Can you wait?
Sadly, most will reply "yes."
Smash really knew how to kill the enthusiasm. That was chiefly through Tom and Ivy.
Tom is a plot device -- and an ugly one -- not a real character. The actor is one-note and we're back to the days of the NYPD receptionist with this lousy portrayal. Equally true, the whole point of putting him with Sam appears to be so that no one has to see a gay romance.
Sam, remember, doesn't want to have sex. He wants to take it slow.
I'm betting he's mainly afraid contraceptives don't work 100% of the time and doesn't want to get Tom pregnant.
That was saracasm. There's no reason for the character's motivation. This 'morality' is pretty interesting when you consider all the flirting Sam took part in when he knew Tom was with the Republican boyfriend. Equally true, though they never really note it, the reality is that Boston was over two weeks and Tom and Sam have been a couple for well over two months. I'm really not sure why two adults -- both presumably non-virgins -- would be in a relationship and not sleep together.
Can you figure that one out? I truly cannot because it makes no sense at all. I keep waiting for Sam to pull out the Bible and quote from some newly discovered chapter that allows gay sex but only between married gay males.
If you think I'm being especially harsh, I've called this out from the beginning. I've repeatedly decried the stereotyping of Tom. This should have been a character that moved the portrayal of gay men forward on TV. Certainly, the people off the screen care about that. But somehow, all that made it to the screen was the worst stereotype anyone could imagine.
Ivy? A whiny is not a shimmy. Why is it that whenever Ivy smiles widely, she resembles a braying horse?
So what happened?
Rebecca (not shown) is out of the musical. Derek thinks it should be Karen in the role.
That shouldn't even be a question mark.
Karen, like Barbra Streisand, is the choice because she makes the show. Ivy is just Anne Bancroft or one of the other also-rans.
Ivy can't stand it so she tells Karen she slept with Dev. Karen is furious but Ivy's plan doesn't end up working.
Karen and Derek got closer.
I would love to see her let Eileen have it next season.
I like Eileen but does she have to be stupid to advance the plot?
She wanted to fight with Derek over the choice of Karen. Karen heard.
Eileen is the producer. Derek was right to tell her this was a creative decision and he was making it.
I couldn't believe Eileen would have these conversations out in the open.
Julia didn't believe in Karen either. Julia and Tom want Ivy.
Does no one remember what happened when Ivy was on the Broadway stage last?
Julia should be focusing on her own life: She's pregnant.
Yes, I did what you just did -- asked myself if was the actor she had the affair with (Michael)?
The other big news? Karen was the success everyone knew she would be.
The really big surprise?
Ellis is the one who put peanuts in Rebecca's smoothie. That he did it doesn't surprise me. That he would throw it in Eileen's face does. This was another of his 'I'm the only one who's producing!"
Eileen fired him.
That was pretty much the whole broadcast.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, May 16, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri wants his 'accomplishments' acknowledged (if only there was one to point to), State of Law insists a conspiracy is a foot!, a US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee hears that a change VA wants to make will actually hurt disabled veterans, and more.
"Our nation's commitment to restoring the capabilities of disabled veterans struggling with devasting combat wounds resulting in the loss of limb began with the Civil War," declared US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle this morning shortly after she brought the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health to order. "Restoring these veterans to wholeness was a core impetus behind the creation of the Department of Veteran Affairs and then, now, it continues to play a vital role in the Department's mission."
Buerkle is the Chair of the Subcommittee and this morning's hearing was entitled "Optimizing Care for Veterans With Prosthetics." Chair Burerkle also noted, "Following WWII, 1945, veterans disatisfied with the quality of VA prosthetic care stormed the Capitol in protest. " How is the care today? To answer that question, the Subcommittee heard from four panels. Gulf War Veteran John Register and Vietnam Veteran Jim Mayer. Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association's Michael Oros, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Southeast Wounded Warrior Project's Jonathan Pruden. The third panel was the VA's Office of Inspector General's Linda Halliday accompanied by Nicholas Dahl, Kent Wrathall and Dr. John D. Daigh Jr. and Dr. Robert Yang. The fourth panel was the VHA's Dr. Lucille Beck accompanied by Dr. Joe Webster, Dr. Joe Miller and Norbert Doyle. Some of the issues were outlined in the Ranking Member's opening remarks.
