"I have never yet found a contractor who, if not watched, would not leave the Government holding the bag,” said Harry S. Truman, 56, the junior senator from Missouri and a member of the Military Affairs Committee and the Military Subcommittee on Appropriations.

The Truman Committee, formally known as the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, was a United States Congressional investigative body headed by Senator Harry S. Truman.[1] The bipartisan special committee was formed in March 1941 to find and correct problems in US war production—problems with waste, inefficiency and war profiteering. The Truman Committee proved to be one of the most successful investigative efforts ever mounted by the US government: an initial budget of $15,000 was expanded over three years to $360,000 to save an estimated $10–15 billion in military spending, and thousands of lives of US servicemen.[2][3][4] For comparison, the entire cost of the Manhattan Project was $2 billion, at the time

...

Truman heard about needless waste and profiteering from construction of Fort Leonard Wood in his home state of Missouri, and he determined to see for himself what was going on. He traveled in his personal Dodge car not only to Missouri but to various military installations from Florida through the Midwest; approximately 10,000 miles (16,000 km) of driving. Everywhere he went he saw hard-luck poverty among the working people contrasted with millions of government dollars going to military contractors. Too many of the contractors were reaping excess profits from cost-plus contracts, without being held accountable for the poor quality of goods delivered. He saw that too many contracts were held by a small number of contractors based in the East rather than distributed fairly around the nation.

...

In May 1942 the committee was reorganized. "Contracts Under" was dropped from the name to make it the "Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program". Democratic Senator Clyde L. Herring joined the effort.[16] The Committee generally followed a pattern of sifting through the great quantity of received mail and other messages from whistleblowers to determine the largest problems facing the US military war effort. Investigators were sent to confirm that a real problem existed, then, at one of the Truman Committee's official fortnightly meetings, one of the senators was offered the task of heading a formal investigation of that problem. Sometimes several senators joined forces to cover the most complex issues. Senator/investigator teams would travel to various US cities to visit factories, construction sites, military bases and war production plants where they would talk with managers and workers.[33] A report would be prepared, and an early copy of the report would be sent to the leaders who were discussed in the report, so that they would have a chance to prepare themselves for the consequences.[34] The reputation of the Truman Committee grew so strong that fear of an investigation was sometimes enough of a deterrent to stop underhanded dealings. An unknown number of people performed more honestly in war production because of the threat of a Truman visit.

...



In March 1943 at the second birthday of the Truman Committee, Time magazine put "Investigator Truman" on the cover, showing Truman's craggy face squinting in the mid-day sun, in the background a spotlight shining on government and industry. The issue carried an associated article titled "Billion-Dollar Watchdog", describing the Committee "as one of the most useful Government agencies of World War II" and "the closest thing yet to a domestic high command."[36] The article raised Truman's importance in the eye of the man on the street, cementing his well-earned position as one of America's most responsible leaders.[37]

...

The largely apolitical Truman Committee is also known for setting a high standard of practicality and neutrality in congressional investigative committees. Observers have occasionally compared the situation faced by the Truman Committee in the early 1940s with later political and military issues. In January 2005 in the face of an additional $80–100 billion requested by President George W. Bush to increase the Iraq War, columnist Arianna Huffington recommended that the resolution sponsored by Senators Larry Craig and Dick Durbin be passed to create a bipartisan oversight committee "modeled on the one Harry Truman created during WW II to root out war profiteering."[44][47] The next month, Huffington said "it's a good time to open a history book" to learn about how a Truman-style committee might be used to counter the Iraq War's US-based problems with "waste, fraud, ineptitude, cronyism, secret no-bid contracts, and profiteering cloaked in patriotism."[48] Huffington's endorsement came three months after a press release by Taxpayers for Common Sense titled "Bring Back the Truman Committee" in which Truman's record of stopping war profiteering in the 1940s was said to be "the most famous and the most successful" example, a model needed as a corrective measure to stem US military contractor improprieties in the War on Terror.[49] The problem was still not solved by 2007 when Senator Charles Schumer wrote, "The lesson of the Truman Committee is sorely in need of learning today".[44] He described how Republican Representatives blocked "for more than a year" a bipartisan proposal for an investigative committee to look into military "scandals and abuses" in Iraq.[44] When Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri – who held the same Senate seat as Truman did – formed a Truman-type committee in January 2008, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush said it was "a threat to national security."[44]

Women At Merrill Lynch Were Instructed To Seduce Their Way To The Top, Lawsuit Alleges

New details have emerged from a bias lawsuit filed by three former employees of Merrill Lynch against the company, which alleges that during training they were instructed to read a book called “Seducing the Boys Club: Uncensored Tactics From a Woman at the Top” and emulate its advice.

The tips in the book, published by New York Magazine’s The Cut, are truly shocking. “I play on [men’s] masculine pride and natural instincts to protect the weaker sex,” says a section of the book advising women on how to get men to do their work. “Unless he is morbidly obese, there is no man on earth who won’t puff up at this sentence: Wow, you look great. Been working out?” suggests a portion on diffusing tense situations.

...

These demeaning and rather tragic pieces of advice might well be a reality for many women on male-dominated Wall Street. It’s a known Boys’ Club, and Wall Streeters have a track record of using women as scapegoats, instead of treating them as equals. Women are vastly underrepresented in the finance industry — much more so than in other areas — and hold only 8.6 percent of executive officer jobs. Women also earn less than men in finance; the top six jobs with the biggest pay gaps are financial.

