text:
Thursday, March 21, 1996 - 1:30 p.m.
Subject: Findings and Recommendations on the Task Force on Extremist Activities: Defending American Values
[Note: Also participating in the briefing is Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ATSD/PA]
Mr. Bacon: Good afternoon. The main topic of the briefing today is the Army's task force on extremist activities report which was commissioned by Secretary West, and he'll conduct the briefing. After that, I have a brief announcement to make on the B-2 and there will be some Air Force officials here to field the questions on that.
Before I begin, I'd like to read a brief statement by Secretary Perry commenting on this report: "Defending American Values, the report of the Secretary of the Army's Task Force on Extremist Activities, concludes that there is minimal evidence of extremist activity in the Army.
Reviews by the other services reach the same conclusion. However, Department of Defense policy leaves no room for racist and extremist activities in the military. We must -- and we will -- make every effort to erase bigotry, racism and extremism from the military. Extremist activity compromises fairness, good order and discipline, and, potentially, combat effectiveness. The armed forces, which defend the nation and its values, must exemplify those values beyond question.
Secretary West has directed the Army to take actions to root out extremist activity. I have asked the Defense Equal Opportunity Council, which is chaired by Deputy Secretary White and includes the service secretaries, to review the report and its recommendations to determine if changes are necessary in Department of Defense policies and regulations. I will act quickly on the Council's recommendations."
And with that, Secretary West.
Secretary West: Good afternoon. I have a few quick comments to make about the report. These charts are not as many or as lengthy as they may first appear to be. And then I'll be available for your questioning which is what I think we're all here for.
Three months ago, December 15th, I announced the establishment of the task force on extremism in the Army, extremist activities. I announced it in the wake of events in Fayetteville, North Carolina, which were a shock to our nation, and which caused us in the Army to decide that we needed to take a look at ourselves. I also announced it because the Secretary of Defense told me to. This is a task force and a review undertaken at the direction of the Secretary of Defense in which he has, as you have just heard, had a great interest.
We named it -- I named it -- Defending American Values for I think obvious reasons. The fact is that the United States Army does not belong to me or to the Secretary of Defense. As proud of we are of them, it does not belong to our soldiers or our NCOs or our officers. It belongs to the American people. And as such, it should espouse the values of the people to whom it belongs. If it does, then it can defend them. That is our job. The task force that was so named and that has been in the field for much of the past three months has now concluded its work and submitted its report to me which I hope you have available to you or will shortly. It makes several conclusions. Let me mention some now and then we'll talk about them again in a minute.
The task force concludes that this Army does indeed exemplify and wholeheartedly support American values. It concludes that extremist activity in and on and touching the United States Army is minimal. It concludes that there has been little in the way of targeting by extremist organizations or groups of U.S. Army soldiers. And it concludes that America can be as confident of its Army today as it has always been in the years past.
Let me tell you a word about who the task force was. They are here with us today.
The Chair was Major General -- still is for that matter -- Major General Larry Jordan, the Deputy Inspector General. General Jordan brings to the job, and brought to the job, not only his role as the Deputy Inspector General, an important one, because it meant that the task force had immediate access to the techniques and the expertise of conducting surveys and investigations worldwide on short notice and because the Army is large with great numbers of people. But, he also brought his experience as the commander or one of our former commanders of -- one of our Army's largest installations in the continental United States, the Armor center at Fort Knox. Also, on the task force, Karen Heath, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, brought a perspective from outside the Army in two ways. Having served before her time in the Department of Defense on the staff of the House Armed Services Committee where she obtained both expertise and a reputation for knowing the area of Armed Forces personnel and a number of other issues, she was then appointed as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Manpower and Reserve Affairs Office. We thought she could bring fresh insight to the task force most importantly, a vantage point from outside the Army. But nonetheless, would not need to learn quickly on a short period of time about the Army as someone from outside the Department of Defense might have had to. John McLaurin, a deputy assistant secretary of the Army in our Manpower and Reserve Affairs Office, brought to it both the inside knowledge of what our policies are designed to be being one of principle designers of them in his job, but also his background as a retired Army colonel, a former Army colonel, a former Army lawyer, and brought an understanding of both the complexities of the Department of the Army and DoD policy and also the best ways to advise them if revision is needed. General Dan Doherty, the commanding general of the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, brought to it both his experience as a general officer and the command of the Army's investigators. It meant that this task force did not have to struggle to gain access to information that our investigators had turned up over time or to gain access to civilian law enforcement officials in the communities surrounding our bases. And perhaps the best answer to the question of who do you want to talk to, if you want to know what's happening in your Army, talk to non-commissioned officers. And so, on the panel, the Sergeant Major of the Army, experienced command sergeant major who has held, I guess, every rank there is to hold in the non-commissioned officer ranks. He started as a soldier and he sits here today as a soldier.
That is the who of our panel. We kept the number small because I kept their time limited. We simply did not want to wait a long time before we could answer the question, what's happening in the Army? Is it doing as well as we think? Are there things there going on that we don't know about that we need to have exposed?
Where do they go?
Twenty-six installations of the United States Army here and abroad when we impaneled this task force, I said that they would go both across the continental United States and to locations overseas. Sixteen installations in the continental United States, eight overseas, five in Germany, and three, no, seven in Germany and five sites in Korea. And with that, we touched on just about every pocket of useful information to the Army. Not every pocket of information and not all the useful information we could find, but just about touched on every pocket. You see the installations there. Some of our biggest schools, Fort Benning, Fort Bragg. Well, Fort Bragg is our contingency installation out of which we base the contingency corps. Fort Hood, one of the largest collections of firepower anywhere in the world. Fort Knox, where General Jordan once commanded.
How then did we do this review?
At these installations across America and in Korea and Germany, sensing sessions were held with more than 7,000 officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers. Some 6,000 of them soldiers. Some in meetings and sessions that were mixed as to race and gender. But some yes, in single, in race-single ethic groups so that there would be no hesitancy to speak up. And just to assure that we did not over-manage this effort, 50 percent of all the soldiers interviewed were selected at random. That is by the last four digits of their social security number.
Another 1,600 of essentially brigade- and battalion-level leaders were interviewed also in the course of these sessions to give you a number in excess of 7,000. Parallel, at the same time that these sessions were going on, incidentally and including off-post visits, and by that principally, to make sure that the task force talked with officials -- law enforcement officials -- and others in the communities around the bases where the interviews took place. In parallel with this effort, the Army Research Institute at the direction of the task force, at the request of the task force, also undertook a survey, a written survey across the same group of installations. Some 94 questions concerning the areas in which we had an interest, extremism, the human relations environment, values, EO training, sexual harassment issues, and, of course, hate crimes.
In addition, we sought input from not only other government agencies but also from organizations such as the Weisenthal Center, the ADL, the NAACP, the National Conference of Christians and Jews. You may recall that at one point there was an indication by the North Carolina Chapter of the NAACP that they had wanted to make an input to the installation at Fort Bragg and had not had an opportunity to do so. At my request, the task force simply went directly to that chapter to make sure that the task force had the benefit of their thinking for and any insights they had for this report.
I might also report that Fort Bragg and the Local Chapter are continuing the dialogue to make sure that what has been the harmonious relationship with the community continues to also include an understanding of whatever contribution organizations such as that wish to make as we go forward in these areas. And I would expect that pattern to be consistent across the force.
Thank you. As a result of the impaneling of this group and of these visits and of this pattern of inquiries, the task force report offers us several findings. They are in the report. I will mention only a couple of them, highlight them for you. With respect to the sensing sessions, the interviews, the some 7,000 interviews, the task force finds that less than one percent of those interviewed report extremist, report knowing or coming into contact with extremists in uniform or as family members or as civilians on that post either active, substantially, less than one percent or passive or merely members. Substantially less than one percent.
It also finds that these soldiers report -- less than one percent, but a bit
closer -- report any contacts with media or other paraphernalia or literature of extremist or hate groups. The most often cited, I think you will note from the report, contact with any kind of insignia is the swastika or the initials KKK.
In the parallel survey, in the parallel survey by the ARI, 94 questions submitted to more than 17,000 soldiers. I might emphasize these are at the same installations, but they're not the same soldiers. So, a different group of soldiers, same installations. We get reports -- responses of a different order of magnitude. Some 3.5 percent report in one case. 7.1 in another. I will leave it to you to see those numbers. I will emphasize that what they speak to is whether or not in one case they have ever been approached by organizations to be recruited. This is of some interest to us as we also compare what the civilian authorities, law enforcement authorities outside the post tell us. In both instances, although the numbers are in the survey by ARI are a bit higher, the conclusion the task force draws, and I'm getting ahead of myself, is nonetheless that targeting of our soldiers for recruitment has not occurred. We want to talk a little bit more about why that should be. How it is we can be comfortable with that assumption in addition to the fact that it's what our soldiers tell us.
Those are the findings, the numerical findings, or some of them anyway, the highlights of them, what conclusions did the task force report to me as their commissioning officer that they draw from those numbers and also from their interaction in their numerous sessions, their numerous sensing sessions across those three months? I pause here to say an additional word to you about the complexity of the undertaking. Not every panel member could be in every location. An enormous team, several teams, some four or five essentially structured like the panel but with some additional folks visited these installations, conducted these sensing sessions in a very professional way and have worked very diligently to collate their results. If, as I believe, we ultimately conclude that this was an enormously valuable enterprise and that it results in substantial benefits from the Army -- and I think the evidence is there that it is and it will -- then no small part of the thanks will be both to the panel but also to the teams that under-girded their actions. And out of those discussions, they came up with a number of conclusions. Let me emphasize some of them.