Ranking Member Mike Michaud: I've said it on this Committee before, but what seems to be the case, there is little accountability in management and, once again, procurement procedures and policies were not in place or not followed in managing nearly $2 billion worth of prosthetics and sensor aids. The VA, in the last year's budget submission, claims $355 million in savings in the Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 due to aquistions improvements. But if the VA can't follow its own policies and procedures, how much faith can we have in the claim of acquisition savings? I hope the VA can help us understand today what accountability we should expect and to make certain that the VA does not continue to overpay for prosthetics in the future, that taxpayers and veterans receive the best value for their devices, and for management to ensure that the prosthetics and sensor aids services is fully meeting veterans needs. Finally, it has come to my attention that VA has proposed changes in the procurement of prosthetics and that there is a high degree of concern among some of our witnesses today as to the effectiveness of these changes. I look forward to hearing from the VA on these changes as well.
A proposed change that's bothering some veterans? What proposal is Ranking Member Michaud speaking of? On the second panel, Jonathan Pruden explained the proposal (and here we're using his opening written remarks which differ some what from what he delivered):
Under current practice, VA physicians and prosthetists are able to see a veteran, make a determination regarding the most appropriate type of prosthetic equipment for a veteran, and relay that information to a Prosthetics Service purchasing officer to complete a purchase-order to obtain the needed item. Those purchasing officers exclusively handle prosthetics' purchases, and are specialists in ordering medical equipment specified by health care providers. A major change that the Veterans Health Administration intends to institute on July 30th, would require that any prosthetic item whose cost exceeds $3000 -- to include such essential items as limbs, wheelchairs and limb-repair components – must be procured by a contracting officer. This is not simply a matter of substituting a generalist for a specialist. Under the proposed change, these contracting officers would use a labor-intensive system (the Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS)) designed to achieve cost savings. That system, designed for high-dollar bulk-procurement purchases that benefit from using the Government's purchasing power, requires over 300 individual steps to manually process a purchasing order. While well-suited for buying widgets, the system was neither designed for nor well-suited to procuring highly specific, individualized medical equipment. Ill-suited to prosthetics, this new process would also require increased coordination between clinicians and off-site contracting officers who would be responsible for purchasing everything from light bulbs to now highly specific prosthetic legs.
This is not a small change. Moreover, it not only increases the margin for error but also the potential for prolonged, delaying "back-and-forth," with the likelihood of clinicians having to justify why a more expensive wheelchair is clinically necessary when a seemingly-similar less- costly model exists. We see no prospect that this planned change in prosthetics procurement holds any promise for improving service to the warrior. Instead, it almost certainly threatens greater delay in VA's ability to provide severely wounded warriors needed prosthetic devices.
This would be "the wrong path" Iraq War veteran Jonathan Pruden stated. He was injured in a July 1, 2003 Baghdad bombing resulting in multiple surgeries including the amputation of his right leg. This next excerpt is from his oral testimony.
Jonathan Pruden: Under the change, only a contracting officer could procure a prosthetic item costing more than $3,000. This policy would effect essential items including most limbs like mine and wheel chairs. It would require the use of a system designed for bulk procurement purchases that involves manually processing over three hundred -- that's 300 -- individual steps to develop a purchase order. This system may be great for buying cinder blocks and light bulbs but it is certainly not appropriate for providing timely and appropriate medical care. Equally troubling, this change offers no promise of improving service to the warrior. Instead, it would mean greater delays. The change could realize modest savings but at what cost? A warrior needing a new leg or wheel chair should not have to wait longer than is absolutely necessary. I know warriors who have stayed home from our events, stay home from school, from work, can't play ball with their kids or live in chronic pain while they wait for a new prosthesis. I know first hand what it's like to not be able to put my son into the crib while I'm waiting for a new prosthetic, to live in chronic pain and to have my daughter ask my wife once again, "Why can't Daddy come and walk with us?" With VA moving ahead on changing procurement practices, wounded warriors need this Committee's help. A prosthetic limb is not a mass produced widget. Prosthetics are specialized, medical equipment that should be prescribed by a clinician and promptly delivered to the veteran. We urge this Committee to direct VA to stop implementation of this change in prosthetic procurement.
We'll note this exchange from the second panel.
Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Mr. Pruden, in you testimony, you talked about how VA prosthetic research has lagged in recent years. Now Mr. Oros talked about outcomes but I think you're talking more generally in terms of the research. What impact -- and I shouldn't speak for you. I should let you say what research you were referring to. And then, if you could, after you tell us that piece, what impact has that had on veterans and the service that they need?
