Gigaom | Pink Floyd vs Pandora: what the fight’s about (and who’s right) Faigh pandora

Pink Floyd vs Pandora: what the fight’s about (and who’s right)


Credit: Rani Molla

How do you choose sides when a beloved band and your favorite radio service start fighting? That’s the dilemma confronting music lovers this week after members of Pink Floyd reunited long enough to pen a screed in USA Today that accuses Pandora(s p) of plotting to rip off musicians.

The episode is just the latest flare-up in a long-running rumble over royalty rates in the digital age. This should mean a sober debate on economics and policy — but this is the music industry, so instead we get lies, invective and propaganda from all sides. That’s why we’re offering a plain English Q&A of what the fuss is all about. (If you’re just here for Pink Floyd, skip to the end for a treat).

Update: Pandora founder Tim Westergen has written a forceful response, saying the recent attacks are an orchestrated campaign by the RIAA and that a number of the claims — such as Pandora advocating for an 85% pay cut — are flat out wrong.

Why is Pink Floyd attacking Pandora?

Roger Waters and his mates say that the internet radio service wants to trick musicians into supporting a law that will cut their income by 85%. The band and others like Cracker’s David Lowery claim Pandora wants to use their songs to get rich without paying a fair share. Specifically, the bands are mad that Pandora is promoting a law that would reduce the amount of royalties it has to pay whenever it plays a song.

What does Pandora say?

Pandora, which has around 70 million monthly users, is upset that it pays higher royalty rates than other types of radio services. For instance, unlike AM/FM stations, Pandora has to pay not just songwriters but also the musicians who performs the songs. And, unlike satellite services like Sirius XM, which pay a “fair return,” Pandora must pay “open market” rates as determined by a panel of questionable legitimacy.

The company also believes the music industry discriminates against it in favor of internet services like iHeart Radio, which is controlled by big radio incumbent Clear Channel. The royalty rate issue is a make-or-break issue for Pandora, which reported that 80 percent of its revenue last quarter went to content acquisition (Pink Floyd counters this is like a grocery stores complaining most of its income goes to food acquisition).

Why is this coming to a head now?

Last year, the music lobby beat back a proposed law called the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.” The legislation, championed by Pandora, would have created some consistency across a crazy patchwork of radio laws that set out different rules and rates for different types of radio technology.

But, as Billboard noted, the Radio Fairness Act isn’t dead — it’s just hibernating. The law was introduced too late in the legislative cycle to pass the last Congress, and so Pandora and others are likely ramping up to try again (and are using stunts like buying an FM radio station to get a point across). The Pink Floyd article, therefore, appears to be part of a larger PR strategy to undercut momentum for the law.

Is a new law the only way to resolve this?

The fight over the law is just one part of a multi-pronged battle that also includes the courts (where Pandora is suing one of the royalty collection societies) and an agency called the Copyright Royalty Board. Public opinion, shaped by the likes of Pink Floyd and Pandora’s volatile CEO, Joe Kennedy, will also have a hand in how all this turns out. Meanwhile, the stakes will only get higher as new players like iTunes Radio(s aapl) enter the internet market.

So who’s right — Pink Floyd or Pandora?

They both have a point. On one hand, it seems absurd that the royalty rate for a radio song should be different based on what sort of device it is played on: “Wish You Were Here” is great no matter if it plays on Pandora, Sirius or an old-school FM station. There seems to be no logical reason to discriminate against Pandora simply because it uses the internet as a delivery device.

As for the musicians, they are right to be concerned about dwindling royalties. The money they used to earn from CDs and records has dropped off a cliff and income from iTunes or Pandora is not making up for it.

Ultimately, this is a choice about how America wants to subsidize its musicians and other artists. On one hand, the multi-layered royalty system developed in the 20th century is not holding up well, and copyright law has become corrupt and over-extended — it makes sense to scrap parts of this system. But on the other hand, though Pink Floyd is doing just fine, it’s not clear if there is enough money in the system to support and develop young musicians.

The good news is that Pink Floyd and others are earning new revenue streams thanks to the likes of YouTube(s goog). Here they are playing “Echoes” at Pompeii (skip to the 3 minute mark — so good) :


pandora style beadsd-even depth-1 cf">

I have purchased the same Pink Floyd songs on albums, 8-track, cassette’s and CD,s. I think they made enough money from me.


Left unsaid, but one of the other main reasons why Waters will lose money (and is griping like a baby) is the fact that music industry cronies can’t pump his music through pre determined radio playlists at a powerless and passive listening audience. This used to be called ‘payola’ (I’m SHOCKED there’s gambling in this establishment) but is now probably referred to now by other names.

