[GJM] Fw: [globalnetnews-summary] War Funding Bill Stalls in House

[mary rose]

I just want to make a comment on the "education for returning vets"
part of this.

With the advent of the Internet, education need not be a costly process
but can be instituted worldwide as "co-learners" bond together in small
groups to address the needs of communities worldwide.  Not in a top
down process as we are now witnessing, that has served largely to benefit
elite interests while divesting masses worldwide of their rights to land 
from
which to derive their sustenance. But in a bottom up process, as returning
veterans become co-learners, pooling knowledge with other community
members researching through hands on experimental learning, how to restore
fragile ecosystem to full productivity once again.

Consider once again the information provided by The Odysseus Group as to
how our institutions of  learning, both at the elementary and higher levels, 
are
presently structured, and consider whetherthis is the appropriate manner for
"reprogramming" returning veterans to be the change we wish to see in our 
lives.
Or, is it better to let community groups self-organize in order to share 
knowledge
gained from years of experientially living in one's ecosystem, as to what is 
the best
way for members to develop "self-reliance".  Is it through gaining personal
knowledge of the process required to return to, and maintain sustainable 
living
practices based on the Implicate NaturalOrder of individual ecosystems and
regions.  Or, is it to be gained from abstract third party opinions?

Today, the Internet offers a wide variety of easily-accessed rich 
multi-dimensional
information, and at little cost, which far exceeds the amount of information 
that can
be gained from attending an abstracted version of the real world through 
lectures given
in a lecture hall and shaped by tradition more than from a learning 
perspective.

And as I write this, I am thinking back to the experience of Dr. Bruce 
Lipton, a respected
biologist and stem cell researcher, as he relates his experience of finding 
out that what he was
teaching in the classroom setting was not what he was learning in the 
laboratory.  And, when
he tried to relay this to his peer group, he was pooh-poohed by the old 
boy's network as his
colleagues held steadfast to the practices that gained them funding for 
untold research projects
that did not solve the problems, but assurred them of a very good income.

For more understanding on this, may I direct you to Dr. Candace Pert's book:
"Molecules of Emotion" where she not only defines how the biology of the
human body works to produce consciousness, but gives the reader a good
inside look at how the old boy's network controls medical research today;
and, does so in a way that is directed more toward making money than it is
toward solving the problems of human health.  Dr. Pert, formerly employed
by the National Institute of Health,  writes from the perspective of having
been a young woman, who was the first to identify receptor sites in the 
brain,
yet was shunned by her colleagues and elbowed out of credit for some of her
later findings.  This look into the politics of medical research is very 
interesting
as we get a look into how public interest takes a back seat to ego and 
monetary
needs in a world driven by consumption addiciton rather than by common 
sense..

Isn't it time we heeded the message contained in Einstein's words of caution
that problems cannot be solved using the same type of thinking that caused
them, and begin to get down to real thinking with a balanced mind?

mary rose.

We must be the change we wish to see in our lives.  M. Gandhi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster at globalcircle.net>
To: <globalnetnews-summary at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:09 AM
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] War Funding Bill Stalls in House



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502874.html?hpid=moreheadlines

War Funding Bill Stalls in House
131 Republicans Vote 'Present' in Protest of Pelosi Tactics

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 16, 2008; A03

An odd coalition of angry Republicans and antiwar Democrats yesterday 
torpedoed a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding for the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, leaving the House to pass a measure that demands troop 
withdrawals, bans torture and expands education benefits for returning 
veterans.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, 
Republicans gloating and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all 
sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures. 
The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to 
pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict 
Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the 
third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees 
around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan's undoing. Rather than go 
along, 131 House Republicans voted "present" on the war funding provision, 
saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a 
few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to 
play along.

"It was a political scheme. We wanted to expose it, and we did," declared 
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats saw it differently. "Republicans had the choice -- fund the troops 
or don't fund the troops. They voted present," said House Majority Leader 
Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

"You can't say something is the critical battle of our time and vote 
present," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). 
"Explain that to the troops."

The strange conclusion to the day-long war debate may not help a Congress 
mired in record-low approval ratings and a House GOP that is reeling from 
internal dissension and three straight losses in special elections in 
reliably Republican districts.

But the impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its 
version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war 
funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White 
House.

The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday 
morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and 
domestic spending, including the bill's $52 billion expansion of veterans' 
education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major 
clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the 
war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research 
Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin 
within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. 
The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar 
for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel 
subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Troops would get more rest between combat deployments, and every branch of 
government -- including the Central Intelligence Agency -- would have to 
abide by the Army Field Manual's guidelines on interrogation, which bans 
action that amount to torture. Those policy prescriptions passed the House 
by 227 to 196, with a surprising eight Republican votes, including Reps. 
Michael N. Castle (Del.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and James T. Walsh 
(N.Y.).

On the domestic side, unemployment compensation would be extended for 13 
weeks. Regulations the Bush administration hoped to impose to restrict 
access to the Medicaid program would be blocked. Funds would be provided for 
international food aid, levees around New Orleans, federal prisons and the 
2010 Census. And the G.I, Bill passed after World War II for an earlier 
generation of veterans would be updated.

That domestic portion passed 256 to 166, with 32 Republicans voting yes.

The politically controversial expanded G.I. Bill was expected to give 
momentum to the House measure. The provision, written by Sens. James Webb 
(D-Va.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), would cover the costs of school at even 
the most expensive state universities for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and 
would encourage private universities to provide additional student aid for 
them. The House bill would pay for the benefit with a surtax of half a 
percentage point on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for 
couples.

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by 
Bush because of its cost, its tax increase and fears that its generosity 
could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at 
the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican 
nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its 
richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain's efforts have run into bipartisan opposition -- from lawmakers, 
veterans organizations and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom 
Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb's measure yesterday.

"I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can't figure out where 
he is right now," said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former 
Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. "It seems to me our 
posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, 'We do not 
value you unless you reenlist.' That wasn't the contract they signed."

The House actions were a dream come true for the antiwar movement.

"It is time now for Americans to be heard and for this Congress to move 
forward with the safe redeployment of our troops," exulted Rep. Sheila 
Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) who called on the House to use the $162.5 billion in 
war funds for domestic priorities.

"For the first time ever, the U.S. House has now taken decisive action to 
bring this war to a close," declared Alan Charney, program director of the 
antiwar group USAction.

When the Senate takes up the bill, its version will include war funding, but 
prescriptions on troop withdrawals and torture will probably fall to a GOP 
filibuster. Republicans have argued that any tax increase is unacceptable, 
especially in a time of economic slowdown. Even Democratic leaders in the 
Senate have said they will oppose the House's tax increase to pay for 
veterans benefits.

More unclear is the future of the education benefits, as well as domestic 
spending that Bush has vowed to veto but will garner considerable support in 
both parties. The Senate also is expected to go along with House efforts to 
force the Iraqi government to shoulder more of its reconstruction and 
self-defense costs.