Jonathan Pruden: VA has-has stepped up in a number of capacties in the past few years. But, as Mr. Mayer pointed out earlier, DoD has taken the lead on the development of the DEKA Arm [a project DoD and the VA work on together] and all of these advanced techonology things. In years past, VA has been -- One of its key roles and one of the reasons it exists is to provide specialized medical equipment for our combat wounded, for our veterans. And VA really needs to have the capacity and the focus on research for durable medical equipment when DoD and Global War on Terror Dollars go away. And this also ties into the discusssions about the centers of excellence at Walter Reed, Brooke Army Medical Center and so forth. When these dollars go away, those DoD facilities will certainly scale back their capacity both for rehabilitation and for research. And what we're calling for is for VA through the amputee system of care and enhancements and research to be prepared to meet the needs as DoD scales back.
Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you. Miss Predeoux, I'm extremely concerned with regards to your comments about the filing system being outdated and the backlog that it creates. Could you comment on that for us?
Alethea Predeoux: Yes, in my written statement with the filing system, it refers to medical records in one VA medical center. And if, for instance, one veteran was to relocate -- For example, our director of benefits relocated to this area from San Diego and it took quite a bit of time for the medical records to be delivered from San Diego to DC simply because there's not one central system in which all the medical centers are able to locate and actually view the medical records of a veteran. And as the panel before us testified, it's not just a wait time, it's a matter of being able to be comfortable and actually to be mobil.
Noting that Wounded Warrior was favoring a freeze on VA's proposed change, Ranking Member Michaud asked Oros, "Do you think we should ask the VA to freeze the reorganization? Bringing everthing in house?" Oros responded, "Absolutely. Absolutely." US House Rep Gus Bilirakis wanted to know about the real life effects if VA went through with their change in procurement?
Jonathan Pruden: Under the current system, there are safeguards in place to ensure that VA is being fiscally responsible. And it can take a month, two months. Some of this is predicated on the clinical needs of the patient and the availablility of the product in their area which is appropriate. Our real concern is that -- is that with the new system, it would be supposition but it may take months and months longer to get purchase orders for needed equipment. And the veterans should not have to wait and the clinician's hands should not be tied. If they feel that a device is appropriate and going to provide the best care for a warrior, they should be able to prescribe that device. I have had the opportunity to speak with over a dozen VA clinicians and prosthetists who are currently serving in several former chiefs of prosthetics. And every single one of them said that they share our concerns about the ability to remain timely and potential delays in veterans receiving needed prosthetic devices under this new system. Dr. Bechel and she'll say that, 'One of the things that we're going to consider is if a device is generally available and interchangeable. Then it will fall under the federal acquisition regulations.' Who is determining what is generally available and interchangeable? It's going to be somebody in acquisitions , not a physician, not a clinician who has the patient's best interest at heart. And that -- that's our real concern.
That's one of the main points from the hearing. Time permitting, we may cover some other issues or go deeper into this one in another snapshot.
From the House to the Senate, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Committee issued the following today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
Senator Murray's Statement on Sweeping Army-Wide Review of Behavioral Health Evaluations and Diagnoses
Investigations Will Review Mental Health Diagnoses Since 2001
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the Army announced that they will begin a comprehensive, Army-wide review of soldier behavioral health diagnoses and evaluations since 2001. This major announcement comes after Senator Murray spurred an investigation into inconsistencies in diagnoses at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in her home state of Washington. The Army has since returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100 servicemembers that sought treatment there. Murray has repeatedly pushed Army leadership to investigate whether problems similar to those at Madigan were being seen at Army bases across the country.
For more information on the Army's announcement visit:
"The Army clearly realizes they have a nationwide, systematic problem on their hands. I credit them with taking action, but it will be essential that this vast and truly historic review is done the right way. That means continued engagement from Army leadership at the highest levels, prompt attention to the problems of servicemembers identified during the review, and not only the identification of problems but quick action to implement and enforce solutions.
"This comprehensive review is born out of a review I helped initiate in my home state that has already returned PTSD diagnoses to over 100 servicemembers since the beginning of this year. That review has been successful because the Army identified and reached out to affected servicemembers and veterans, conducted reevaluations using the appropriate tools and best practices, and was made a priority by top military leaders. This nationwide review must be given the same attention from leadership in order to succeed.
"But the bottom line is that the Army needs to fix the inconsistencies we have seen in diagnosing the invisible wounds of war. Out of this review, the Army needs to provide a uniform mental health policy so that service members are given the care they need.
"This is an issue that affects every aspect of the lives of those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without proper mental health treatment we will continue [to] see see servicemembers struggle to readust to family life, contine to self-medicate, and in far too many cases, take their own lives.
"Servicemembers, veterans, and their families should never have to wade through an unending bureaucratic process to get proper access to care. The Army has an extrordinary opportunity to go back, correct the mistakes of the past, and ensure that they are not repeated."
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
Yesterday the Presidency of the Republic of Iraq's website deleted the image of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Alsumaria reports that the deletion is being blamed on a "technical issue" and that they are in the process of rolling out a new website design. Though some worried this might mean that al-Hashemi had been stripped of his post, others no doubt found it shocking that the Presidency still has a web domain. The Ministy of Higher Education & Scientific Research has lost its domain as has the Ministry of Trade. and the Ministry of Displacement and Migration and the Ministry of Culture and . . .
Due to Nouri al-Maliki's targeting of Tareq al-Hashemi, some were worried about the disappearnace. At this point, the President's office is insisting it was merely a "technical issue." Nouri targeted al-Hashemi at the same time he did Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. He wanted al-Mutlaq stripped of his post for the 'crime' of telling CNN that Nouri was becoming a dictator. Nouri always feels the need to punish truth tellers.
For an overview of the political crisis, we'll note this from Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) reviewed events and noted:
Within days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of 2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon, Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
Alsumaria reports that an Iraqiya offshoot, White Iraqiya, is stating al-Mutalq will be at a Council of Ministers meeting next week. Ali Hussein (Al Mada) offers a column on the drama of Nouri and Saleh and notes that, throughout, there was always the pretense of shedding tears over how this was preventing the people's business. Iraqiya made clear that they are fine with the various names tossed around as possible replacements for Nouri. Alsumaria reports that Nouri's political slate, State of Law, is insisting that there's a conspiracy to replace Nouri and that KRG President Massoud Barzani is behind the conspiracy. In addition, Nouri says that his achievements should not be overlooked. Presumably, Nouri doesn't mean for people to look at the potable water issue. Though Nouri's been prime minister since 2006, potable water is still an aspiration in Iraq. The cholera season will soon, once again, be upon Iraq. Al Mada reports that only 15% of Nineveh Province are serviced by networks of potable water.
Not a ringing endorsement. May 7th, the Iraqi government acknowledged that it can't protect the people, Al Rafidayn reported that Nouri's agreed to allow every Iraqi household to keep one gun provided they register it with the nearest police department. Dar Addustour added that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh has explained the one gun can be either a rifle or a pistol. Al Sabaah noted that the Ministry of the Interior will issue guidelines on how the new procedure will be implemented. Kitabat explained that the current policy had been for the Iraqi forces to confiscate any weapon they found during a house raid. May 10th, the pushback began. Alsumaria reported that State of Law MP Shirwan Waeli is questioning the wisdom of the decision and stating State of Law shouldn't be giving legitimacy to arming people and that, futhermore, it suggests that the government is unable to protect Iraqis so it is now the direct responsibility of the citizens to protect themselves. Supporters argue that the move was an attempt to limit guns and that the one-gun rule will greatly reduce the number of firearms in each home. Alsumaria noted that objections to Nouri's one-gun policy are also coming from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Kurdistan Alliance. Ala Talabani, spokesperson for the Kurdistan Alliance, spoke publicly today about the issue and declared that they fear making each household register their one gun with the nearest police station in their areas will provide temptation for corruption. Talabani also states that they fear the rule could lead to an increase in so-called 'honor' killings as well as an increase in domestic violence. Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports:
But a source inside the Ministry of Interior said the authorities actually felt this was an acknowledgement of the reality in Iraq, an idea that would allow them to better control security inside the country. By getting locals to register their firearms, the government would get a better idea of what kinds of weapons were in the country and how many there were.
Up until recently, the right to own a firearm in Iraq was reserved for members of the security forces and those in certain other professions. However, in reality, it would be fair to say that most Iraqi households own at least one gun, whether permitted or not.
UPI notes, "A prison that Iraq's government said it closed a year ago is still open and being used for torture and unlawful detentions, a human rights group said Tuesday." Al Mada notes Human Rights Watch published their report yesterday and that the secret prisons are in the Green Zone, one of which is Camp Honor which the government insists was closed. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN quote Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork stating "It's a matter of grave concern that Iraqis in so many walks of life, officials included, are afraid for their own well-being and fear great harm if they discuss allegations of serious human rights abuses." Al Arabiya adds, "The rights group called for Baghdad to start an independent investigation into allegations of torture and mistreatment, as well as other issues, at Camp Honor and other jails." Ahram Online explains:
The HRW report cited testimonies and acknowledgments by former prisoners, lawyers, parliamentarians, family members, government and security officials. Based on the interviews, HRW concluded that the Iraqi government carries out mass arrests, illegally detaining hundreds of citizens, dozens of them transferred to Camp Honor.
