simon, project manager for Ann Arbor Technical Services, declined comment.
Farmington Hills attorney Martin Bordoley said TriMatrix "felt their data was completely accurate."
You can reach Paul Egan at (313) 222-2069 or pegan@detnews.com.
Kelley
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com:8...hisandthat2.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Dec 10
2
Top Posters For This Question
Pete53 1 post
allan 1 post
Popular Days
Dec 10 2007
2 posts
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts