31 March 2005

Gang-beaten by a group of fellow employees at the Baghdad airport where he works as a security coordinator for KBR

As his son Ronald Lee Chavez lies in serious condition, father Eli has fired off a letter to the U.S. Justice Department and plans to file a criminal complaint against anyone involved in his son's beating. A case where Americans badly beat another American in a foreign land.
While Ronald was in Albuquerque on R & R, he advised me that his Boss did not like him because Ronald is Hispanic; and that the "Red Neck Mafia" ran the operation for Halliburton at Baghdad Airport. Ronald further advised me that he had reported by Memorandum to higher authority within the Halliburton Chain of Command the vulnerabilities at Baghdad Airport regarding to terrorist attacks. Ronald further stated that higher authority was upset at his recommendations.

According to Patti, Halliburton advised her that they had sent 3 of the "Redneck Mafia" members back to the USA; and that Halliburton was not going to file criminal charges against them.

It has been mentioned that this might be a whistleblower type case, where retribution may have been dealt out to Mr. Chavez for a written memo he sent to his higher-ups.

This scenario is not surprising to me, given an occupation environment in the wake of a illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign nation that did not threaten the United States.

KFNX is going in a different direction

Changes are a brewing at KFNX 1100 AM, and it looks like a big shakeup is about to commence and it appears that the station will return to brokered programming aka infomercials, as it was when the recycled program director was heading the operation before.
Bob Mohan announced today his will do his last KFNX radio show this Friday from NOON-2p.m.

The assault on the airwaves, that is the result of this programming decision should be grounds for FCC revoking their license. I thought that the radio airwaves belonged to the public and programming should reflect the public interest, not to whet the desires of neo-nazi groups and snake oil salesmen.

27 March 2005

If Grokster loses, technological innovation will be the domain of big corporations only

Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban announces he's going to take on 28 of the largest entertainment companies, by providing financing for the legal effort to defend Grokster in MGM v. Grokster, a landmark case that will be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday, 29 March 2005.
It wont be a good day when high school entrepreneurs have to get a fairness opinion from a technology oriented law firm to confirm that big music or movie studios wont sue you because they can come up with an angle that makes a judge believe the technology might impact the music business. It will be a sad day when American corporations start to hold their US digital innovations and inventions overseas to protect them from the RIAA, moving important jobs overseas with them.

Thats what is ahead of us if Grokster loses. Thats what happens if the RIAA is able to convince the Supreme Court of the USA that rather than the truth, which is , Software doesnt steal content, people steal content, they convince them that if it can impact the music business, it should be outlawed because somehow it will. It doesnt matter that the RIAA has been wrong about innovations and the perceived threat to their industry, EVERY SINGLE TIME. It just matters that they can spend more then everyone else on lawyers. Thats not the way it should be. So , the real reason of this blog. To let everyone know that the EFF and others came to me and asked if I would finance the legal effort against MGM. I said yes. I would provide them the money they need. So now the truth has been told. This isnt the big content companies against the technology companies. This is the big content companies, against me. Mark Cuban and my little content company. Its about our ability to use future innovations to compete vs their ability to use the courts to shut down our ability to compete. its that simple.

The mainstream media is painting this case as a conflict over illegal file sharing (i.e., committing copyright infringement by downloading music and video files) but what's really at stake is a clampdown on your freedom and liberty. If Grokster loses, it would be the equivalent of holding gun manufacturers liable for murders. Any product of technology can be used for good, or for bad.

And the case could have ramifications in wake of the 1984 landmark Betamax case, which enabled the VCR to become ubiquitous.

U.S. laws do not apply to work sent overseas to foreign-owned companies

As jobs go offshore, so shall the incidents of identity theft rise in conjunction.
That means seeking damages in the U.S. civil justice system in cases of abuse involving overseas companies is all but impossible.

That's because it's so hard to straighten out the tangled relationships among the foreign companies that contract with U.S. companies but then subcontract with other foreign-owned companies.

Here's the scary part: Identity theft may already be commonplace at foreign companies now doing the outsourced work.

The Federal Trade Commission estimates that 3.2 million Americans are victimized every year. Nobody knows where all the thefts are occurring, which makes the crime even more frightening.

Your data is a click away for foreign nationals working in locales where bribery is commonplace and a small sum can fetch all your critical identification keys including social security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card account numbers, etc.… And where such transgressions remain totally out of the sphere of American jurisprudence.