One is the one that I gave you a preview of at the outset. The conclusion that the panel reaches that the task force reaches and reports to me is that extremist activity in around or touching the Army is minimal. Now, we can say it in a lot of different ways, but I give it to you bare bones -- minimal. Minimal means that our soldiers report little of it. Minimal means that there is little evidence of it. Minimal means that law enforcement officials around the base agree with those judgments.
Secondly, I would highlight for you with respect to extremist activities the panel reports that targeting -- and I said this at the outset -- targeting of active duty Army soldiers is simply not happening in any significant way. There may be several reasons for that. But, the justification for the conclusion first, that is what the civilian law enforcement officials reported to the panel. Second, those are the results of the surveys that the panel has done. And thirdly, of the discussions.
Why should that be? Just a brief word, and then I'll go on.
It may well be that our soldiers are simply not good targets. That inoculated with the values of America, believing in what they defend, they are simply not easy prey. It may be that our soldiers are simply too busy. They train everyday. They have important jobs to do. Most of our soldiers, the vast majority, simply don't have the time to go disaffected and to go seeking a family outside the Army which takes up so much of their time, so many hours of the day, so many days of the week, so many weeks of the year.
And the third perhaps most elevated reason may be simply that the soldiers aren't there long enough. They come, maybe they're assigned there for two or three years, and they move on. It may be that if there are such groups out there in significant strength to have a coherent plan of targeting -- I doubt the latter -- But if there are, that the targets would not be folks who when you consider it really are simply not available that often in the community to be targeted.
Thirdly, the task force reports in terms of extremists as its conclusions some `buts.' One other. They also report that our soldiers, in the vast majority, embraced the notion that extremism has no place in military life. That in short, our soldiers embrace the values of our citizens. That extremism has no place in American life. Having said that, what are the `buts?'
The `buts' are yes, they embraced that notion. They are clear on the undesirability of extremism, but they're not so clear, the task force reports, on the Army's attitude about it. That is to say that our regulation, which lawyers can stand and explain with great precision, which draws that line between passive membership and active participation, may be distinctions that don't mean a lot to our soldiers, to our NCOs, and to our officers.
They also report that there is no evidence, other than the messages that the Chief of Staff and I sent out in the aftermath of the Oklahoma bombing, there is no other evidence that the Army has incorporated into its Equal Opportunity training and its training regimen training about extremists. Training that says what does the Army think about extremism. What is its position? What does its regulation say? What are the penalties? What are the hazards?
And the other `but' is that even as we explain the definitions, if we make that change, even as we are able to react to the other challenges, there may be some growing notion that our NCOs are handicapped in their ability to keep an eye out for the kinds of elements on an installation that might lead to a contact or to some other untoward activity, because of our current policies with respect to some enhancements we've made for quality of life in our barracks.
Quickly, I remind you that we also asked the task force to look into the atmosphere on our posts. Even if we are satisfied about our soldiers' values and about who is approaching them, what is there in the human relations atmosphere that is good? That nurtures them, that is working? And what is there that is potentially an opportunity for such views and values -- extremist views, extremist values -- to intrude? And so, we have several conclusions from the task force also in the report about the human relations environment.
I think the most significant one that I would call to your attention now -- and I will be glad to answer questions in a minute -- is a reminder that over 21 percent of our force changes every year in the active force. One-fifth of our Army goes and comes every year. And I will give you roughly a statistic that suggests, and probably another two-fifths at any given point has been on active duty less than four years. That has been an Army -- that has good news and bad news. It is an Army that is very much in touch reflective of the values of society. It is also an Army that still needs some training about how the Army takes those values of society, improves upon them so that we get a higher level of performance for our soldiers. There may be extremism out in America. We simply cannot use it in the Army.
So, the challenge of the 21 percent turnover and also the benefit is one of the reports. The final conclusion that I would call to your attention so that we can move on is a kind of extra-added attraction. If we ask our soldiers in this brief look-see -- this brief investigation of the Army -- well what concerns you the most in this whole area of potential trouble on the borders of our installations or people making inroads into our Army? The answer is gang-related activity near or on our posts. As large a percentage of our soldiers responded on that question as they responded on the extremism question. They said that they are concerned about security concerns and other issues arising from that phenomena. We don't confirm that there's a large presence. The task force doesn't confirm that there's a large presence. Law enforcement authorities don't confirm that there's a large presence, but our soldiers are concerned about it. It is something we need to take into account.
What then have been the recommendations of the task force as a result? There is a list set out right out on the second page of the executive summary which is at the very front of the report. Highlights of it. First of all, they are very much reflective of the conclusions and findings that I just described to you. One recommendation obviously, is that we have to take a better look at the regulation. Another is that we need to look and see how well we are screening, and if screening is possible, screening for extremists upon entry onto active duty. Another is that we look to our equal opportunity training and other training to see about incorporating extremists training or extremists awareness, if you will, into it. And the list extends with several more which I will leave you to read.
What then will we will do about it? I have today directed -- I signed the memoranda this morning -- several actions by the Army immediately. There will be some follow-on reviews as well beyond what we do today. But Secretary Perry's direction to me three months ago was very clear. He said do the review and finish it quickly because we must get on to whatever the lessons are. If there's action to be taken, we must take it. If there are further studies to do, we must do them. So, here are the things we are starting immediately.
First of all, we're going to take a look at revising the Army regulation. There will be lots of discussions about this, I assure you. As a former Department of Defense general counsel, I know what a careful line is drawn in that reg and in the DoD directive. But the fact is, we simply cannot have our soldiers out there clear on their values and unclear on Army values. That is unacceptable.
Secondly, I am directing that we take a look again at the question that was raised. I touched on it briefly by NCOs and officers as we did this survey. Whether or not current Army policies in an effort to improve the quality of life of our soldiers has led to a situation where after hours, if you will, after duty hours, our NCOs and company commanders feel that there is some different signal from us in the leadership as to whether they are expected and have the authority to find out where their soldiers are. To know what their soldiers are doing. To understand how their soldiers are feeling. Are we taking care of them? What kind of conditions are they living in? And also, what are they doing that they don't want us to know about?
The latter is the touchy one. How much of that should we know? The answer is this. Our NCOs and our company grade officers are there to help our soldiers. Many of our soldiers are young, new to responsibility, and expect a structured life. If there are things, if there is counseling, if there are warnings, if there is simply reassurance that our company grade leaders can provide at any time, in the hours of off-duty hours, on the training field or in the barracks, they need to be there to provide it. If we, in the Army, are sending signals that is not expected or that we won't support those leaders when they do that, then we need to correct it.
Just as I am fond of saying that we have some of the finest soldiers in the world, we have some of the finest NCOs. We need to support them in their duties. This is a look-see to see if we are doing a good job of that or if we need to adjust the way in which we are supporting our NCOs and our officers.
And then the third one, to look at the training issue that I raised earlier. Put simply, get extremism training or training about extremism and about the Army's policy and there's been attitudes about extremism, into our training base. I have said it before to different groups. I say it again. You know what the Army thinks is important by looking at what it trains. If extremism isn't in there, we must get it in there right away.
There are going to be two other things that we will undertake right away. Both will require support from the office of the Secretary of Defense, from Dr. Dorn, from the general counsel, from others there who have given us -- with whom we've worked closely in the past. But, they raise the DoD-wide issues and so we will approach them on two questions. One on the question of screening of applicants. One of the recommendations. And maybe I should be clearer about that. The question is, are there ways, in which at our recruiting places or our in-processing stations, we can better inform ourselves as to whether we're bringing in an extremist, whether there is something we should know that we should be screening out?
Again, I think that would be a very touchy examination. It raises the question of what things you can inquire into of a person who before they sign up is a private citizen, what conditions you can erect for recruitment. We will need to work that out with Dr. Dorn because this will effect policies across the Department of Defense.
Secondly, we will also discuss questions of equal opportunity training, race relations training, as it can be as it is guided in OSD and as it can be helpful to us.
I would say, that if there's a lesson or a message to draw from all this, it is that our soldiers yes, are relatively untouched by extremism; but that we are on guard not to relax. There was some comment from some of the seminar respondents from the senior officers that maybe we in the Army are so proud of what we've done over the last 20 or 25 years since the early seventies, late sixties, about the human relations atmosphere in our Army that we think it's doing well, almost running on automatic.
I hesitate to endorse that notion. I don't think any of our senior officers or junior officers or NCOs are running on automatic. But I am willing to accept the warning that we need to continually reassess ourselves. There are probably two basic elements to the kind of success we want in our Army. First-rate soldiers, and careful monitoring of what we're doing to support them. We've got those two elements. I think we're all right. We've got the-first rate soldiers. The best in the world. We are reminded by this report that we must continue to introduce the other element, a continual reassessment, a re-look at our equal opportunity policies and all the things that go with it. If we do those well, we'll be all right in the end. Today's challenges will be remarked upon tomorrow as tomorrow's successes. With that, I'm available for your questions. Thank you.
Q: Mr. Secretary, have you decided or do you have any timetable on when you'll come up with a decision on whether you might prohibit participation in the extremist organization? How you might change these training and recruiting rules?
A: No, only as soon as possible. I have not set a time.
Q: The report says that most soldiers believe that any association with an extremist organization should be grounds for separation from the Army. Why not simplify it in that way and eliminate the distinction between passive and active participation? Just say any association and you're out. Why not do that?
A: The first amendment. What has, I think, motivated our lawyers in the past have been the first amendment considerations, the process of drawing the current regulation based on the current DoD directive. As Judy Miller, the current general counsel of DoD, described to me just two days ago, it's painful and quite difficult. We have competing interests on both sides. We have sensed that even soldiers, regimented and uniformed as they are, still have some basic entitlements and the competing notion that says, for purposes of maintaining good order and discipline in our units, so that they can perform their missions, we can go very far indeed in what we proscribe.
That competition is what has resulted in the current Army Regulation. I do not say that our lawyers and personnel specialists won't come up with a way to do just what you said and just what the soldiers say. But I do say in answer to your question why might it not happen because we have to balance those two things.
Nonetheless, we are going to look at this very carefully, and my directions are there must be something better we can do with our regulation. We must be able to say more clearly what our idea is. What we prohibit. What we don't like. What is antithetical and we can certainly do that, whatever the conclusion, on just how much you can prohibit. I'm going to go to the back. Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, the leadership at Fort Bragg has said that they were surprised on December 7th about the incident, the alleged murder beyond Fayetteville, but they didn't think they had a problem. But in your own report, you said that on April 1st of 1995 there was a similar incident involving a shooting between skinheads and another group on post. Could you explain why the leadership didn't take note of that? And also, do you think that these types of crimes need to be more openly reported to the public as well as to the base officials?
A: Let me say something about the second, and then I'll go onto the first one. I'm not sure about exactly how `openly reported' would mean. Maybe a report that we regularly published that anyone could get or something like that. And I suspect there are some procedures for making the report of crimes available. That would -- that I would need to know more about. But I would suspect that there are procedures. Reporting, though, of hate crimes even within the Army, is one of the aspects that I think you may have noticed the task force brings up. It's not that well done. In fact, there are some recommendations that say we need to do a better job of getting those reports into a reporting system that identifies them as such. I get serious incident reports everyday. They do not identify so-called hate crimes as hate crimes. So, we need to do a better job of even reporting them to ourselves. We probably need to a better job, as I understand from the task force recommendations, of getting whatever information the civilian law enforcement agencies have to the very company leaders and others who've got to know about their soldiers. And yes, I would suspect that works both ways. That we also can make sure that civilian law enforcement agencies know about what we do.
One other thing I'd say, but probably, if I recall, was it an incident first dealt with by the civilian authorities and then passed to us on our installation? The first question was how did I explain the failure to --
Q: The failure to --
A: To take into account the indication. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on specific incidents at Fort Bragg today. I think I can talk about that a long time. My job here is to talk about what we found across the Army. I do think this: I don't believe, and the report that the task force made to me -- and part of their charter was to look for me into the underpinnings of the incidents down at Fort Bragg -- that they have reported to me a failure, willfully or negligently, on the part of commanders and NCOs there to heed whatever signs were available to them.
And so, my confidence in the way they have conducted themselves on the basis of this report remains firm. I think the confidence of the American people can remain firm as well. Now, one other thing I want to say about that. That installation has been the focus of a lot of attention, and maybe that's appropriate. When things happen in a place that troubles us, we all want to pay attention. But I do believe that the command and the NCOs there continue to benefit from something that we should remind ourselves of. First of all, as I said, the task force in what they reported to me gives me no cause to fault their leadership. The only cause for all of us in the Army is to look better, to how we can prevent any kind of extremism from taking hold. Extremism that the task force says is not taking hold yet. I don't say that we, the Army, can't learn. But no cause to fault their leadership. On the contrary. They are part of the one of America's, of several of America's proudest units. They have served this country over and over again, and they are committed to do so before anyone else whenever the call comes. Okay. You, sir.
Q: There are two separate figures you're working with here. One from the task force and one from the Army's Research Institute. The ARI finds that you have between 3 and 4 percent of the soldiers who have been approached or recruited by the groups. Isn't that a fairly large figure? And isn't that probably the more acceptable figure based on confidential surveys rather than the face-to-face interviews?
A: I think the task force fairly admirably -- does an admirable job in this report of actually showing where their weakness is and where there are strengths in the numbers. And they write, if I'm not mistaken, a little something about that in their report. They say, in fact, they're more inclined to rely on the interviews than they are on the survey, if you have to choose one or the other. My own view is I don't choose one or the other. I take them both as messages about the things we need to be concerned with. I accept any of the numbers as an indication of areas where we need to look again. But I do accept the task force's conclusion from all of the evidence that extremism is minimal and that efforts to recruit are not there, are not organized, and not persistent.
How then, do I justify those differences and distinctions? I do it the way the task force refers to in the report. They point out, for example, that yes, anonymous answers with no fear of retribution should be presumptively somewhat more reliable. That makes the ARI better or more acceptable or more useful perhaps than interviews. On the other hand, you can't talk to the people who, the 17,000 people who did it. They filled out their reports. They left. You can't be sure what their definitions of extremists were. You do know that when we had a chance to talk to those who were in the sensing sessions and who had clear indications, explanations to what we meant by extremism before they started answering questions, still responded with their own notions of extremism.
There are some examples there. I will mention some that the task force mentioned to me. Some church organizations. A couple of political parties. I mean, all kinds of ideas about extremism. So, we have to be careful in our assessments, and I'm inclined to rely on the task force's belief that because it was able to talk more extensively, in fact, talk at all -- with soldiers who they interviewed, that their reliance on those -- their decision to rely on the survey on the interviews is properly placed.
Nonetheless, they are still all warnings to us. Yes? You have a follow-up?
Q: But, if I'm an extremist or my friends are extremists, can I be expected to admit that in a face-to-face interview with an investigator from your task force?
A: No, and the task force raises that too in its report. It says that there may have been reluctance in seminar -- in the sensing sessions, discussions to get up and say I'm one. They also point out though some other things. There are inherent difficulties in this data. One of them is, the sense that our panelists and our team gained, that often when they gathered at the end of the day and discussed the results, they would find out that the few in a certain sample who actually did report a contact with an extremist group or someone who is an extremist were often reporting about the same limited number. And so, there may be double counting. There shouldn't be double counting in the seminars. They took that in the sensing sessions, they took that into account. But we don't know how much double counting there would be in surveys.
Nonetheless, I agree with you. We cannot discount the significance of the surveys. They provide us important indicators. But no, I do not extrapolate from those numbers and suddenly say that there's a large number across the Army being recruited, being approached, in contrast to the very conclusions that my task force reached which is that there is not.
Q: Mr. Secretary, the report also highlights the fact that there's a dramatic decrease in the number of minorities in some of your combat arms units, especially Special Forces. Why is that?
A: I don't know. We too have begun to focus on that. It's one of the issues I meant to mention when I talked about it. And yes, -- no, it's not worrisome but yes, it is something for us to note. Twenty-five years, 26 years ago, when I was on active duty, many civil rights organizations across America were pointing out what they regarded as the imbalance of minority soldiers in the combat arms with very few in the combat support or combat service support arms. They raised the notion that somehow these soldiers who were serving in the combat units would be the first to be wounded, to die. If you ask me to speculate, I would say that some of the mechanisms we put in place back then which have continued to operate in an effort to avoid having any part of the service become a ghetto, they have continued to result inexplicably in growing incentives for minorities and others to go into the non-combat arm units. I don't know that. We will take a look at it.
Another possibility, combat arms and combat support -- combat support and combat service support are often the MOSs that are most translatable into careers outside the Army if you do not intend to pursue them. We do not know what incentives may exist for one group to decide, I'm here briefly, and will pursue a career outside, or to say, I want to be here throughout the combat arms. And I note that even before we make generalizations on that, that there are plenty of senior leadership roles in the combat support, combat service support areas for all soldiers.
I do know that our concern would be this and I said it already. We will not have any part of our service develop into a ghetto, whether it's an inclusive one or an exclusive one. Our concern is not with the service of those units. They have performed magnificently. But we know that they will and can perform magnificently with all of our soldiers playing a role in them whatever their ethnic background. Right here. I'm sorry. Did you have a follow-up?
Q: I did.
A: Go ahead.
Q: I had a question.
A: Let me just do him and then I'll come do you.
Q: Mr. Secretary, as you know that a growing concern to the soldiers themselves is the problem of gangs and gang-related violence. Yet, this report nor your recommendations seem to address that problem at all. What do you intend to do about that?
A: Well, first of all, we're alert to it and CID is alert to it as well. Part of our look-see at how we do our quality of life efforts are also likely to be a reminder that we need to look at who goes on and off our posts altogether in a larger sense. I think you know the stories or you could know the stories that NCOs can tell to you. Sometimes when they talk to me and they say there was a time when I could go to name a location on post, and if I didn't know everybody there, there was something wrong. I need to get that person to his or her unit. Now, that is less common now. I don't know that necessarily leads us to conclude that there is some sort of breakdown in law and order. It's a concern. We will look at it. But you're right. It's not one of the immediate things I've announced today, but we're not ignoring any of the recommendations.
