Virginia Veteran Wins Battle to Keep His Flagpole in Yard

RICHMOND, Va. —  A 90-year-old Medal of Honor recipient can keep his 21-foot flagpole in his front yard after a homeowner's association dropped its request to remove it, a spokesman for Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said Tuesday.

The Sussex Square homeowners' association likewise has agreed to drop threats to take legal action against retired Army Col. Van T. Barfoot, Warner spokesman Kevin Hall said.

The association had threatened to take Barfoot to court if he failed to remove the pole from his suburban Richmond home by Friday. It had said the pole violated the neighborhood's aesthetic guidelines.

Neither Barfoot's daughter, Margaret Nicholls, nor homeowners' president Glenn Wilson immediately returned telephone messages.

Dropping the issue effectively ends a request that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday called "silly."

Warner and Sen. Jim Webb, both Virginia Democrats, had rallied behind Barfoot, a World War II veteran.

In a letter last week, Webb urged the association to "consider the exceptional nature of Col. Barfoot's service when considering his pride and determination in honoring our flag."

Barfoot's fight also has lit up veterans bulletin boards and blog sites supporting him.

Barfoot won the Medal of Honor for actions while his platoon was under German assault near Carano, Italy, in May 1944. He was credited with standing up to three German tanks with a bazooka and stopping their advance.

He also won the Purple Heart and other decorations, and served in Korea and Vietnam before retiring from the service in 1974.

Score one for the good guys! I've already decided that any veteran who moves into our new subdivision is welcome to have a flagpole and fly their flag freely.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

Regardless of your support for the Iraq war and whether or not you think Blackwater (now known as Xe Services, LLC) is evil, keep in mind four men were brutally murdered and hung in effigy in Fallujah, Iraq in March 2004. A man accused of being the mastermind behind these murders was recently apprehended by the Navy SEALs. Now, they're being accused of abusing the suspect (result: bloody lip) and face criminal charges.

If convicted, the assault charges I feel, would send the wrong message to terrorists and thugs who commit such acts. If you're caught, just complain of abuse. Your captors will be punished and maybe you'll go free or get a cushy sentence. From here on out, Navy SEALs or any military function seeking to apprehend terrorists will do so with kid gloves - which is not very effective.

The Time Warner-AOL marriage officially comes to an end on December 10th, when AOL once again becomes its own publicly traded company.

How will AOL convince investors that it’s ready to get back on the track? With new, shiny logos of course. Oh, and by lowercasing the “o” and the “l” in AOL. This follows the company getting rid of the name “America Online” back in 2006 in favor of the shorter AOL.

Check out these samples courtesy of MediaMemo:

Of the rebrand, AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong says, “Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people – employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade.”

The company plans to reveal the full details of the new brand identity on the 10th when it makes its New York Stock Exchange debut.

What do you think of the new logos? Let us know in the comments.

It’s Captastic! Cable One Embraces Congestion Pricing

By Stacey Higginbotham | Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 9:10 AM PT 

Cable One, a cable provider serving 720,000 customers in 19 states, has apparently brought congestion pricing for broadband access to the U.S., according to a post over at DSLReports. Such pricing plans limit speeds at certain times based on the assumption that the network will have more traffic during specific hours of the day. It’s similar to the traffic management plans in various cities that require commuters to pay more to enter a locale during certain times.

A few European ISPs have played around with congestion pricing, offering certain services or speeds based on the time of day, and most in the wireless industry think congestion pricing is the way to go, but it’s still relatively rare. BT recently got in trouble with subscribers for slowing its speeds on video between the hours of 5 p.m. and midnight. Overall, these pricing changes and caps are both a way to manage traffic and increase revenue for ISPs. Last year, I talked about the use of different tiers, caps and usage policies in determining pricing with Kurt Dobbins, the chief technology officer of IP services at Arbor Networks, and he said:

Carriers are all seeing a fundamental growth in traffic, and very few of them are seeing the equivalent growth in subscriber acquisition, so they’re spending billions more on bandwidth capacity but are seeing no new revenue…This is an answer to how they will grow revenue.