Consider this the next time you hear some think tank pundit pontificate on how glorious globalization and the mass migration of work from American shores is…

21 March 2005

Bush's "pull the plug" law

Despite the wishes of Terry Schiavo, her spouse, and 19 judges in 10 different courts, the nation's Republican leadership has embarked upon a morality campaign, enacting legislation for the sake of a solo patient. Worse, it unravels in a fashion emblematic of Republican hyprocrisy, considering that in 1999, when Governor George W. Bush signed off on legislation that outright overides the patient's family wishes. Incredulously, White House press secretary Scott McClellan flat out lied when defending the Texas legislative act.
McClellan’s statement grossly distorts the nature of the law. The law does not ensure that actions are taken “in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient’s family.” In fact it codifies and legalizes the ability of doctors to stop treatment even if it goes against the explicit directive of the patient or the patient’s family.

In fact, here's a case of a Texas Children's Hospital patient that had the "plug pulled" despite wishes of the family. However, for Terry Schiavo, Bush rushed back to Washington to sign, after an emergency Sunday session in the House that went past midnight.

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Oh, if the family were blessed with wealth, they could, no doubt, secure care somewhere. Perhaps the Republican "culture of life" philosphy only exists for those with enough money.

And the Republicans have the audacity to say they stand for "limited government".

18 March 2005

Voucher supporters want the choice of taking my tax dollars without offering me the choice of not contributing to their program

That's not choice, it's robbery. E.J. Montini is on the mark here, writing on why should proponents of school vouchers, a terrible idea, be granted special status to choose how tax money is spent. For example, I opposed the illegal, immoral invasion of the sovereign nation Iraq which threatened the United States not, but I'm not permitted to "choose" to get my tax money to spend on helping children suffering under poverty.
The income tax we all pay goes into one big pool. The politicians we elect then use our cash to pay for government services and programs like roads, prisons, health care, education and so on.

If I do not particularly like Arizona's transportation system, the law does not give me the right to receive a "voucher" that I could use to repair roads in my neighborhood or put a stoplight at the end of my driveway.

Likewise, I don't get to say that I want my personal tax dollars earmarked only for programs that help poor kids.

That's not how it works. You may be happy to pay the salary of the governor but not so happy about contributing income to certain legislators. But you don't have a "choice" in the matter.

Montini scored another point on this issue, earlier in the week, illustrating the blatant Republican hypocrisy on this issue

That would be as crazy as a bunch of elected officials saying that they would like to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on vouchers to send children to private schools, which are not required to administer the Arizona AIMS test, but upon which our elected officials have spent millions of taxpayer dollars. And yet, when the secret parlance of Arizona lawmakers was translated into English, that's exactly what the proposals said.

It is indeed crazy, but not entirely unexpected from Republican politicians who have the heartless desire of securing education for only the rich. Because that's the bottom line on vouchers — it's a siphon of money from public schools into the pockets of the affluent and gives a big "screw you" to children left in the public school system.

17 March 2005

More than one million computers on the net have been hijacked to attack websites and pump out spam and viruses

Good Gates, what are these hijacked machines used for:
Many are used as relays for spam, to route unwanted adverts to PC users or as launch platforms for viruses.

But the research team found that many are put to very different uses.

During the monitoring period, the team saw 'bot nets used to launch 226 distributed denial-of-service attacks on 99 separate targets. These attacks bombard websites with data in an attempt to overwhelm the target.

Using a 'bot net of machines spread around different networks and nations makes such attacks hard to defend against.

The biggest culprit: PCs sitting on broadband connections that are never turned off. And most of these (more than 90%) are machines running Microsoft Windows.

I advise all to not use Microsoft products, and to choose Linux or Mac machines, primarily because of this reason. If you are running windows, take pains to secure your box, run a firewall, keep your anti-virus software current, and take the preventive steps to keep malware and spyware from gunking up your machine (now a bigger threat than viruses). Or reformat your hard drive every month…

Financial services lobbyists wrote the bankruptcy bill and shopped it to “friendly” Congressmen

I don't believe in bankruptcy. If you incur debt, you should pay it off. However, I find blatant Republican hypocrisy in the new bankruptcy rules passed by the Senate.

First, consider that the vast majority of individuals and families filing for bankruptcy truly need the relief due to hardships imposed by medical conditions, where medical insurance won't even address. And it's estimated that 90% of American bankruptcies are the result of such medical emergencies, job loss, divorce, or death of family members.