Q: Are there any posts that have been opened?
A: [Unintelligible] You had a follow-up.
Q: I'd like to get back to Special Forces for a minute. On page 8 it talks about senior commanders who think they're being targeted by the militia for recruiting. Have you looked into that or will you?
A: You catch me on that unawares. I don't recall reading a line in there that says -- what line are you reading from? No, just tell me the page.
Q: Page eight. "Overall little active recruiting by soldiers by extremist organizations is evident. The possible exception could be Special Operations Forces, which some senior commanders believe are targeted by the militia movement."
A: I thought you meant the senior commanders were being targeted. You mean the possible exception is that senior commanders believe Special Operations Forces could be targeted. It's a possibility that's raised. We may have to take a look at it. But, there's no -- there's no hard evidence here. What they say here is no targeting. One possible exception, and the reason would be, the possible reason that some of our special operations units remain located in a particular case. We don't know that. It's a subset that we did not explore carefully and so they have to leave the exception. I would say at Fort Bragg, for example, there were some Special Forces people in the sensing sessions. But by and large, we didn't get to spend a lot of time with the Special Forces.
This reminds us -- there's a little pin in it -- that says if there is something we may look at another time, that may be it. I don't think they meant to raise the likelihood or to suggest that, in fact, it was occurring. But you're right. It's raised. Do you have a follow-up on that? You don't seem convinced by my response. [Laughter]
Q: Well, if it's raised, and these are units that have particularly dangerous skills, wouldn't you want to pursue it right away to see if it's true or not?
A: We would want to pursue it, but we're not ready to announce it.
Q: What will it take you to get ready?
A: Well, I think that we -- to get ready to announce it?
Q: Well, what's the obstacle of going ahead now?
A: There is no obstacle. We're just going to take it in our own time. The point is this: These are units as to which, at the moment, we don't have any reason to be concerned. The task force says you might want to take a look at that. It also says you might want to take a look at civilian employees. It also says you might want to take a look at reserves. We will look and see to that. Why am I not ready to announce it? Because I don't want to set off a round of when do you start and where are you going. We're going to take a look at what the next results -- next reviews have to be. We're still swallowing this one. So, we're not trying to avoid it. We've got a list of -- I gave you a list of three. Reserves, civilian employees, Special Forces.
Q: Can you walk us through --
A: Let me do him, first. He's --
Q: Mr. Secretary, since we're in a room of recruiters for the Army instead of us media and you knew they were going back out to their offices across the country tomorrow, what would you or what will you like to say to us as they go back to their duties as sort of a message as to what to look for?
A: You mean, a message in terms of how to help us keep extremists out of the Army? Remember keeping extremists out of the Army is not a big problem. The results of this task force are they're not coming in. That's what the task force just reported. The presence, the contacts are below one percent. The recruitment efforts are below one percent. So whether or not I want to send them out tomorrow prepared to ask them questions from a prohibited list of organizations, which actually I'm prohibited from doing by executive order, or to bore in on that, no, I'm not.
When we undertake that, we need to know exactly what our best advice is and what our best take is. So tomorrow, I tell them to go out and do their jobs as they have, but know that we are looking at whether there's anything more that can be done, the screening. I can't give them a list of characteristics. We went down that road before in the history of this country and it didn't work. So, let's do this one the right way. Here.
Q: The same question applies when you are talking to a room full of your senior NCOs. They hear that you had a big study. They hear some fairly bureaucratic language being put forth. They still want to know if I walk into a soldier's room and he's wearing a swastika, is that grounds for something? If he keeps it in his shirt, is that OK? If he's getting mail from the Ku Klux Klan, is that all right as long as he doesn't wear his sheets around on the post? Where are you -- help us to draw the line of how you think the Army will be different a year from now than it was before December when these hate crimes bubbled to the surface.
A: Well, let me say the Army's not going to be different. We hope it won't be different. The Army is in good shape. The task force has just reported and this must be the fifth time now, --
Q: No.
A: No, no, no. Let me -- hear me out.
Q: We've heard your --
A: The task force has just -- it's not my message. The message that those people see it over there. The task force has just reported minimal extremist involvement, minimal extremist efforts to recruit, a widespread belief by all of our soldiers that extremism is incompatible with military service. Don't want a different Army tomorrow. I want the Army we have today. If there's any message that I ask you to take from this: I want tomorrow, the Army we have today.
Now, message to the NCOs, bereft of bureaucratic trappings, it is this: If there is a silver bullet in all this, if there's a magic way to solve it and I don't think there is, a silver bullet or a magic way, it must be involved in two or three things. A sort of a tri-part type silver bullet. First, there is a firm believe on the part of our task force -- and I say this with the sergeant major of the Army looking on -- that our NCOs and our company grade officers have the authority and the ability right now to deal with much of this -- whatever this is. Remember, we're doing all right now. But they have the ability to know what their soldiers are doing, and we encourage them to take advantage of that opportunity.
That's my message. Know where your soldiers are. Put your arms around them. Put your arms around their families. Do not be dissuaded from going in and knocking on the door of a barracks and going in whether that barracks is a bay or looks like a dormitory room. They have a right to be there and I, for one, will support them when they go there.
And incidentally, if they see a swastika or something hanging on the wall, the bright line test you wanted me, I saw today in an article where a law professor said well, the Army doesn't have the authority to take banners off the wall. They'll have to take them all off except for Old Glory or leave them up.
That's not the Army's view. That is not the Secretary of the Army's direction. If a commander or an NCO sees on the wall of any government building, an item, an object, a display, that is calculated to disrupt the good order, discipline, moral cohesiveness, ability to operate as a unit of that unit, he or she has all the authority necessary to take it down and to discipline the soldier who sponsors it.
Q: Can I follow that?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Given the fact that the officers certainly have the authority to take down such paraphernalia, what will be the response to the NAACP's charge in their report, that even after your meeting with the North Carolina Chapter that five soldiers at Fort Bragg got together for a photo session where swastika and hate flags were displayed. It's certainly if the NAACP was aware of this occurrence, then I would imagine the commanding officer at Fort Bragg should have known as well.
A: First of all, let me underscore the assumption that's there which is, you're right. That's contrary to our regulations. It's contrary to what we tolerate. It's contrary to what we expect our officers and NCOs to tolerate and then I'll have to add the caveat -- assuming that it happened. But I take that. Let's accept a hypothetical.
I think, secondly, that is hard for me here to know what my officers and NCOs there are faced with. I don't know how quickly they're able to get to the scene when it's reported, and I don't know what's there when they get there. I don't know what additional things they have to do after the fact. I do know this. It is not surprising to find out that once there's been a disclosure of this -- which is one of the other things I've seen reported -- that yes, we do go and try to correct it. The fact is once they know about, they have an obligation to act. Beyond that, I cannot explain that, other than to say I'm inclined to believe that the commanders there and the NCOs are proceeding correctly. This may have happened without their knowledge until it was called to their attention. I've had several different groups explain to me how the dynamics work. If you get there and you don't see it, what do you do after you come in?
One of the reasons that I gave this answer about NCOs is that I don't think our problem -- if there is a problem -- remember what you've heard me say so many times already, the task force did not conclude that there was a problem. The task force concluded we've got to be very careful that we don't let a problem start. OK. But if there is a problem, I would not think it is with getting commanders and NCOs to act. I think it is with making sure that they know what's going on. That involves getting into the barracks. It involves not having to wait until it's reported to you. Finding it yourself. That's the best answer I can give you because I think it defines both what we think of our standards and also what may be the things that they are wrestling with. Yes, go ahead.
Q: What then is the Army doing to ensure that commanding officers and NCOs are in the barracks and seem to know what's going on?
A: Well, we're sending out the message today and we will continue to send it out. The chief of staff is going to take notice of it. One reason for having the Sergeant Major of the Army on the panel is that we can act fairly quickly based on what we understand. A lot of it is simply make sure that sergeants understand that we didn't send a different signal when we started all of our innovations for quality of life. Now, I don't want to overemphasize that, because than I suddenly start a look-see of quality of life and maybe we loose some of the advantages that soldiers are getting. I don't mean to do that. I intend for our soldiers to have the benefits of the quality of life improvements we've made. But it may be that we almost warned the sergeants off. I don't think that's the case. But, the task force raises the possibility and so, we'll go in and try to make clear to those, not try to, we will make clear to those sergeants and the company officers not only what their duties are, but that we will support them in doing those duties.
Q: Mr. Secretary, will this --
A: Let me get right here and then I'll come to you.
Q: Mr. Secretary, the task force -- I'm not a lawyer -- but I think reading it they seem to indicate they'd like some sort of a hate crimes law in the military. There is none in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But that's not among your recommendations. Why is that?
A: Well, it's not because it's not clear that we need one in the UCMJ. We are looking to -- we are going to take a look with our lawyers. It's not up here. But then I haven't put everything up here. I put only the most immediate things to be announced today. There are actually going to be some more follow-up, some more things we're going to do as a result of this task force. Three little steps or five little steps is not nearly enough when we put this much effort into getting the report.
But, you're right. We did take note of that. We took note of several things. They recommended that we turn our regulation on extremist activities into a punitive one. That is, we put in a punitive clause that you could act on and this has the same affect. We note that. That will be part of the review. I am a lawyer and my instinct is that's another one that they'll have to work on a bit. There's some things I know we can do to our regulation fairly quickly to get the message out and to make it clear about what the Army's position on extremism is. Make it clearer. Some things are going to be a little more difficult to work. But, yes, they made the recommendation. There was --
Q: You had your single soldiers initiative designed to make quality of life better for soldiers, to make their barracks life a little more private, a little more comfortable.
