______________________________
As millions of Americans sit down to turkey dinner today, US President Barack Obama pardoned two birds in an annual White House Thanksgiving ceremony to mark the national holiday. Now, the birds will live at George Washington’s restored Mount Vernon estate. Two 40-pound turkeys, named Cobbler and Gobbler, came from Virginia. Gobbler’s role was to replace Cobbler, should the latter be unable to fulfil his duties. Obama pardoned both birds. Whilst granting his ‘presidential’ pardon, Obama joked about his recent re-election, saying, “You know, they say that life is all about second chances. This November, I couldn’t agree more. So, in the spirit of the season, I have one more gift to give. It goes to a pair of turkeys named Cobbler and Gobbler. The American people have spoken, and these birds are moving forward”. Americans chose the turkeys through an online vote.
According to the White House website, the traditional pardon dates back to President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s son Tad begged his father to write out a presidential pardon for the bird meant to be the main dish in the First Family’s Christmas feast. The young boy argued that the turkey had as much right to live as anyone. However, not all US Presidents followed this tradition. Some didn’t pardon their gift turkeys; they ate them. In November 1963, just four days before his assassination, President John F Kennedy spontaneously spared a turkey. The bird he was presented wore a sign reading, “Good Eatin’, Mr President”. Kennedy responded, “Let’s just keep him”. Since 1989, the tradition was formalised.
The estimated number of turkeys that Americans will eat on Thanksgiving 2012 exceeds 46 million. Some 13 percent of Americans won’t be feasting on turkeys this Thanksgiving season, as they’re dependent of food stamps. Officials say the figure will only increase, given the economic slump and the devastation in the Northeastern USA caused by the recent Hurricane Sandy. According to a new report by the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit government watchdog group, today, as many as 42.2 million Americans, which equal the population of California and Connecticut combined, are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to the report, SNAP estimates that a meal costs 1.00 to 1.25 USD (31 to 38 Roubles. 0.80 to 1.00 Euros. 0.65 to 0.80 UK Pounds) per person.
The number of Americans dependent on SNAP has increased by 70 percent since 2007. Last year, it involved approximately 44.7 million Americans and cost the US government a record 72 billion USD (2.25 trillion Roubles. 56 billion Euros. 45 billion UK Pounds). Meanwhile, due to past summer’s drought food prices have skyrocketed while supplies remain low. For some low-income families, a turkey for Thanksgiving is an unaffordable luxury.
22 November 2012
Voice of Russia World Service
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11_22/Obama-pardons-turkeys-as-US-marks-Thanksgiving/
Editor’s Note:
The main cause of the increase in SNAP cases is the meltdown caused by Republican deregulation and crackbrained giveaways to the Affluent Effluent (coupled with inordinate spending on unnecessary warfare in foreign parts). Another reason is the “givebacks” demanded by management as they increase their own pay and bonuses (case in point being Hostess, where the management gave themselves an 80 percent pay hike and demanded “concessions” of the workers). Many of those “employed” at Wal-Mart are on SNAP… bear that in mind as you hear fatcat investors bleat about the cost of the ACA. I find that reprehensible and vile. Yet, they’re going to sit down to Thanksgiving Dinner without a care and with the lunatic notion that they’re the oppressed in this nation. If nothing’s done, there’ll be an explosion… and they’ll have no one else to blame but themselves (the same was true in 1917… ponder that).
By the way, the cost of SNAP is only some 10 percent of the bloated war budget. If there are 42.2 million people on SNAP, and the entire programme costs 72 billion USD, that means, if all monies were spent on benefits (and they’re not, for there’s administrative overhead in that figure), each individual on SNAP would receive 1,707 USD (53,300 Roubles. 1,325 Euros. 1,070 UK Pounds) a year, which works out to 142.25 USD (4.440 Roubles. 110 Euros. 90 UK Pounds) a month. That’s not a princely sum; all the bloviating that you hear about “welfare queens” and “welfare Cadillacs” is lies, and what’s more, those who spread such falsehood, do so knowingly. That’s called evil, kids.
The cost to taxpayers is 240 USD (7,500 Roubles. 186 Euros. 150 UK Pounds) a year per person… the US war budget eats up 2,500 USD (78,000 Roubles. 1,941 Euros. 1,566 UK Pounds) per person per year (much of that is kickbacks to corrupt pols and bloated management compensation)… now, can you tell me where the fat in the budget is? It’s NOT in “entitlements!” It’s not quite what the rightwing fanatics are telling you, is it? Reflect on that as you hear such unrepentant greedy cretins as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity scream about “entitlements”. They spend more than that on their country club dues or on one meal out. Let God see and judge…
BMD
Overblown Hopes for PRO in the USA
Tags: ABM, Americans, Anti-Ballistic Missile, Iran, Moscow, NATO, North Korea, Nuclear weapon, political commentary, politics, Republicans, Russia, Russian, United States, USA, Washington
______________________________
Experts at the RAN Institute of the USA and Canada concluded that, for the foreseeable future, US Anti-Ballistic Missile Defences (PRO) wouldn’t be at a level sufficient to withstand a retaliatory strike by Russian strategic nuclear forces. Their report came out on the tenth anniversary of the Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the PRO Limitation Treaty. Since the Cold War, the maintenance of a global strategic balance involved not only with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, but also with PRO forces. Of course, the PRO Limitation Treaty, concluded between the USSR and the USA in 1972, was the cornerstone of that stability. Moscow and Washington agreed on a substantial limitation of strategic anti-ballistic missile defence systems, thereby maintaining a mutual vulnerability to nuclear-armed missile strikes. This approach ensured the inevitability of nuclear retaliation to a potential aggressor, which, in turn, made it possible to negotiate a reduction of strategic offensive arms. The agreement limited anti-ballistic missile defence interceptors to a hundred units at one fixed-position base.
However, in June 2002, the Bush administration decided that the treaty’s provisions wouldn’t be limit it, and unilaterally withdrew from the PRO Limitation Treaty. Since then, the anti-ballistic missile defence took centre stage, not only in US-Russian relations, but also in world politics. Washington explained its decision by citing a notional nuclear threat from third countries (Iran and North Korea). However, the authors of the RAN report emphasised that the US based its assessment of the opportunities and aspirations of these countries on a “worst-case scenario”. As a result, they declared a hypothetical as a direct and immediate threat. However, Washington’s actions caused understandable concern in Moscow. Deployment of PRO bases in Europe (in Romania, and, possibly, Poland), with radar sites in Turkey, and warships equipped with Aegis systems in Arctic waters… such dispositions don’t fit with the premises of the American explanation. Even if Iran actually launched a missile in the direction of Los Angeles, it wouldn’t fly over Norwegian territory.
A military expert, Colonel-General-Colonel Viktor Yesin, pointed up, “However, to date, Russia’s more concerned about Washington’s attitude, rather than the real threat it poses. Our analysis of the efforts that the Americans are expending to build a global PRO system showed that they’re experiencing considerable difficulty in establishing a strategic line of anti-ballistic missile defense. Even by 2020, it’ll have very little ability to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic submarine-launched missiles. You shouldn’t exaggerate the ability of the Americans to degrade the deterrence potential of the Russian strategic nuclear forces”. Yet, we can’t view the American efforts to devise an effective PRO system as being totally guileless. Firstly, ten years on a strategic scale isn’t so long a time. Therefore, Moscow updates its nuclear forces to ensure that there’s no disruption in the strategic balance. Vladimir Evseyev, the director of the Centre for Political Studies, stated, “The persistence with which Washington is promoting its system leads to some reflection. If we assume that Russia does launch a first strike, then, from this point of view, of course, a missile defense system might not deflect it all. Another hypothetical question concerns a first strike against Russia. In this case, Russia would only have a limited number of strategic nuclear forces left to launch. However, this creates nothing but an illusion of invulnerability. They think that they can launch a first strike and that they’ll destroy what remains of Russian strategic assets through the use of PRO forces”.
The US Republican Party has made a PRO force one of its main priorities. If the Republicans were to win 2012 election, then, we could expect an increase in spending on missile defense. According to experts, a Republican administration could even withdraw the USA from the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms (START II). If Barack Obama wins re-election, a Democratic administration is likely to show more flexibility in negotiations with Russia.
13 June 2012
Andrei Smirnov
Voice of Russia World Service
http://rus.ruvr.ru/2012_06_13/77980906/
Editor’s Note:
Talk about North Korea and Iran is pure hokum and BS. No one expects any actual threat from them. The whole point of the American PRO system in Europe is an attempt to strike at Russian strategic assets soon after liftoff. That being so, the deployment of Iskander SRBMs against American PRO assets makes sense. It scares the Americans mightily. Due to the short time of its flight, the Iskander is invulnerable to the present PRO assets (and to any developed in the near future).
In any case, PRO has nothing to do with missile defence of the American heartland. Firstly, it’s been a gigantic cash cow for defence contractors. DoD has spent billions since the time of Slobberin’ Ronnie, and there’s NOTHING to show for it after thirty years. That being said, a PRO system could degrade a strike against forward NATO assets. Do note… there are no proposed PRO sites for the American mainland. NONE. It’s NOT for homeland defence. It’s to cover American assets in case of an aggressive war against Russia. Remember, the American proxy war in 2008 in South Ossetia went badly. The Republican Party has become the Party of War… and Mittens threatens Iran, China, and Russia.
If there were an Axis of Evil, its centre would be in Washington if Wafflin’ Willy becomes president. If you think that things are bad now… God spare us that, please.
BMD