I’ve been doing research on families in financial trouble for more than twenty years to learn how many people were abusing the bankruptcy system. My colleagues and I did a really extensive analysis and learned that families turn to bankruptcy not because they want to find a way not to pay, but because they are desperate. More disturbing, we released a study earlier this year that revealed that over half of bankruptcies are in the aftermath of medical emergencies.

I never wanted to get involved in politics, but the bankruptcy bill now moving on a fast-track through Congress isn’t fair. It beats up the average family already staggering under the weight of bad luck and huge debts, while it lets real abusers go free. That appears to have been the idea from the start.

Again, I haven't studied the legislation in detail, so I can't say if I'm vehemently opposed to it. But, make no mistake about it, it's blatant Republican hypocrisy, as has come to be expected, to serve corporate interests and the grubby lobbyists that wrote this deal. See, Republicans believe big special interests like banks and credit card companies shouldn't be shorted, but by the token that they didn't address loopholes for the wealthy folks elude paying their debt, shows they have no regard for fleecing taxpayers and working Americans.

There's a larger thread of hypocrisy that streams around this controversial issue, that is the dichotomy between worker and proprietor, which in the blue collar industrial era were vastly different, but now in this "free agent nation", where many have chosen (or been forced) to kindle the entrepreneurial spirit and the rules have indeed been turned upside down. Starting and growing a business is fraught with failure, many a business goes sour, and the starters regroup and rebound, often using bankruptcy protection to buffer them from landing in a spot where their prospects for economic recovery would be most dismal. So, why are the rules harsher for wage workers, who now are at the mercy of turbulent forces totally out of their control than wild eyed speculators, who hope to carve out economic success via thier own business venture, but are near immune to ramifications of non-debt payment? Seems to be a giant divide, that again, favors the privileged, the elite, the well-heeled over the working stiffs.

Caught between a popularly elected government dominated by fundamentalist Shiites and a determined guerilla movement led by Arab Nationalists and radical Sunnis

Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, pens an insightful op-ed which takes stock of what is likely to happen in Iraq in the coming months.
The political contradictions facing the United States have been sharpened by the victory of parties that are critical of Washington and dedicated to razing the wall between religion and state. The Shiite religious parties were the big winners of the Jan. 30 elections, and not only in the federal parliament.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq won eight provinces, including Baghdad. At least two are dominated by the radical Sadr tendency, associated with Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr (d. 1999) and often with his son, the fiery Muqtada. Fundamentalist Muslim parties also did well in the Sunni Arab regions.

These provincial governments will increasingly restrict Iraqi civil liberties and personal freedom in the coming year. The remaining liquor stores will be closed. Many video stores will be driven out of business by puritans. Fundamentalist ideals will probably be introduced into school curricula. Regulations will be passed restricting women’s rights, encouraging or requiring veiling, and segregating education and other social spaces. Women graduates' access to increasingly all-male professional schools will be curtailed.

The elected parliament can be expected to establish a government that will be far less deferential to U.S. interests and demands. The parliament may well repeal many of the laws passed by U.S. civil administrator Paul Bremer, which aimed at imposing Polish-style shock therapy on the Iraqi economy and at effacing the legacy of Baathist Arab socialism. In addition, the new prime minister is likely to come into conflict with the United States about the launching of major military campaigns like that at Fallujah.

Also predicted is future trouble in Kirkuk.

Yes, freedom is on the march. Women relegated to second class status, the imposition of a totalitarian theocratic state, with abductions and assassinations galore.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

15 March 2005

Hey hey, ho ho, Social Security has got to go

As supporters of Senator Rick Santorum chanted, Jonathan Chait writes on how conservatives have desired for many years to dismantle social security, and are employing doublespeak in their privatization push.
What was clarified at those events has, alas, been obscured in Washington. The consensus among the capital's chattering classes holds that the Social Security debate primarily concerns the program's solvency. Therefore, the questions center around political courage, and the greatest threat is that the parties will not agree on a solution. This consensus is wrong in every particular. In truth, the debate is fundamentally ideological. It does not lend itself to compromise. Despite conservatives' insistence that Social Security faces a "crisis," in reality, the fiscal threat is distant and manageable, while the political threat is immediate and dire. It follows from all this that those who believe in Social Security should make it their highest priority to drive a stake through privatization. 