A: Right.
Q: Is that going to conflict with what you're going to try to do here in terms of telling NCOs and sergeants to put their arms around these people?
A: That's the question. That is the question that's raised right here, because that's what this is about. It's about those two initiatives among others. It's about whether we set a pattern that once again, sends the messages that our NCOs and company grade officers can't go in there. I don't expect a conflict, but we're going to -- we're certainly going to look and see. Because you're right.
We, in the Army, have to do both. We have to support the legitimate efforts that have gone forward in the past to enhance the quality of life of our soldiers. They work hard. If we can do something to make their life a little easier when they're off duty, we should. At the same time, the question that came up when the task force did its review is having done that, have we also been careful enough to anticipate the additional challenges to monitoring how they're doing and what they're doing that this can raise. That's what this assessment, this look-see is for. We are going to make sure that our sergeants and our officers know what's happening on their posts and in their barracks. We will not have it any other way. I think the American people expect it. We will try to do it without a cost to those initiatives. But those initiatives will be among the ones looked at. But the effect, I'm sorry, the effect of those initiatives will be among the ones looked at. Follow-up?
Q: Yes, just a quick follow-up. Were there any other Asian or Hispanic members of the panel and if not, why not?
A: This is the panel. We made no effort to exclude anybody. I kept the number to five so that there would be less opportunity for delaying discussions. I didn't hope to get single members of single mind and it turned out, I didn't get members of a single mind. There was lively discussion. But, we filled the spots we had and there was no efforts to try to get a representation. These just happened to be the folks we turned up. Right here.
Q: Does the numbers of the [inaudible] survey reflect accurately a gender and the racial make-up in the Army? We have here numbers used, male were 83 percent, female 17 percent, and we have white 56 percent, and black 28 percent, Hispanic 11 percent.
A: Well, it's not so bad. What they reflect the make-up of the population sample of the ones we interviewed. But I don't think that's a bad sample for our Army quite frankly. I think we can get a pretty good representation of what the Army thinks. I remind you that just in case we couldn't, we also did the sensing sessions with some all single ethnic groups sessions. All black. All Hispanic. The like. So, I think we tried to account for an opportunity to make sure that we heard it from all points of view. One more because I heard somebody already say Thank you. Q: The North Carolina Chapter of the NAACP has wanted to meet with the commander at Fort Bragg. They had access to several military installations in North Carolina and you met with them. But to date, the commander of Fort Bragg has not met with that group. Will that happen?
A: Yes. It's my fault. They were scheduled to meet yesterday, I believe, and they have put their meeting off until next week because they also when they finish, I think want to talk about how the meeting went. I'd like for them to have the benefit of what we said today. But, they will be meeting. The meeting date has already been set between General Keane and the chapter.
Q: How much impact did that meeting with the NAACP in North Carolina have on your final report?
A: Tremendous. I mean, the fact is that all this input was important to us. An organization like NAACP has been concerned about relationships among people of diverse backgrounds and ethnic groups for a long, long time. Since before I was born. They have great wisdom to bring, great experience, and great knowledge of what goes on in their communities. The one thing I would say, that I would leave with you about this task force effort, is what it says about your Army.
Now, I won't repeat the same line that I gather you're already tired of hearing. But I will say this. You couldn't have a better Army if you dreamed it up. The American people have every right to share the pride and the confidence that I have in that Army. What we know about them is that everyday -- day in and day out -- they stand ready to serve their country, and they do it, and I will now refer to the task force report. They do it fully supportive of America's finest values. The task force reports that those soldiers say there is no place in the American military for extremism and extremists views and activities and organizations just as there is no place in American society for them.
Thank you for listening and thank you for your questions.


text:
Manage your claim online click here
If you are unemployed or work but are on a low income, you may be entitled to housing benefit and/or council tax support.
If you pay rent for your home, whether to the city council, a housing association or to a private landlord, you may be entitled to help with your rent payments through the housing benefit scheme. If you are a tenant of a private landlord, any benefit you are entitled to will be paid to you. If you are a council tenant any benefit is credited directly to your rent account to reduce the amount of rent you need to pay.
Council tax support helps you to pay your council tax if you are on a low income. The application process is very similar to housing benefit (you apply on the same form). If you meet the requirements, the amount of council tax support you are entitled to is deducted from your council tax bill. Further information can be found at here.
Will I qualify for help? Use our online calculator
If you're not sure whether you qualify for housing benefit or council tax support our online calculator will help you. Answer a few simple questions and it will tell you whether you're entitled to benefit and roughly how much you might get. Please click here to view the benefits calculator.
How do I claim?
You can only apply on an application form. You can get a form in the following ways:
- Download a form: To download the form and application notes, please see 'related files' below.
- Request a form by email: send your request to firstname.lastname@example.com
- Visit one of our benefit surgeries - follow this link to find out when / where
Can I get help to fill in my form?
If you have any questions or need help with filling out your form, contact our customer services team on 01782 234234 or call in at one of our offices. Or you could email any questions to us at firstname.lastname@example.com
It is important that you return the form quickly because we normally only pay you from the Monday after your claim is received. Don't hold onto your form just because you don't have all the supporting evidence - you can send this separately at a later date if necessary.
What do I have to provide with my form?
The form will tell you where you need to provide documents in support of your claim. Where documents are needed these must be the originals – we can't accept photocopies. Please don't post valuable documents to us – if you take them to any of our offices we will copy them and return the originals to you straight away. If you are making a new claim for housing and/or council tax support, you will have to provide proof of your identity and that of your partner (if you have a partner). We will need proof of the following items:
- Your income - This is the amount of money you have coming in each week. Certain types of income are totally or partially ignored when working out your income for benefit purposes.
- Your savings - This is the total of your own and any partner's savings and investments. If the total is more than £16,000 you will not be entitled to benefit unless you or your partner receive the Guarantee element of Pension Credits. If the total of your savings is less than £6,000 (£10,000 if you are of pension age), it will not be taken into account when assessing your benefit entitlement. Where savings are between £6,000 (£10,000 if you are of pension age) and £16,000 a level of income is determined based on the actual amount of savings you have. Please note - from 1 April 2013, for council tax support only, if you have savings of more than £10,000 and are not a pensioner, you are not eligible to claim.
- Your household - benefit entitlement can also be reduced by members of your household, such as adult children. This is based on the assumption that people living with you, who are not dependent on you, will be making a contribution to your household expenses.
When will my benefit/support start and end?
Benefit will normally start from the Monday after we receive your claim form. Once you start to receive benefit you must tell us about any change in your circumstances. Your benefit will end if you:
- Move to an address outside the Stoke-on-Trent area
- Do not reply to our enquiries (we will always tell you how long you have to reply)
Can I get my claim backdated?
Normally we start your claim from the Monday after we receive your application form. You can ask for a backdate of benefits if there is a reason why you were unable to apply for your benefit earlier.In order for a backdate of benefit to be allowed you will have to show 'good cause' why you did not apply earlier. There is no formal definition of 'good cause', each case will be decided according to its own individual situation. Some examples of when you may have 'good cause' are:
- If you did not immediately claim benefit after leaving hospital
- If you were ill and had no-one to make a claim on your behalf.
- If you did not understand that you could claim benefit perhaps because of age, inexperience or language difficulties.
- If you have suffered a recent family bereavement.
- The maximum period that a benefit claim can be backdated is either 3 months or 6 months, dependent on whether the benefit claimant is of pension age, from the date we receive the backdate request.
Can I get any extra help?
If your housing benefit doesn't cover all of your rent, you may be entitled to a discretionary housing payment. Discretionary housing payments are paid from a limited fund, and nobody is guaranteed to be entitled - each claimant's circumstances are taken into account when deciding if they are eligible or not. Further information can be found at the Discretionary Housing Payments page (follow the link).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
What travel photography can tell us about our planet
August 4, 2015, 9 a.m. by Catie Leary
Witnessing all the wonders of our world can be a challenge, but thanks to travel photography, we're able to experience the world like never before.
5 historic battles you can witness in the present
August 4, 2015, 8 a.m. by John Donovan
Re-enactors bring the past to life with stirring mock battles.
U.S. aims to win 2016 Patagonian Expedition Race
August 3, 2015, 11:12 a.m. by Michael d'Estries
Spanning 10 days and hundreds of miles, the challenging course takes competitors through the most remote and untouched regions of Chilean Patagonia.
London's flamboyant Olympic tower to get white-knuckle new addition
August 3, 2015, 10:35 a.m. by Matt Hickman
If there ever were a super-tall public sculpture begging for a tunnel slide ....
Photographer captures ethereal connection between humans and nature
August 3, 2015, 9 a.m. by Catie Leary
This unconventional fashion photography melds strikingly beautiful human subjects with surreal natural environments.
Why is laughter contagious?
July 31, 2015, 11:55 a.m. by Laura Moss
There's a good reason the laugh track is still around.
Tired of stretched earlobes? There's a fix for that
July 31, 2015, 10:19 a.m. by Ali Berman
There isn't a fix for your parents telling you 'I told you so,' however.
