Question of the Day – Does (it) matter ?

cousin it 2Gomez and Morticia - graphic 2a

According to Webster: “it,” (in order) 1. Used to refer to that one previously mentioned.

universe 2

2. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; or an abstraction.

snowing 1

3. Used as the subject of an impersonal verb: It is snowing.

scoreboard 1

4. Used as an anticipatory subject or object: Is it certain that they will win? 

it's good to be me

5. Informal. Used to refer to something that is the best, the most desirable, or without equal: He thinks he’s it.

playing tag 3yer it - Graphic 1a

Games. A player, as in tag, who attempts to find or catch the other players.

Question: Have I answered your question? 

Of course not, because as unlikely as it might seem, a word like (it), and/or, (is), ..isn’t that simple!

As a fair example: As our renowned 42nd president, and/or, William Jefferson Clinton brought to the world’s attention with his now famous; …

definition of is 1a

Then of course, we have our totally undefinable word… 

they 1

..which Webster makes an attempt at with the “inadequacy” above.

Question: How can anyone anywhere believe anything?

Instead of cutting to the chase today, why don’t we just cut to the bottom line.

There isn’t anyone in your life that hasn’t misled and lied to you since the day you were born. Everything you know, and or everything you believe you know is a façade of the truth.

According to Webster: “fa·çade,” (in context) An artificial or deceptive front: ideological.

Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, independent, libertarian, what do any of those words mean?

They mean what “we” (as individuals) want them to mean. Myself as a fair example; I attest to being a conservative in defense of being a Republican… 

Republican elephant - graphic 1a

According to Webster: “re·pub·li·can,” Being in favor of a republic as the best form of government.

Which of course, (within my understanding), describes what I believe, and/or, what I was taught to believe.

Question: Do I think of myself as an elephant wrapped in the flag?

absolutely not 2a

Whereas, (at least in my opinion), a liberal minded individual believes that everyone should share equally in everything.

While a socialistic or communist minded individual would believe that he or she was (divined) to be his or her brothers and sisters keepers.

actual or real 1a

Beginning with the most obvious, the ground, and/or, earth we walk on is actual and real, as well as the air we breathe is actual and real. However, beyond the ground we walk on and the air we breathe, which “unquestionably” ..has been (suspect for many decades now), can anyone be sure that anything is actual or real?

As I have stated many times over the course of the last 2 ½ plus years that I’ve been sharing my views, I have explicated my fondness for words, with my favorite words unequivocally being descriptive words.

Words like pollution;

According to Webster: “pol·lu·tion,” The contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances. 

despicable them 1a

(Hugh Grant                              Felonious Gru).

Question: Why would any decent person with an ounce of compassion for his fellow man, create and manufacture a harmful substance?

Question: Who is Hugh Grant?

Hugh Grant is the Chief Executive Officer of the “Monsanto Corporation.” Monsanto is the creator of dioxin, a wonderful product and a great agent, …

orange soda 1

..if your favorite color is orange and you’re not opposed to children with their arms and legs assembled incorrectly.

Question: Who is Felonious Gru?

Steve Carell 1a

Felonious Gru is the “Despicable Me” animation that paid off Steve Carell’s mortgage.

Question: How many of you believe that suicide, homicide or genocide is a tenet of human nature?

If not for yourself and your family, get involved for the rest of us, especially for the men and women who have volunteered to risk their lives and limbs for your security.

Going forward, please read carefully and understand.

“Beyond Arbitrary and Capricious…

life is good - poster 1abc

Latest news from the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veteran’s Association…

(LITTLETON, CO) – For the fourth time in just over four years, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has taken a position contrary to current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA or VA) policy regarding the exposure of Blue Water Navy personnel to Agent Orange/Dioxin (AO/D) during their service in the Vietnam War.

The DVA continues to claim that these offshore Navy and Marine personnel were not exposed to Agent Orange during their active military service. The IOM continues to undermine that position by showing that all veterans of that War had nearly equal probability of exposure to the herbicide.

The DVA persists in its irrational and scientifically groundless position of withholding health care and compensation from Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans who are sick and dying of the exact diseases that other military veterans of that War receive care for on a routine basis.

This article reviews those reports in chronological order and shows the consistency of the IOM’s conclusions and, consequently, the absurdity of the DVA’s position.


The IOM’s “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update: 2008” (released July 24, 2009: …

“…members of the Blue Water Navy should not be excluded from the set of Vietnam-era veterans with presumed herbicide exposure.”

The Update: 2008 is also the IOM’s first serious examination of an Australian report on ship-board water distillation from a 2002 Queensland, Australia Study titled “Examination of the Potential Exposure of Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Personnel to Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans via Drinking Water.”

This concept of contaminated water aboard both American and Australian naval vessels now plays an important part in the assumptions regarding plausible pathways for AO/D contamination of the offshore Blue Water Navy personnel of both countries.


In October, 2009, the DVA tasked the IOM with an 18-month study to determine whether the Vietnam veterans in the Blue Water Navy experienced exposures to herbicides and their contaminants comparable with those of the Brown Water Navy Vietnam veterans and those on the ground in Vietnam.

By its very wording, this started off as a “comparative” study, a concept that fundamentally violates the concept of presumptive exposure.

However, as it turned out, the conclusions of the IOM Report Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure, released in May, 2011 were a further set-back to the DVA’s position.

That report concluded: …

There isn’t enough data to make any statement regarding ‘quantitative’ exposure amounts for not only the offshore Blue Water Navy, but for the troops with ‘boots-on-ground’ and those who patrolled the rivers and inland waterways (the ‘brown water’) of Vietnam; and “”

There can be no statement of certainty that any group of Vietnam veterans had even experienced ‘qualitatively’ different exposures to herbicides.

Of course, this information was already known and was the basis for using ‘presumptive exposure’ when the 1991 Agent Orange Act was written.

Because no measurement data existed from the time of the Vietnam War, all statements attempting to address such measurements will always be only pure speculation.

We know that the entire environment of South   Vietnam was contaminated with AO/D, but we don’t know how much AO/D was released in any specific area and we don’t know how much AO/D contaminated any individual or group.


The IOM’s “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2010” (released in 2011, shortly after the release of the 2011 IOM Blue Water Navy and Agent Orange Report) reiterated that “the NAS [National Academy of Science] convened the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure Committee to address that specific issue; …

..its recently released report (IOM, 2011) found that information to determine the extent of exposure experienced by Blue Water Navy personnel was inadequate, but that there were possible routes of exposure.”

This report reprinted statistical tables from the results of the 1990 CDC Selected Cancers Study which indicate that Blue Water Navy personnel had the highest risk level for certain Agent Orange-related cancers.

It goes on to say that “US Navy riverine units are known to have used herbicides while patrolling inland waterways (IOM, 1994; Zumwalt, 1993), …

..and it is generally acknowledged that estuarine waters became contaminated with herbicides and dioxin as a result of shoreline spraying and runoff from spraying on land.

Thus, military personnel who did not serve on land were among those exposed to the chemicals during the Vietnam conflict.


In their bi-annual report released December 3, 2013, the IOM repeats and refers back to the findings of the three previous key reports that indicate: …

The individuals who served offshore Vietnam should not be exempted from receipt of VA benefits for Agent Orange-related disabilities, as there is no medical or scientific evidence to deny those veterans the benefits that other service members from the Vietnam War receive on a regular basis; …

There were several viable pathways for exposure of the crews on the ships of the Seventh Fleet who served offshore Vietnam; …

There is no evidence that Agent Orange/Dioxin did not poison the veterans in question and there is overwhelming evidence indicating a high probability that it did; …

No single group of veterans that served anywhere in Southeast Asia should be removed from the benefits for presumptive exposure to the deadly herbicides used in the broader geographical area throughout the Vietnam War.

In the December 2013 release of “Veterans and Agent Orange: …

Update: 2012,”, the IOM once again reminded the DVA that no evidence exists for reliably segmenting Vietnam veterans by location if intending to address exposure to the carcinogenic element (TCDD) found in the herbicides used throughout Southeast Asia.

They also stated that even though reliable scientific measurements do not exist to quantify the exact amounts of any TCDD exposure for any Vietnam veteran, there were possible and plausible routes for exposure of Blue Water Navy personnel.

Deceptions of Deep Concern…

One of the more disturbing things about this issue is the stream of misinterpretations and deceptive statements the DVA has given in its reports to Congress and the American people.

They have gone out of their way to release so many manipulated interpretations of the IOM reports that one veteran’s advocacy group, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association (BWNVVA), has been calling for a Congressionally-based public censure of the agency for nearly a year.