In the Washington establishment, the suggestion that conservatives essentially want to do away with Social Security is something close to a lunatic conspiracy theory. When a guest on "Meet the Press" suggested as much, Tim Russert replied incredulously, "So you're suggesting that private personal accounts are a secret plan to get rid of Social Security?" 

In fact, the plan hasn't been secret very long. Conservatives always saw the program as an indefensible infringement upon freedom. Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, called Social Security a "cruel hoax." More than 40 years ago, Milton Friedman wanted to let workers opt out of it, and Barry Goldwater said, "Perhaps Social Security should be abolished." That view, however, has never proved popular. And so conservatives hit upon the tactic of phasing out the program by transforming it into a system of private accounts. Privatization activist Peter Ferrara was quite open about this point in a recent interview with Steven Thomma of Knight-Ridder. "A lot of conservatives thought Social Security was an unjustified invasion into the private sector," he said. "But they weren't getting anywhere, because that was all negative politics. ... Personal accounts would work because that's positive politics."

Chait also notes that there has been "constant refrain" from the Bush camp on touting that privatization would offer a better return on your money and that the "professed concern for Social Security's solvency is a pretext".

A wake-up call and an unequivocal message that a low-carbon global economy is necessary, achievable and affordable

Glaciers all over the world are in retreat, due to the effect of global warming, and Mount Kilimanjaro is no exception.
A photo of Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years will be used as dramatic testimony for action against global warming as ministers from the world's biggest polluters meet on Tuesday.

Even here in the U.S., in Montana's Glacier National Park area, where over 150+ glaciers once existed in the late 1800s, there exist now only 35, mostly at a small fraction of their first reported size. At the present rate, Glacier National Park will have no glaciers at all by the year 2030.

14 March 2005

A paid shill for the Bush administration

"Reporter" Karen Ryan admits it, as she details her role as a government propagandist serving up prepacked news manufactured by the Bush administration. It's part of a troublesome trend on the increase, and worse, the media players like her see nothing wrong with their Pravda like behavoir.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Phony news from a phony administration. And a half a billion of your tax dollars to secretly propagandize you!

10 March 2005

Why do you think this hasn’t this been investigated/reported on more widely?

A letter to Poynter Online wonders why this sworn affidavit by Florida software programmer Clint Curtis alleging his commission to create vote rigging software for Republican U.S. Congressman Tom Feeney hasn't received wider attention.

I alluded to this story in a comment within a previous article regarding the 2004 Ohio presidential voting, but I was unaware of the YEI (the company for which Mr. Curtis worked for) link to Chinese espionage and a dead inspector general:

Curtis also reported in his affidavit and to the Florida State Inspector General that YEI was employing an illegal Chinese alien by the name of Hai Lin "Henry" Nee who was inserting "wire-tapping modules" into sensitive database programs which YEI had built for NASA and other companies. Curtis also alleged that the brother of Mrs. Li-Woan Yang, the YEI CEO, had been a deported Chinese spy.

Since the time of Curtis' allegations, Hai Lin "Henry" Nee has been indicted, and pleaded guilty to charges of espionage related to attempting to send chips used in Hellfire anti-tank missile systems to China. The arrest was the result of a four year sting operation by the Homeland Security Office's Immigration and Customs Export (ICE) bureau. Although Nee admitted in his pleading to have sent such chips "ten to twenty times in the past year" to China, he was sentenced (10/2004) to just three years probation and a $100 fine!

Federal officials in the Florida Inspector General’s report investigating claims by Curtis have confirmed that Nee was an illegal alien as of January 2000. Yet for reasons still unknown, Federal officials refused to disclose information on Nee's alien status to the Florida IG until after Nee's prosecution had concluded in October of 2004.

The original Inspector General assigned to the case, Raymond Lemme, had contacted Curtis in mid-June of 2003, after both Curtis and the other whistleblower on the case had been fired without cause – both on the same day. (Eventually, both of them would win their whistleblower cases against FDOT on the matter.) Curtis says in his sworn affidavit that Lemme had advised him in mid-June that he would be very happy about his upcoming report and he should keep his ears open for it because, he told Curtis, "this goes all the way to the top."

Two weeks later, Lemme was found dead in a Valdosta, Georgia motel room.

A lot of questions remain unanswered here, no doubt of that.

8 March 2005

Americans don't know if the Iraqis are "friendlies" or not, and the Iraqis don't know what the Americans want them to do

An interesting article on Iraq "checkpoints", given the controversy over the recent shooting of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena (in which killed Italian negotiator Nicola Calipari).