Who are the women in these vintage negatives?
July 31, 2015, 7:15 a.m. by Catie Leary
After scanning a box of old negatives acquired from a thrift store, photographer Meagan Abell was blown away by what she found.
Why we need to retire the word 'eco-friendly'
July 30, 2015, 4:30 p.m. by Starre Vartan
The scale of the problem is too significant for such a lightweight word.
Paris becomes the city of beaches in August
July 30, 2015, 3:24 p.m. by Josh Lew
These boardwalk-style artificial beaches bring a dose of summer relaxation to the city.
Essay writer won't win this chunk of nature
July 29, 2015, 10:50 p.m. by Michael d'Estries
Owner offered 47 acres of Maine wilderness, but then someone starting asking questions.
'The Walking Dead' beer is staggering our way
July 29, 2015, 3:44 p.m. by Michael d'Estries
Terrapin Brew Co. in Athens, Ga., announces an official Blood Orange Red IPA in honor of the zombie franchise.
16 simple ways to reduce plastic waste
July 29, 2015, 2:37 p.m. by Laura Moss
These easy things can dramatically decrease the amount of plastic trash you make.


text:
As famed sportswriter Thomas Stearns Eliot wrote about this Canucks season, "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper." A little flowery for my tastes, but his words proved prophetic, as the Canucks, facing official elimination from the postseason, wilted against the Ducks.
Facing a rookie goaltender in his first NHL game, the Canucks mustered just 18 shots on net. In the second period, they had just 3 shots. In their five power plays, they got the puck on net just 3 times. They were credited with 10 turnovers and it felt like more, giving up multiple breakaways, including the first shot of the game. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
Know who else whimpered? Me, when I watched this game.
I am totally into tanking to try and get a better pick, but the last 40 min was pathetic. I mean if we are going to be pathetic, rest the half injured veterans and play the kids.
So is Torts gone? Looks like the team wants him gone, but maybe I am just racing between the line juggling.
What? No comments? Officially eliminated from the playoffs and not even a troll to pour some salt on the wound?
It looked like the 'Nucks were intentionally passing to the Ducks – I do not think you can call them turnovers when they are that blatant.
Jensen was about the only reason to watch this game. Hopefully some of the other prospects can quickly adjust to the NHL come October.


text:
Sometimes the best way to really understand something is to teach it. When it comes to jiu-jitsu, breaking a technique down into steps (not too many, not too few) and finding the best way to convey the underlying principles often helps clarify things in your mind. I've been doing a lot of this with the berimbolo sweep recently. … [Read more...]
Single Leg X Guard
Ronda Rousey and the Power of Gameplans
In case you were hiding under a rock, Ronda Rousey fought Liz Carmouche last night at UFC 157. She both validated her UFC Women's Bantamweight title, and made history by being in the first-ever women's match in the the UFC. And just in case you were under that aforementioned rock, despite a very spirited fight by Liz Carmouche, Ronda won the match with an armbar at 4:49 of the first round. … [Read more...]
A Surprising Way to Pull Guard…
Should you pull guard in competition? And if you decide to pull guard, then how do you do it correctly? In a certain sense, I am uniquely unqualified to answer these questions... You see, much of my BJJ comes from 8th degree black belt Marcus Soares, and Marcus is very much from the old-school Carlson Gracie way of doing things. … [Read more...]


text:
April School of Dance's competition company, DDCC, had the honor of performing in the Equimania horse show in Sykesville on Sept. 7. Directed by Pam Buterbaugh, the show encompassed choreography performed by both horse and dancer. DDCC performed in a military tribute to fallen soldier, Chris Louden, while his mother Sue Louden spoke beautifully of her son.
[1] http://www.smdailypress.com/sites/default/files/IMG_8340 COLORclr.jpg


text:
Register now for free, or sign in with any of these services:
Want to set your local edition?
Select an edition for more focused local news coverage when you visit NOLA.com.
Don't worry. You can change this setting at any time to another local edition.
So let him go because of cleats? No one noticed that Payton said, "That's my fault," after he chewed Bell. Him having the wrong shoes falls mostly on the coaching staff and equipment managers. I'm not saying we have to resign him, but the cleat thing is the dumbest reason to let him go. Do it because of production or other issues, not over something that happens every rainy game.
It took 4 hours to get out of the garage at Canal Place from 9pm-1am. There were 2 accidents in there. I was able to take 2 naps. The only damper on my night.
I understand if we dump him. It was nice while it lasted, unless he restructures. The Saints have to do what is best. Losing Grant may be what's best. We need the money. We could find someone with better production. Peppers is out of the question. He cost 16 million this year. Nope. Sounds great everywhere but in the books. I do like Grant. Played hard and is a nice guy. The manslaughter charge is bogus. He got charged for being where someone got shot. No evidence that he or anyone he was with pulled any triggers. Good guy. Hate to see him go, but I understand. Its a business.
Heston played Cat Catlan in Number One(1969). David Allen Grier played Saints QB in some Disney TV movie.
Northshore_dude-Hypothermia can set in from a person being in 50 degree water and kill them in an hour. Any temp below average body temperature can be linked to hypothermia. Being in 40 degree weather with some wind can cause it. Also, this is more of a cautionary thing. Try to have something set up for those who may not easily find shelter. This is no different than having storm warnings. Would you rather some homeless people die when the temp hits 36 and there was no plan in place?People can die from exposure without it being below freezing. Every city needs a freeze plan. If New Orleans doesn't need a freeze plan, Chicago doesn't need a heat plan like they do. You know they open air conditioned buildings for the public to sit in when the temperature gets up there. I find it insensitive of you to think it is not necessary for the city to have a freeze plan in place. If you find yourself homeless one day, I wonder if you'll feel the same way about a freeze plan.
Why is it such a problem to put it on the river, next to the Quarter? The original location for NOCS in in the 9th ward, only moments away from where people work and live. If hazardous materials being near the Quarter is an issue, then let's shut down the river. Hazardous materials pass on the river everyday. I feel the issue is more linked to the "not in my rich, white neighborhood" thing. I hate to sound like that, but this is how I feel. NOCS has been in the 9th ward, moments away from a poorer, black neighborhood for a nice while. Not one of the NOCS detractors cared about safety then. Now that it may end up being near the Quarter, everyone is up in arms. It's fine to have it anywhere but where money lives. Is having a cold storage worse than having several broken down wharves? Years ago they wanted to put the I-10 along the river, running alongside the Quarter. That created a huge stir. I'm not saying it was a great idea, but they fought hard to have it put elsewhere. WHere did it end up, cutting right through another historic, yet black, neighborhood. Usually, race and class are things I bring up last. I don't look to say it's an explanation to why things happen. I just feel that the outrage from the VCC is not genuine to what they are saying bothers them. I would love to see their list of alternative locations. I don't know. I just feel this way. Now, would any of you raise this much fuss if they were going to rebuild it in the same spot?
everyone speaking ill of this man reall needs to be quiet. he did something most players never do, quit the game before his body quits him. ok, so it was a strained calf, maybe he's just too tired of always being injured to continue and take up people's time if he feels his body may not really be up to it. i wish him the best and i hope that his health improves. it hurts the team, but this man is far from a clown. he just thought he was able to get back on the horse, but ultimately, he realized that it's best for everyone to cut ties.
Really, this is what we're arguing about? He's a comedian who is not afraid to question organized religion as it exists. I've listened to him and I don't always agree with him but he does make valid points that ,at times, I can't dispute. Boycotting the man is useless and a waste of time. We should then boycott anyone who says anything that we don't agree with. I've heard worse thing comes from the mouths of the most righteous of people. Instead of criticizing the man and denigrating his audience since you don't agree with him, just say that you are not a fan and that you won't buy a ticket and move on. That's what I do when a comedian I'm not a fan of, for whatever reason, is in town.
Really, this is what we're arguing about? He's a comedian who is not afraid to question organized religion as it exists. I've listened to him and I don't always agree with him but he does make valid points that ,at times, I can't dispute. Boycotting the man is useless and a waste of time. We should then boycott anyone who says anything that we don't agree with. I've heard worse thing comes from the mouths of the most righteous of people. Instead of criticizing the man and denigrating his audience since you don't agree with him, just say that you are not a fan and that you won't buy a ticket and move on. That's what I do when a comedian I'm not a fan of, for whatever reason, is in town.
I don't believe in completely abolishing public housing or certain aspects of the welfare system. I feel that they need to be drastically overhauled.
-Exceptions should be made for elderly and handicapped. Those who can't do for themselves should be helped.
-For those who are able, they HAVE to find meaningful work or work towards getting an education. If someone does not work or go to school, they get cut off. For people who are able, welfare should only be a means to an end. That end should be home owndership and/or self-sufficiency. It should only be a come up because they are struggling now and need a small boost to help get ahead. No one who can do for themselves should be allowed to take from the system for 10 years. NO ONE!!!
-Anyone who is on the system, should be weened off of it as time progresses. If you live in government subsidized housing, for every year you are in, your rent goes up. If you have food stamps, your benefits go down.
-Speaking of food stamps. It should be handled more like WIC. There should be a stringent list of items available through food stamps. People should not be able to eat luxury food items and brand names, when those of us who work buy off brand foods or skip getting some things we want or even need so we don't overextend out wallets. You can't buy Froot Loops with fadd stamps, you have to buy Malt O Meal's Froot Os. Also, there should be an emphasis on getting healthier foods too. You should have to get items that promote better health for the applicant and his/her family. You can buy steak or those Cheetos on your own dime.