By law, through the Agent Orange Act of 1991, the DVA was required to assume that anyone within the Vietnam Theater of Combat who shows symptoms of diseases related to Agent Orange/Dioxin was exposed to herbicide and was to receive medical and financial veteran benefits administered by the DVA. The VA complied with that legislation until 2002, when they changed their internal regulations to eliminate eligibility for anyone who did not have their “boots on the ground” within the borders of Vietnam or on its nearby islands off the eastern and western coast of the Mekong Delta3 originally the DVA that specified that being in the Theater of Combat, as evidenced by earning the Vietnam Service Medal, was the legitimate interpretation of the 1991 Agent Orange Act.

A change in their ‘interpretation’ of the intent of Congress 11 years after the fact is more likely driven by financial concerns than by legal or rational concerns, …

..especially when that change flies in the face of the accumulated facts.

In addition to the conclusions of the IOM, including their statement from Update: 2008 that “…there is little reason to believe that exposure of US military personnel to the herbicides sprayed in Vietnam was limited to those who actually set foot in the Republic of Vietnam….”,

The BWNVVA has diligently and deeply analyzed the existing documentation and has reached similar conclusions of its own. In a series of three extensive studies, the BWNVVA has concluded: …

There is “logical and robust medical and scientific data that begs acknowledgment by the DVA of the inevitable exposure of offshore personnel to the illnesses related to exposure to herbicides and their contaminants [especially] when they were situated in Da Nang Harbor; …

“In this analysis of the probability ofcontamination of the aircraft carriers offshore Vietnam, a careful scientific analysis of the conditions determined a 100% feasibility of contaminants from the atmosphere being carried back to the carriers once their airplanes entered the airspace above South Vietnam.

Therefore, those who served aboard Task Force 77 aircraft carriers in the Vietnam War … should receive the same DVA consideration for medical care and disability support as those who were in-country with boots-on-ground.” …

The latest study of offshore Vietnam veterans concludes: …

“[t]heir exposure came by sea through the contamination of the on-board water systems. The ship’s evaporators took sea water already tainted with toxins from drainage and runoff into the bays and harbors and eventually to sea and greatly increased the toxicity levels [of the Dioxin].

It came by air via the spray drift and the contaminated particles that electrostatically clung to the carrier-based aircraft during bombing missions.

And it came from land by way of the massive amounts of contaminated dirt and dust delivered both directly on materials and personnel who travelled from Da Nang and other Vietnam shore locations to the ships, and by the particle suspension brought to the fleet by the prevailing atmospheric conditions including the west to east weather patterns.” …

What Needs to be Done? …

If Americans are ever going to solve the problems of veteran disrespect and mistreatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs which currently is occurring in epidemic proportions, from denial of benefits for older veterans to inept handling of newer veteran problems like claim backlogs and… ..unprecedented suicide rates of the men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, the public is going to have to step forward with a unified voice and demand change.


Especially, (in this writer’s opinion), because our current commander-in-chief ran his campaign on the premise of change. So let’s have some change, let’s man up and honor the men and women of our military for their service and sacrifice.

When compared to the reparations demanded by groups advocating reparations for African Americans because their ancestors were sold into slavery, it’s no contest.

If America believes that an individual is due reparations and respect due to a social injustice committed by our ancestors, how can these same Americans (not) appreciate America’s responsibility to the men and women of our military.

Question: Does the color of an individual’s skin have more value than the devotion of an individual to his country?


Change will not come about on its own and not without pushing hard on our elected officials. And if anyone thinks that these problems are trivial compared to items like the national budget and partisan bickering over health care and taxes, they had best stop and think again.

Without the military forces that protect our freedoms, like our current ability to continue to operate in a Representative Democracy, the general public will no longer have a say in how this country is run. The surviving members of our military become our veteran population.

Every individual of voting age needs to please immediately contact their Senators and Representatives …

..and tell them that HR-543, The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, must immediately be passed by the House and forwarded to the Senate.

If you don’t all act now, you bring the possibility of not being able to act in the future one step closer to reality.

John Paul Rossie,
Executive Director
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association
PO Box 1035
Littleton, CO 80160

in closing - red 2a

According to Webster: “own·er·ship,” The legal right to the possession of a thing.

According to Webster: “truth,” Conformity to fact or actuality.

Ownership is a (social concept) created by the cunning and clever to disenfranchise the meek, weak and the ignorant.

Best Wishes for the coming New Year, I’ll be back tomorrow

Crusader Rabbit Logo - COLOR 1a

Crusader Rabbit…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: