Jump to content

Usa Thread


Recommended Posts

I need a job where I get rewarded to fuck up!!!


How 11 Corporate Titans Profited After Failure




How 11 Corporate Titans Profited After Failure







Rick Newman, On Wednesday June 29, 2011, 3:24 pm EDT


In this economy, there aren't too many second chances. But if you're a corporate titan, fortune may smile on you more than once, even if you damage your firm or even imperil its existence.


The last several years have been tumultuous in corporate America, as a financial crisis rippled through the economy and other disasters brought shame upon once-admired firms. The recession that coincided with the financial crisis has cost the U.S. economy about seven million jobs and left the whole nation slogging through a weak, unconvincing recovery. Yet a number of disgraced CEOs and other grounded high-flyers have fared surprisingly well, either landing plum jobs with new employers or securing golden parachutes that guarantee a luxurious retirement--or both. That's not always the case. In his 2004 book Why Smart Executives Fail, Dartmouth professor Sydney Finkelstein found that of 51 "failed" CEOs, only two ever got hired again by an existing firm. The rest started their own firms, became consultants, or slunk into retirement. Today, by contrast, companies seem more willing to hire executives with black marks on their resumes...


Martin Sullivan, former CEO of AIG...Where he is now: British insurance firm Willis Group named Sullivan its deputy chairman last year and put him in charge of a new global-services division. Research site Footnoted.com reports that Sullivan will earn a base salary of $750,000 and be eligible for a 2011 bonus of more than $1 million. If he stays for three years, he'll also be able to cash in company stock worth at least another $4 million...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


AFRICOM: AF, Navy still flying Libya missions




[color:red]Air Force and Navy aircraft are still flying hundreds of strike missions over Libya despite the Obama administration’s claim that American forces are playing only a limited support role in the NATO operation.[/color]


[color:red]An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.[/color]


“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [iSR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,†AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.â€


A White House report on Libya sent to Congress on June 15 says that “American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets.†The report also says the U.S. provides an “alert strike package.â€


Dalrymple named the Air Force’s F-16CJ and Navy’s EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as the primary platforms that have been suppressing enemy air defenses.


However, those F-16s are not solely drawn from units based in Spangdahlem, Germany, or Aviano, Italy. The service has reportedly deployed U.S.-based units to Europe to conduct these operations.


Earlier this month, Malta Today reported that two F-16s from the 77th Fighter Squadron, 20th Fighter Wing, made emergency landings on the island. The 20th Fighter Wing is based at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.


The AFRICOM spokeswoman did not address why U.S.-based units were deployed for the mission.


The Navy’s Growlers are based at Whidbey Island, Wash.


However, those may not be the only strike aircraft flying over Libya. Last week, Air Force F-15E crews attending the Paris Air Show, along with their public affairs officer, said they could not talk about their activities in Libya during Odyssey Dawn because they are not able to comment on “current operations.â€


AFRICOM couldn’t immediately say when the last U.S. strike sortie over Libya was flown.


The fact that the U.S. is conducting strike missions over Libya should not come as a surprise, said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the service’s former intelligence chief.


“It’s no surprise to me that we’ve been participating, because we’re a member of NATO,†Deptula said.


What is different now, he said, is that sorties are planned differently under NATO control. Deptula said it is not particularly surprising that additional units would be brought in to support those operations.


The revelation comes as a debate rages in Washington over the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which calls for the president to ask Congress for permission to deploy American forces into combat longer than 60 days. If the Congress does not grant that permission within that span, U.S. forces must be withdrawn within 30 days.


“It’s not necessarily a violation of the War Powers Resolution,†said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, now associate director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, and visiting professor of the practice at Duke University School of Law. “[but] it does raise questions about the scope and intensity of our participation versus how it’s been represented.â€


[color:red]Others disagreed. The president is in clear violation of the War Powers Resolution, said Robert Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia. Under the legal definition of hostilities, even providing logistical support or intelligence data qualifies as such, he said, never mind firing missiles from Predator UAVs or F-16 fighters.[/color]


However, the resolution itself is unconstitutional because treaties are effectively part of the Constitution the way the framers wrote the document, he said.