Cable One’s charts show that the provider is both throttling speeds between 4 p.m. and midnight (offering “standard” speeds that are about half of the advertised “extended” speeds) and is limiting the amount of data a user can download between noon and midnight. Basically, the all-you-can eat broadband buffer is only open at advertised speeds between midnight and noon. After that, you’re stuck watching what you download — and for eight hours, surfing at half speed.

There are two problems with this plan, beyond the main issue that it is consumption-based and a threat to innovation. First, instead of throttling back speeds when the network is actually congested as Comcast does, it assumes congestion all the time. If that’s the case, then a network upgrade or at least a few node splits may be in order.

Second, it’s terrible marketing. This is a confusing plan for any consumer. I would say it’s a revenue grab, but instead of charging overage fees when users download more than they are supposed to, Cable One says it will terminate the account. If it wants to implement a plan like this it should take a page from wireless carriers, and create packages with easy-to-understand names that help consumers figure out what they can and can’t do on their broadband connection. My suggestions include, “I Can’t Believe It’s Broadband” and “Get One-Half the Speeds, One-Third of the Day!” Readers, feel free to submit your own.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Living in Boise, where CableONE provides service, this is the first time I've heard of congestion pricing for Internet access.

This morning I searched their website to see if I can find the chart posted in this article. No dice. That doesn't mean it is necessarily false.

Congestion pricing opposition falls into the realm of Net Neutrality. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Net Neutrality will be mandated standards to Internet access. It's goal is to create an even playing field where, for example, if people with lower income want access they will receive no more or no less availability and bandwidth than those who can afford it.

There are many reasons why I oppose Net Neutrality, as I understand it. It interferes in the free market of ISP's providing access to customers and regulates how they can provide service.

It also assumes that Internet access is a right. I'm sorry, but it is not. You get what you pay for and you have a choice to have Internet access or not. I'm sure many people do fine without it. It's a luxury and if you want more bandwidth and better quality, you can shop around for better pricing and service.

Democratic budget-writer proposes temporary income tax surcharge to help balance Idaho budget

Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, proposes a 5 percent surcharge on the state personal income tax on Idahoans with taxable income over $50,000.

Ringo, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, is joined by Moscow economist Judy Brown in arguing that increasing taxes by $44 million is preferable to more cuts in public schools, higher education, public safety, health care and other services.

"We are headed for a train wreck," write Ringo and Brown in a letter to newspaper editors. "We believe (a) temporary tax increase can be less harmful to families and less damaging to the state's economy than the alternative: deep cuts in vital services."

The pair cite former Republican Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's insistence that the sales tax be temporarily boosted by 1 cent on the dollar in 2003 when the state was facing steep revenue shortfalls.

"None of us were elected to eliminate core services we provide our citizens," Kempthorne said at the time.

Ringo and Brown estimate the fiscal 2011 shortfall at $224 million; they also propose spending $134 million in reserve funds to close the gap.

They said a family of four earning $76,000 a year and taking the standard deduction would pay an annual surcharge of $162.

I thought the popular belief was that the rich had to pay more or what is considered their "fair share" of taxes. They've benefited more than others, so they should give back.

How, then, is this fair? The median income of Idahoans is just slightly above that of the national average - approximately $46,000 per year versus $41,000 per year. In a sense, Rep. Ringo is proposing the state tax the upper-middle class and higher with an additional tax on top of what they already pay.

While the story states that a family earning $76,000 per year will only pay an additional $162 in taxes, that's beside the point. A tax is never temporary. Once it is put in place, it is more difficult to rescind the tax as more and more state services become dependent upon those funds.

Homeless - No Solution, No End

As we travel around Boise these days, it seems like every corner–and every supermarket–has a homeless person or team panhandling. It is a problem that won’t go away soon

As the economy continues to founder, we can anticipate more “Hoovervilles”–those hobo villages of the 1930’s depression. The only difference is they have moved to urban areas for the most part. Wal-Mart once allowed overnighters in remote areas of parking lots, but they no longer permit the practice.

Boise City Council clarified the city “Camping” law Tuesday saying it is illegal to use “any public property as a residence.” It did nothing to solve the underlying problem.