-I like the idea about making suspended students do yard and maintainance work. I like the idea of making people who live in the project have some sort of job. You have the option to work in the complex or with the system. The rules about a timtable for living there still apply.
-There should be random checks on tenants to make sure they are within the rules of the system.
-There should be some incentive for couples to stay together. Tax breaks that we know about. The system penalized people so much if they had a live in partner that it drove couples apart so some could get help they needed and it devolved into a cycle of single mothers having fatherless kids.
-The increments in which benefits rise for each additional child should be much smaller. It should run on a descending scale. You shouldn't get the same amount for every child because that breeds young, shiftless mothers of all races who have children while they have a dollar sign in their eyes.
-ONLY in EXTREME circumstance should anyone get any extensions or not get cuts in benefits.
-The purpose of welfare should be to get those who are on it, OFF! Within a certain timeframe everyone should be off of it.
-The system has to be done in a way where it is not appealing to get-overs. It has to be made to where only those who want to meet the standards will even apply. I'm fine with a young couple with 2 kids getting some assistance for a short period of time if they are trying to achieve something greater.
I grew up in a neighborhood where, in my youth, most homes were OWNED and most people worked. It was decent. It was quiet. We could play outside with no worries. As I grew older and some neighbors moved on, the quality of neighbors went down dramatically. More and more section 8 tenants with no ambition swooped into homes owned by uncaring landlords looking only for guaranteed rent money. A new generation of poor, lazy people took over eventually. Drugs came into the picture. Everything deteriorated.
-If the system is done right, as time goes on, less people will be on it. The cost, if any of my crazy ideas were put into place, could be high at first, but as time marches on, less money would be put into it since less people will be on it for less time.
I am a young black man in my 20's with a fiance, 1 son, and another on the way. We WORK to get what we feel we deserve. You earn what you deserve. You're only birthright should be opportunity. We are trying to own a home to raise our family. We don't want handouts. She has a degree and is working on a Master's. More young people should try to do what is needed to succeed. More people should attempt to get educated. The education as it stands should be redone so that every kid gets quality learning. The instillment of values that push hard work and getting rid of the sense of entitlement. Too many kids feel that they should have the world handed to them. Everyone has to make their own way in the world.
The funny thing is that the argument starts with things that people encounter before public assistance. Education and values. If people are given a better education, then they are more likely to thrive.
Just throwing this out there. I'm tired of the racial sentiment that is often echoed in these debates. Black people aren't the only ones who abuse the system. I am all for taking responsibility for your own destiny, but these systems weren't designed to help minorities in the same way as whites and as time went on, they got set up in a way that only hinders those who use it. This should not be a matter of color. It should be a matter of personal responsibility. It should be a matter of pushing for everyone's success. I'm just tired of the vitriol that flies around in regards to race. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to support lazy people too.
I think i'm done. It's early in the morning and I've typed a lot about this. Everyone who actually reads this, I hope you have a nice day.
Seriously, the man hasn't even taken office yet and some of you all are already being this divisive. It doesn't matter if you like him or not. You should hope that he does a good job. If you already feel that his presidency will fail, please feel free to leave the country. No matter who is voted in, as an American you should wish the best instead of downing the man. Let's wait until 2012 or 2016 to judge the job he did.
To fedupperson:
we are in the same boat with that. i'm young and i'm tired of paying for other people's bills and amenities with my tax dollars while they chill on their porch. i have another 30 years of doing this. if my a/c breaks in the summer, i have to wait until next payday to get a new one while our hard earned money pays their entergy bill and keeps them cool in public housing. i am all for assistance to people who are on the come up. i would prefer a single mother of one, who goes to school and works get something, over a mother of 5 who watches maury and court shows all day. our tax dollars enable people like that to have extra money to do whatever they want. hell, my fiance doesn't ask me for money to get her hair done, why in the hell am i indirectly paying for someone else to do so. my sister struggled for several years working 2 jobs to support her son. tried to go back to school, while her ex-husband did diddly poo squat to help. after he left, she continued to work 2 jobs to pay bills, debts, buy her car, put food on the table, involve her son in activities to keep him on the straight and narrow, etc. and would barely have anything left over afterwards. when she applied for food stamps to offset some expenses so everyday wouldn't be such a struggle, she was told that she made too much money, thank you, sorry, bye. so, because you try to do something, you don't need the help according to guidelines, but if you do nothing for yourself, you can have the world on a silver platter. i need to get into politics and reform social aid programs. i would enact all sorts of requirements for work and school to make people have to do something with themselves to even maintain benefits. all the while, as they advance, i would ween them off of those same benefits. the benefits would be a reward towards the goal of not nedding them. but hell, i wouldn't get elected like that. well the moral of the story is, those who do get punished, those who don't get rewarded. it us awful. we pay, they play.
oh, i didn't mean to come across as combative towards you. i apologize fedupperson if i came across like that.
ok. i'll say this. i applied for the disater food stamps. the interesting thing is that i am not a scrub. i do not live off of the government. i'm am neither a leach or a ne'er do well. i am employed, have been since i was about 16. i'm 24 now. i am offended for being generalized as some sort of parasite because i use one service for once in my life, that i will most likely never be able to use again because i actually plan on doing something with myself. i was honest on my application. i applied mostly for my household to be able to restock our home of the food we lost. if there is a problem with wanting to buy food because you lost it, let me know. i'm not using the system. hell, i would prefer my tax dollars go to working people as opposed to it going to those who refuse to pull themselves up. i've been told for a while that i could apply for food stamps because of my situation and i flatly refused. i was certain that someone who may actually need may be turned down because i got it. this is a special situation and it is a one time payment. using aid if offered is not wrong. taking advantage of offered help, in turn, is. i come from a family of hard workers. my mother has worked the past 40 years of her life. my sister has coonsistently held down 2 jobs for years until Katrina, and since has maintained employment. my fiance applied for stamps also. her family lost a fridge full of food. we couldn't take it with us. she does have a son to feed. to conclude, it is dangerous to categorize everyone in those lines as bottomfeeders or whatever other term you may choose. many of them were set back by gustav, why should they not get help for once? i'm sure i won't be able to get it again. this is not the situation where someone forgoes working and making a way for themselves in exchange for handouts their entire life. i'll agree that we should have stocked more nonperishable foods. also, i commend fedupperson for rebuilding from the ground up on their own dime. great for you. we need more people willing to do such things. i guess i typed all of this to say that those who deserve help (people who try to do for themselves first) have a right to accept it. those who do nothing should be allowed to let themselves rot. also, i'm just offended that people feel they are so high that they can judge those who may be able to really use some help. if they got knocked down, what would they do?
on the trash situation:
i wish there were trash cans out, but it was very windy and some cans may have blow over and maybe hurts people in line. that does not make it ok to throw trash about. i held a bottle of water for 45 minutes because i saw no can. i didn't see one until i was about to go inside the convention center. not everyone who may have sat a bottle of water on the ground is a pig. really, how long would you hold trash without a can in site before you say screw it? i'm not saying i condone littering, but situations like that can make you ease your stance for a moment. the guards were handing out water, knowing there were no trash cans. someone had to plan for a mess of bottles. what bothered me more was the trash people brought out there. food and starbucks cups littered the street more than water bottles for much of the journey.
Ok. This is just sad. Very sad. People are opposing the potential rebuilding of homes for people who may truly need the help. Sure, I would love to see this happen all over the area. That would be beautiful. That does not make the Lower 9 less deserving of help. There should only be praise for this project. The arguments people have against this are foolish.
Let's take a look.
Ok, the Lower 9 may be a flood zone, but how much of the city isn't? How much of the area can be destroyed by some disaster? No one remembers the fact that the Lower 9 isn't even that far below sea level anyway. Gentilly and the East are further below sea level than the Lower 9. If we argue that they should not rebuild homes there, than, we should argue that they build no homes anywhere. They build homes in California, which is always at risk for fire, mudslides, earthquakes, even the occasional tropical system. The Midwest has river flooding that wipes out entire towns, tornados, and the potential for catastrophic seismic activity. If a hurricane hit New York, it would be a didaster that could overshadow Katrina. They are extremely vulnerable. Florida, they are about to get hit twice with the same storm and it won't even make the top 10 for tropical weather situations. I can go on.
Sure, the Lower 9 had it's share of violent crime. For some reason, people fail to realize that crime is all over the world. They murder people everywhere. They sell drugs everywhere. The world outside of the Lower 9 is not a Utopian society. Perfect people living perfect lives. They sell drugs in all communities. Don't single out this one area and say the whole place should be punished and become nonexistent.
A lot of the people who lived in the Lower 9 were not just a group of shiftless zombies, begging and waiting for handouts. Around 60% of the homes in the area were owned by working class people. I wish the percetage was higher, but 60% isn't bad. My fiance's mother has lived across the canal for several decades. She worked most of her life. She raised 6 children. Some of those children moved on to become college graduates. There are plenty of people who aren't just no account losers. By the way, there are plenty of no account people in all cities and areas.