“Legally, this is his discretion, but he is in clear violation of the statute,†Turner said. “The reason he’s not bound by that is because the statute is clearly unconstitutional.â€


Dunlap said he is less sure. “It does raise that specter [of violating the Constitution], but in any event, it doesn’t seem to track with what we’ve been told about the relatively benign participation of U.S. forces,†he said.


The Obama administration has said that the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the Libya operation because the U.S. role is limited.


The White House declined to comment on how 801 strike sorties constitutes “limited†involvement, but Harold Koh, a State Department legal adviser, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that “when U.S forces engage in a limited military mission, that involves limited exposure for U.S. troops, and limited risk of serious escalation, and employs limited military means, we are not in the kind of hostilities of the kind envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.â€


He said there have been “no active exchanges of fire with hostile forces†despite AFRICOM’s statement that weapons had been dropped during 132 sorties.


Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle vehemently disagree with the White House’s contention.


Most air assets involved in the campaign are reconnaissance aircraft, including the U-2 high-altitude spy plane, E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System ground surveillance aircraft and the Navy’s P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The U.S. provides nearly 70 percent of the NATO operation’s ISR capacity, according to the White House report.


Additionally, the Air Force is still providing EC-130J aircraft to the operation to conduct psychological warfare operations by broadcasting coercive messages.


The remaining aircraft operating in the theater are aerial refueling tankers, including KC-10s and KC-135s. The U.S. also provides the majority of the alliance’s tanker capability.




Air Farce Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Official Calls For Riverside, 12 Other Counties To Secede From California




RIVERSIDE (CBS) — Is the state of California about to go “South�


Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone apparently thinks so, after proposing that the county lead a campaign for as many as 13 Southern California counties to secede from the state.


Stone said in a statement late Thursday that Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties should form the new state of South California.


The creation of the new state would allow officials to focus on securing borders, balancing budgets, improving schools and creating a vibrant economy, he said.


[color:red]“Our taxes are too high, our schools don’t educate our children well enough, unions and other special interests have more clout in the Legislature than the general public,†Stone said in his statement.


He unveiled his proposal on the day Gov. Jerry Brown signed budget legislation that will divert about $14 million in 2011-12 vehicle license fee revenue from four new Riverside County cities.[/color]








Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ever since the 1850s Southern California has wanted to divide the state. Northern California long dominated and the south was largely ignored. During the War Between the States there was a strong Confederate sympathy in Southern Cal, just as there was in Arizona - and both because they felt neglected and ignored by their governments. If they joined the Confederacy, they would make up its west coast and become very important.


If I remember my Calif history, it came very close to happening one time in the 19th century. The plans back then were to divide the state around San Luis Obispo. Nowadays I think Northern Cal would like to get rid of everything south of Santa Barbara! Let the Mexicans have it. :D



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things. Its quite noticable that Los Angeles county is not part of it. Second, any new state would be latino dominated. If not now, in the future. Even if you can successfully close the border, I would be surprised if latinos do not have a higher birthrate than the rest of the other ethnicities in that county. Even higher than blacks. Plus, those counties don't have a high black population compared to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Alameda counties.


It won't happen. There are areas within cities that have tried as well. Staten Island in NY. Northeast Philadelphia (proposed name Liberty County), and the San Fernando valley (which came eerily close several years ago).


California is arguably the most important state. My guess is the feds won't be for it. The economy as a whole is too important for one. Also, what happens to the water rights and such. The cost of a new state in today's economy is astronomical in start up costs. I just don't see it happening. Easier for cities to divide than states. Lastly, its impact on national elections and Congress. Nah, its too big and messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...