Not going to find fault with our troops here, as it's a dangerous place, and precautions must be taken to proactively eliminate threats. But it should be acknowledged that they are being placed in a quandary, where determining friend from foe is a difficult decision, where consequently, many innocent people die. And that has caused widespread anger and dismay for Iraqis over the American military occupation.

6 March 2005

In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore

Despite jingoistic proclaimations by broadcast media and the politicians in power, the USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion,
  • "The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
  • The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
  • "The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).
  • "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).
  • The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
  • "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
  • "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
  • "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
  • Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.
  • As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
  • One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).
  • "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).
  • "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).
  • Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).
  • I'm quite certain that this posting will arouse a fanatical course of how this is "America hating". But this response here serves up the proper reply:

    I love America. That’s why I bring up these get people off their asses rather than to allow a downward spiral to continue. The spiral that apparently you and others either do not want to correct or actually cheer in hopes that the country collapses. Or do you honestly believe things are flalwless?

    I’m wondering why you made this post. To cow me into rethinking my complaints? To cow me (and anyone else who ever speaks up in complaint) into submission so the country goes down the toilet or gets taken over by unAmerican influences? So which foreign agency do you represent? Either that or you are apparently complacent with mediocrity and poor performance. If so, then I’d hardly call you a Patriot. Some sort of lazy alien thinking is influencing you, that’s for sure.

    Make a note, if you are going to claim to be number one then how about this: at least try to be number one. Talk is cheap. Just holding up your finger and saying I’m number one like a football fan cheering the team that won it’s first game in five years is pretty hollow. That “we’re number one” fellow you see on TV at those games seems to be a theme. I blame the New Age whack jobs and the “self-esteem” movement. But that will be a future post.

    Preferring to be faith based instead of reality based is not a prudent strategy for advancing the state of affairs.

    4 March 2005

    We are tired of Democrats pretending they care about the problems facing average Americans

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the ITPAA 2005 Weasil award based on her support of outsourcing and co-chair position on the "Friends of India Caucus" in the Senate, a group of senators that supports issues important to India, including outsourcing and H-1b and L-1 visas.
    "It would be nice if she co-chaired the 'Friends of America Caucus' instead," Kirwin noted dryly. "India doesn't need representation in the Senate - America does."

    "Politicians have forgotten that people in Delhi don't vote for them, but those in Dallas do. That was a lesson that (former Presidential hopeful Senator John) Kerry learned in Ohio," Kirwin said, referring to the candidate's loss of that state in the 2004 election by 100,000. Kirwin added that the ITPAA has a very strong base in Ohio.

    3 March 2005

    Rush Limbaugh Lies

    Again. This time, by twisting a news story into a divisive message about how Americans don't support the troops during his trip to Afghanistan.
    Most entertainers visit Iraq to send the message to our men and women in uniform that Americans are united in their support for them. Not Rush. Rush Limbaugh has been making clear on his show that, on his trip to Afghanistan, he lied in order to mislead our troops into thinking that many Americans don’t support them.

    Basically, Limbaugh framed a story about how medical advances were saving the lives of wounded soldiers more often than had been possible in previous wars, and in a despicable fashion, framed it as news that people are upset because they are actually hoping for more battlefield fatalities.

    Mentioned this in Kandahar; you could have heard a pin drop. They did not know this story. I repeated the story to them about this Reuters dispatch that we got that found problems with the news that battlefield fatalities were down and lower per capita than ever before in the history of American warfare. Battlefield fatalities are down. And, I said, “Folks, this news was presented as a problem. We couldn’t figure why in the world is the fact that battlefield fatalities are at an all-time low a problem. Why are some people upset? And, we finally figured out that they are actually hoping for more battlefield fatalities because that will help them gin up anti-war support from their mirroring number of supporters in this country.”

    I said, “That is going on back home."

    If you read the article, it's clear this is another slimy Limbaugh tactic to distort the truth and launch ad hominem assaults on those in the anti-war camp.

    The Reuters story in question, “U.S. Medical Advances May Mask Wars’ Human Cost,” cited a study by Harvard’s Atul Gawande and pointed out that medical advances were saving the lives of wounded soldiers more often than had been possible in previous wars--clearly a good thing. However, the article noted, this meant that simply looking at the number of deaths would give a deceptive impression about the scope of the war.