All comments against this are awful and stupid. To be against someone having a home is hateful. Whatever reason you may have to say that these homes shouldn't be rebuilt are not valid. This just makes my heart hurt to see such hatred and stupidity. I won't get into why you people may feel so nagative about this, but you must look within yourselves and find the flaw that darkens you so much to where you can't be happy for others fortune.
This is the best superhero movie i have ever seen. Christian Bale, as always, plays the hell out of the role as a tortured soul. Heath Ledger became the greatest villain ever. To see the sheer joy he displayed in seeing the world around him descend into utter chaos makes it worth the price of admission. It's hard to describe. It's just a great movie.
This is the best superhero movie i have ever seen. Christian Bale, as always, plays the hell out of the role as a tortured soul. Heath Ledger became the greatest villain ever. To see the sheer joy he displayed in seeing the world around him descend into utter chaos makes it worth the price of admission. It's hard to describe. It's just a great movie.
I'm not sure what to say here. I don't agree for charging personal meals to a city credit card. I think it is ridiculous, unless it can be proven that it was for purposes that aid the city ultimately. If i was mayor, I wouldn't have charged any private meals to my people. On the other hand, it's not illegal if there no ordinance or law against it. Not right, but not illegal. Also, I'm sure that there is some animus towards Nagin. This ill will is not always warranted. There are worse people that could be our mayor. Is there any guarantee that Landrieu would have done a great job? No. I would take C. Ray over "Mo Money" Morial. Of course Nagin can be better, but he could be far worse This is a story of interest, but it also is evidence of the witch hunt again him. If something goes right, you don't hear about it. If some homes get built, it does not make the paper. If something to show progress occurs, it'll get a small article below the fold. If something remotely questionable or kind of barely negative, it gets a huge headline and is driven into the ground by TP and the local stations. I remember last year I was a small section at the bottom of the page that detailed progress in recovery. If someone built a few houses it showed in that part. The problem was that the section was barely bigger than the box detailing United Way donations. To support recovery, you must trumpet recovery. We're in a situation where we need to do what we can to help ourselves and our city. This one man is not the one who can make or break everything. And us focusing on his flaws, foibles, or missteps will do nothing. If a company doesn't set up shop down here and blame it on him, the company didn't plan on coming here. If someone moves away or decides to not move down here and say it was because of him, they were weak and needed an excuse. Our recovery is bigger than him, me, you, or any individual. Our recovery is about all of us, out history, our love for our city and one another It's about being at HOME. I'll admit, I'm pro-Ray, but i don;t drink anyone's Kool-Aid. If he does something stupid, i'll call it as it is. And I feel he is at times treated unfairly. And i feel he is the focus entirely too much. The focus should be making this city better. If you don;t like Nagin, fine. No skin off of my back. But don;t let your contempt for him ruin you or the city. In time he'll be gone. Find consolation in that. To close, this story is overblown, our city suffers as a result. We need love and support for each other, not exposes that you'll forget next week. We need to push for what is right, not hatemongering journalism. Do your part and in time we'll be fine. He didn't do anything that most politicians haven't done. Even ones you may staunchly support. Ok. I'm tired of typing. Love, Peace, Rebuild New Orleans.
I live in this neighborhood. Grew up here, everything. It used to be a decent neighborhood when i was younger. everyone owned their homes, and we used to play outside all the time. things changed completely. old neighbors moved away. a new element started coming in. now my area is depressing. but, what some people do, who may never had been in an area like this, who never watched their neighborhood fall completely into chaos, is throw blame on the easiest targets. i an't blame the mayor, or the police. the problems are far deeper than that. problems that took generations to build. problems that may take generations to stop. issues exist that no one mayor or police chief or governor can end. an education system that passed on failing students. a system where the board lined their pockets while some school barely had books. people grew up under a welfare system that discouraged the family setup. a system that allows people to live off of the tax dollars of those who work, creating a group that feels there best manner of support is to have babies and get checks. why get an education or a job when i can get knocked up and let the government take care of us? why be a father to these kids when i can just get some and let the government take care of them? this system led to fatherless children and shiftless mothers. that leads to wayward children who know no way other than the way of the streets. this is what we live in. a discouraging world. a world where i've worked for the past 8 years, i'm in my early 20s, and still don't have too much to show for it material wise, but the dude down the street has never had a real job but has a nice car on rims.this is where we've gone. and guess what, shouting about nagin, riley, cameras, race,etc. won't do much. those aren't the things to yell about. the total degeneration of our society in general is what we should be shouting about. if we lived in an america where an honest day's work got an honest day's pay, if we truly showed that there is always hope, if we pushed for hard work and dedication, if we educated ourselves and each other, then we wouldn't have to worry about mayors, police and crime cameras.it took years to get here, it'll take years to get where we need to be. if landrieu was mayor, i doubt there would be much difference. if pennington was still chief, this would still be going on. things will change with TIME and effort. time and effort from the bottom up. no bitching, no moaning, just work and patience. and the work has to be done from all places. from us, up to the president. no one thing or person is the cause. sorry for rambling, but this is serious and i come here and read people throw blame all over. what will that do? i don't know. it's just sad. and it's happening all over the world. i just hope and pray that things get better like i know they can.
this is an unfortunate situation. charles grant, as well as a couple of other people, are being charged with manslaughter for fighting. there is no indication that grant started the fight. i haven't even heard that he was an active participant in the fight. he was just there and was too a victim. i hope this blows over. i feel all sorts of sympathy for the woman's family. her parents lost a child and grandchild in one moment. and the person who fired that shot will pay the price. but does the d.a. have to put others through hell with little cause beause someone else's heinous actions. for everyone, i hope this ends better than it began. but arresting charles grant makes it look a little like a witch hunt. he's actually a decent guy. i've met him a couple of times. he comes across as well mannered and pretty cool. but the moral of the story is, i hope justice is served to those who deserve the dish
we could go so many ways. talib is on the board for testing positive for marijuana atleast twice, i believe. i would like to see jenkins fall to us. good size and speed with ball skills. but i would like to see us trade for lito sheppard. a young but veteran corner who can be a ball hawk. just some durability issues


text:
Mulled wine
Unfortunately, articles may be changed or removed from the site due to circumstances beyond our control. We apologise for the inconvenience.
Sweets and treats
Heinz® Beanz Creationz™
Brought to you by Coles
Brought to you by Vaalia.
Simple recipes and quick tips
Melt into the gooey choc-fudge and caramel layers of our latest show-stopping cake creation.
After you boil the potatoes, this Potato and Broccoli Hash is all cooked in one pan for an easy midweek meal.


text:
Faculty Show Opens at the Pomona College Museum of Art
Pomona College's faculty artists will exhibit their work at the Pomona College Museum of Art in Claremont from September 2 through October 19, 2008. An opening reception will be held at the Museum on Saturday, September 6 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. Studio artists Sheila Pinkel, Mercedes Teixido, Mark Allen and Sandeep Mukherjee will lead a tour of their collective exhibition at the Museum on Wednesday September 17, 4:15-5:30 p.m.
The exhibition will feature new works in a variety of media and techniques, including drawing, painting, photography, and installation, offering a glimpse into the diverse research and individual creativity of the Pomona College art faculty, and insight into how the work they do in their own studios shapes their classroom teaching.
"The faculty exhibition is a great opportunity for the college community and our broader audience to see the vitality of our art faculty's practice," stated Kathleen Stewart Howe, director of the Pomona College Museum of Art. "The research work of faculty members in the visual arts is encountered in the exhibition spaces of museums and galleries, in much the same way that the scholarly research of faculty in music and theatre manifests itself in performance spaces. We are delighted to offer our audience this opportunity to encounter recent work, the fruits of their ongoing creative research as artists."
The Pomona College Museum of Art is located at 330 N. College Avenue, Claremont. The Museum is open to the public free of charge Tuesday through Friday, from noon to 5 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 1 to 5 p.m. For more information, call (909) 621-8283 or visit the museum's website at www.pomona.edu/museum.
The Pomona College Museum of Art collects, preserves, exhibits and interprets works of art. The Museum houses a substantial permanent collection as well as serving as a gallery for the display of temporary exhibitions. Important holdings include the Kress Collection of 15th- and 16th-century Italian panel paintings; more than 5,000 examples of Pre-Columbian to 20th-century American Indian art and artifacts, including basketry, ceramics, and beadwork; and a large collection of American and European prints, drawings, and photographs, including works by Francisco de Goya, José Clemente Orozco, and Rico Lebrun.


text:
MSNBC has released the results from a comparison test of a handful of upcoming and current 4G Android smartphones. Based strictly on speed alone, the Samsung Galaxy S 4G emerged as the winner with an average peak download speed of 7.81Mbps. AT&T's HTC Inspire 4G came in last, but the EVO Shift 4G made a valiant effort to claim the bottom spot.
You will notice no Verizon 4G phone makes the comparison. Once you throw LTE into the mix, we get the feeling the scales may tip in that direction. While this bodes well for the Galaxy S 4G, head over to our in-depth look at the current state of 4G Android phones to see where we rank it.
[via Electronista]
Continue reading:
- Apple files to have 8 Samsung phones banned i
- Update incoming for AT&T's HTC Ins
- AT&T begins HTC One XL employee training
- HTC Evo Shift 4G and White EVO 3D Set to Hit
TAGS: HTC EVO Shift 4G , HTC Inspire 4G , Samsung Galaxy S 4G