Hello County Chairs,

My name is Rev. John Stanley and I am a point person for the Bernie Sanders campaign. I am the main facilitator for Organizing Wisconsin For Bernie Sanders and I am looking for county contacts to fill in my 72 county strategy. I have either spoken with you or hope to speak with you. My hope is that you can send people who are looking to organize for Bernie Sanders to me, so that we are able to network together.

I am not asking you for an endorsement, and I appreciate the neutrality with which you treat the primary election, but if you know of a person or a group of people who are interested in Bernie Sanders, it is my hope that you will direct them to me.

My Email is Wisconsinfeelsthebern@gmail.com and my phone number is 1-(608)-444-8739 I also have a Facebook Page ORGANIZING WISCONSIN FOR BERNIE SANDERS. Please share my information with those who are interested in organizing for Bernie Sanders.

For those who are interested, please join us December 6th at our Berniecon (Bernie Sanders State Convention) at the Dreyfus building on the Stevens point campus in the Alumni room. 10 A.M. – 6:00 P.m.

Thank you for your time, efforts!

Hello County Chairs,

My name is Rev. John Stanley and I am a point person for the Bernie Sanders campaign. I am the main facilitator for Organizing Wisconsin For Bernie Sanders and I am looking for county contacts to fill in my 72 county strategy. I have either spoken with you or hope to speak with you. My hope is that you can send people who are looking to organize for Bernie Sanders to me, so that we are able to network together.

I am not asking you for an endorsement, and I appreciate the neutrality with which you treat the primary election, but if you know of a person or a group of people who are interested in Bernie Sanders, it is my hope that you will direct them to me.

My Email is Wisconsinfeelsthebern@gmail.com and my phone number is 1-(608)-444-8739 I also have a Facebook Page ORGANIZING WISCONSIN FOR BERNIE SANDERS. Please share my information with those who are interested in organizing for Bernie Sanders.

For those who are interested, please join us December 6th at our Berniecon (Bernie Sanders State Convention) at the Dreyfus building on the Stevens point campus in the Alumni room. 10 A.M. – 6:00 P.m.

Thank you for your time, efforts!

http://www.bluejeannation.com/democrats-remain-behind-the-eight-ball/

So far, the Democrats seem content to be the slightly less objectionable alternative. Their strategy largely consists of handing the Republicans plenty of rope and hoping they hang themselves. There are a lot of reasons why that is a questionable strategy. There is one reason in particular why it is actually a recipe for Republicans winning in spite of themselves. Democrats have lost their mojo in rural areas. They used to know how to appeal to rural voters but evidently have forgotten.

...
When the Democrats were at the zenith of their power, they were unapologetic economic populists, starting with FDR’s New Deal for the Depression-ravaged masses in the 1930s and continuing right through the 1960s with LBJ’s War on Poverty and Great Society programs. Shortly thereafter, it started to become fashionable for Democrats to describe themselves as socially liberal but economically and fiscally conservative. In practical terms, that meant being for such things as abortion rights, gay rights, gun control and legalization of marijuana while becoming increasingly friendly to Wall Street and royals of global industry. The party has been in decline ever since.

One important reason for the steady erosion of the Democrats’ fortunes is that being socially liberal but economically elitist is exactly the opposite of what most rural people are. They are more socially conservative than your average Democrat, but are feeling vulnerable and exploited and taken advantage of economically.

It is definitely conceivable the Democrats could remain socially progressive and win over enough rural voters to win back statehouses and gain firm control over Congress, but only if they combine lifestyle liberalism with very assertive economic populism. It is not remotely possible to be socially liberal and economically elitist — as they are now — and make any meaningful political inroads in rural areas. Not even if Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot.

“If we are serious about ending waste, fraud, abuse and excessive spending, we have got to focus on all agencies – including the Department of Defense. This bloated Pentagon budget continues to pour money into outdated weapons systems that don’t function properly. The Department of Defense is the only federal agency that cannot pass a clean audit. Many of its major acquisition programs suffer from chronic cost overruns. Virtually every defense contractor has been found guilty or has reached a settlement with the government because of fraudulent and illegal activities. This has got to change.”

The late, great Howard Zinn, a World War II vet who was a columnist for The Progressive, wrote about Veterans Day, “I do not want the recognition of my service to be used as a glorification of war.” He decried the fact that Veterans Day, “instead of an occasion for denouncing war, has been turned into an occasion for bringing out the flags, the uniforms, the martial music, the patriotic speeches reeking with hypocrisy.”

...

In his book about the history of the Iraq War, Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq, British journalist Nicolas Davies reviews the sordid history of U.S. involvement in Iraq, starting with the lies that got us there. American politicians, the media, and the public have developed a protective amnesia that helps us forget just how outrageous some of our government’s actions are. You may remember that our government spent a lot of time both confirming and denying that the Iraq War had anything to do with oil. Alan Greenspan called the Iraq War “essential” to secure world oil supplies, adding in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq War is largely about oil.”

...

“When then-U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support for the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security,” Sirota writes. “But less than a decade later . . . Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.”

...

The International Red Cross did a survey in seventeen countries on “the limits of what’s permissible in war.” The People on War Report found that Americans are much more accepting of attacks on civilians—at a rate of 42 percent, twice as high as other U.N. member nations. And Americans are more likely to believe that the Geneva Conventions have “no real relevance.” The reasons for this, Davies suggests, include our isolation from the realities of war, deliberately distorted media coverage and lack of education on war, and the corrosive effects of widespread covert action by our government. The rules just don’t seem to apply to us.