Coppers have a little wiggle room when they run across homeless people sleeping in their cars and campers on city streets…what constitutes residence? Apart from the sanitation and litter issues, businesses feel threatened with disheveled people and vehicles parked near their establishments.

If the coppers write tickets, impound cars, or arrest these unfortunate souls it serves only to make them more destitute paying fines, towing fees, and storage bills which they can ill afford. On the other hand, when mothers complain of homeless people in parks making them “uncomfortable” and often as not breaking some minor rule, they are forced to act.

Reports from homeless people we have talked to say for the most part the cops are cool. One guy told us of a copper giving him a push in his car which had stalled in the street last Christmas and later checked on his welfare where he had parked (camped).

There are charity based homeless shelters in the River Street area of the city, but there is only so much they can offer. Some people are homeless by choice while others suffer from substance abuse, mental and physical disabilities, and just plain bad luck.

We certainly don’t know the solution, but it is a growing problem that can’t be solved by passing more laws.

I share the Boise Guardian's view on this topic. While it i's not desirable (nor sanitary or safe for both the homeless and the public) to have the homeless simply hanging around on the streets, there doesn't appear to be an answer to this issue.

Why?

Last night the Boise City Council chose to further define / expand the current law on camping in public places. KTVB reports:

"... the city's definition of camping doubled in length. It added using public property as a place of residence between sunset and sunrise as illegal. And if anybody's caught setting up bedding, that's illegal, too."

In addition:

"...The city says it does enough to fight homelessness. It provides motel vouchers and gives money to homeless shelters to improve services. But attorneys say shelters are sometimes full or have rules that prevent the homeless from staying there."

OK then, let's follow the money. If the city claims they are giving money to the homeless shelters, what is being done with the money at the shelters? Is an audit in order?

As a tax payer, I think one should be in order. I'd hate to see the mismanagement of funds as the root of the problem and doing little to serve those it is intended for.

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

November 09, 2009 6:30 PM

From Sunlen Miller:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance.  That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

Read more from Jake Tapper’s interview with President Obama HERE.

-Sunlen Miller

I reject the idea that just because a person chooses not to carry health insurance, they are expecting free health care once they become ill or need medical assistance in an emergency. It's a broad generalization that isn't necessarily true.

There are many reasons as to why a person may not carry health insurance. Personally, I don't think it is wise to go without it. It's just like hopping on a motorcycle without a helmet - I advise against it.

However, this entire health care debate infringes upon personal freedoms and does little to nothing to expand or protect freedoms. Rather than address specific issues related to the affordability of health care, politicians believe a sweeping overhaul to the entire system is the remedy.

Ultimately, you and I should be responsible for our own health and safety. If exercising our rights to choose how we live and provide for ourselves and our families is going to be criminalized, just because we don't behave the way someone thinks we should, then I think we have bigger problems than whether or not someone buys insurance.

Boise sued by homeless

Seven homeless Boise residents are suing the city, saying that rules against camping in public spaces amount to cruel and unusual punishment in a city where homeless shelters are overflowing. The lawsuit, filed last month in federal court, targets city rules that advocates say amount to criminalization of homelessness. Boise City Attorney Scott Muir said he couldn't comment on pending litigation, and the plaintiffs in the case could not be immediately reached because they do not have an address or phone number. But Tulin Ozdegre, an attorney with the National Center on Homelessness and Poverty who is representing the Boise homeless residents, said the center was also pursuing similar cases in St. Petersburg, Fla. and Dallas. Lawsuits brought by other groups are under way in Portland, Ore. and Santa Barbara, Calif. (Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

I'm often accused of being cruel and unusual with my views, but I just can't find any sympathy for this.

The story really brings up more questions for me than answers to my lowly opinion on the topic of homelessness (hey, I'm just one guy in Boise, ID).

• Why Boise, Idaho?
• Why these seven people?
• Who is the National Center on Homelessness and Poverty?
• Is it the obligation of the city to provide shelter?

In the end, this is just another worthless lawsuit clogging up the courts that could otherwise be solved differently.

Besides, it's more insulting that these 7 homeless people (who can't be identified because, well, they're homeless and can't be reached because they don't have an address or phone number) are being used to promote an agenda. The lawsuit will do nothing to serve them now and meet their needs.