Two particular waves of mass arrests were mentioned in HRW's account. The first occurred in October and November 2011 when officials and officers were targeted. Those were allegedly Baath Party and Saddam Hussein loyalists and were ordered detained directly through Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's military office.
The "Baathist arrests" were supposedly to round up plotters against Iraq's regime. Testimonies said those released were forced to sign pledges against public criticism of the government as well as false confessions. Threats of torture (or further torture), family member raping and prolonging imprisonment preceded the signings.
The second wave of arrests was prior to the March 2012 Arab summit in Baghdad. This wave was preemptive, an effort to secure the summit not hosted in Baghdad for decades because of insecurity, claimed now to be secure by Iraq's government.
Alsumaria reports a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured one police officer and the burned corpse of 1 young man was discovered in Kirkuk "handcuffed and blindfolded." Xinhua notes that a Jalawla roadside bombing left four police officers injured, a garage continer bombing in Jalawla left a young boy injured, a Baghdad construction cite bombing left three construction workers wounded. In addition, KUNA adds, "Up to three Iraqis were killed and 11 others suffered injuries violent incidents close to the nothern cities of Kukuk and Mosul on Tuesday." Noting 96 deaths from violence in Iraq so far this month, Iraq Body Count notes 10 dead yesterday: "Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Shirqat: 2 by gunfire, 1 body. Al-Zaeraiah: 2 Sahwa members by fungire. Taza: 2 bodies found in grave. Mosul: 1 by mortars."
Meanwhile some of the targeted in Iraq do get out of alive. Suheil Damouny (SBS' World News Australia, link is text and video) reports that a group of Iraqi Palestinians have made it to Sydney where they have family, "They say they have suffered great human rights violations in Iraq, especially since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003."
Suheil Damouny: Almost as soon as the government fell in 2003, Iraqis wanted Palestinians out -- anywhere, except Iraq. Human rights groups are still cataloguing the intense harassment, kidnappings and even murders. Shia landlords wanted to reclaim properties Saddam's government had forced them to rent to Palestinians virtually for free.
Shhadi Ameen Badwan: They would come to our homes and draw a noose on the door, saying that they will hang us if we do not leave. We were targeted as Palestinians. They would say that the buildings we live in are theirs. They say that Iraqi families are living on the streets while we are living in buildings. They say they do not want us there at all and we have to leave.
Suheil Damouny: Subhi and his wife left Iraq with their daughter in 2007. They left behind a son. His fate? Still unknown, another kidnapped in Iraq in 2006 presumed dead.
Rihaneh Ibrahim Khalil Badwan: They too my son. They took him from the shop and he was never seen again! Until now I have not seen him. The Mehdi Army took him. We were humiliated. How many times have we been displaced! From Palestine we were kicked out. They do not want us in Iraq. We went to Syria and look what happened there.
Suheil Damouny: They made their way into Syria using forged Iraqi documents. In Damascus, left with nothing, they turned themselves in. They were then sent back to the border where they remained in barren refugee camps for five years. It was as far as they could go. No country would let them in.
Subhi Ameen Badwan: For Palestinians, this card, our passports, wouldn't even allow us to travel for 20 metres. They would fight us simply based on this Iraqi card. Once someone is idnetified as a Palestinian we would be kidnapped, then they would demand ransom money.
Suheil Damouny: Amnesty International's Graham Thom visited the camp. The conditions were appalling.
Graham Thom: There were scorpians, there were snake bites. And, again, these camps were on the sides of busy highways and so we had small children who were being run over and killed by trucks in the middle of the desert.
Lastly, Peter Van Buren works for the US State Dept. He wrote We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. He's a whistle blower. And the administration has gone after him like crazy. A friend asked that we note Kim Zetter's "ACLU Warns State Dept. Against Firing Worker Who Criticized Government" (Wired):
The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of a former State Department employee who looks likely to be fired for blogging and writing critically about the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The ACLU says doing so would violate the constitutional rights of veteran State Department employee Peter Van Buren, according to a letter the group sent the government on Tuesday.
The letter further accuses the government of unlawful retaliation against Van Buren for publishing critical comments about U.S. foreign policy on his personal blog last year.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public employees retain their First Amendment rights even when speaking about issues directly related to their employment, as long as they are speaking as private citizens," and as long as they're writing about matters of public concern, the ACLU wrote in its letter (.pdf). "There can be no dispute that the subject matter of Mr. Van Buren's book, blog posts, and news articles -- the reconstruction effort in Iraq -- is a matter of immense public concern."