The radio industry works by putting together playlists that benefit certain super artists (actually their labels) at the direct expense of any new, independent, or up and coming artists. If you’ve every decried the lack of variation on your music station of choice, it’s because the playlist is rigged to benefit the established brands, and to not give DJ’s the ability to introduce to you a wider spectrum of music. It’s a closed wall environment that benefits relatively few.

The real power of Pandora is the ability to find and play tracks that you’ve never heard (or maybe haven’t heard for a long time) with no attention paid to the importance of the artists (or more importantly, their management and labels). This results in similar amounts of money being spread much more thinly which is why you see the super artists (Metallica, Pink Floyd, etc.) super whining.

anita rivas

This article is skewed and mischaracterizes the facts. It looks likes more Big Tech propaganda and and attempts to misinform the public. Here are the facts:

(1) Radio Subsidy: Recording artists are treated differently under the law due to having lost their performance rights in the 1976 Copyright Act, due to the powerful lobbying efforts of the broadcasters. Songwriters, recording artists and creators around the world have these rights (except in USA). Under the law, the radio stations were “subsidized” by the efforts of recording artists. All those artists you hear on the radio receive nothing. Broadcasters pay out approximately 1 billion dollars per year to songwriters and publishers. For decades, recording artists have lost out on these funds, which would have gone a long way to help them feed themselves and not die in poverty. In the 90s, a compromise was made to address the digital side of broadcasting – not terrestrial. So broadcast radio is still subsidized. This compromise came about in part because our country was forced to play by the rules of the Berne Convention, which is the most important intellectual property treaty in the world. Considering at the time we were the world’s greatest exporter of music, to not play by the rules, lost the USA billions in lost income from other countries, who would have otherwise paid our artists, but for the glaring anomaly in our laws with regard to recording artists.

(2) With regard to digital users of music (e.g., Pandora, etc.), they are lucky that their rates were approved by the government. Pandora which negotiated the reduced rate (approved by all parties) publicly announced a victory with the Copyright Judges rulings. Pandora’s owner has never made more money in his life (millions a month) and the stocks are jumping up quickly. His entire business is based on music and recordings. He is getting an excellent rate. To attempt to reduce the rate by trying to discredit the judges because they are not appointed through a political process should make things even more obvious. This new legislation and the lawsuits agains the creative community by Big Tech was a direct response to the judges rejecting Pandoras demands to get them to approve additional reduced rates (after they already agreed on the rate). Google and Big Tech’s (who are supporting Pandora’s campaign) influence over our government should be apparent by now.

(3) Artists are the first in line to perform benefits for causes and the downtrodden. They never speak out for themselves. They have never been organized and have never been included at the bargaining table. They are penniless and forced to tour into old age. It is not fair to not give them full performance rights. Big Tech wants Congress to “even the playing field” by treating all broadcasters the same. But, instead of not paying artists, Congress should require ALL broadcasters to pay for the use of artists’ works. Its how they make their living. They have property rights as do all Americans. And by the way, Artists works are property. Their works are not “information.” Information is not protected under copyright. This is another red herring fabricated by Big Tech.

Jeff John Roberts

Anita — thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure how or why my article is “skewed” or incorrect about the facts. You’ve set out some good points but nothing I’ve written is inconsistent with what you write.

And I’d be careful about labels like “Bit Tech” — caricaturing your opponents is not always helpful.

Will Buckley

“The episode is just the latest flare-up in a long-running rumble over royalty rates in the digital age. This should mean a sober debate on economics and policy — but this is the music industry, so instead we get lies, invective and propaganda from all sides.”

Mr. Roberts, as a journalist, you have failed. I work in this space and do not appreciate or accept your demeaning characterization.

Will Buckley, Founder / President, FarePlay

Jeff John Roberts

Mr. Buckley, the sentence may be sharp but I stand by it. It’s difficult to have a good-faith debate about music and copyright when many of the facts are distorted by tendentious “studies” and aggressive lobbying. These forces seem to be at play in the present debate: Pink Floyd’s 85% figure appears to be flat-out incorrect and Lowrie is disingenuous not to explain he receives performance rights royalties. Meanwhile, the tech industry is often cavalier about the effects of piracy on musicians.

All this doesn’t mean that there are not honest brokers in the mix — it’s just hard to find them.

Philip Inghelbrecht

Here’s the part I don’t understand. Terrestrial radio only pays royalties to songwriters, nothing to record labels (i.e. there’s only a license required for the public performance of the musical composition, not the sound recording). Pandora, as an equivalent of terrestrial radio, pays both songwriters (at a higher rate, I must add) and record labels (through Soundexchange). Phrased differently, under the current legislation and rates, it behooves musicians that music shifts from FM to online … They stand to make an order of magnitude more money from radio (which is different from on-demand, TV, iTunes, etc.) as distribution channel. I should also add that the Pandora’s model is fairer to smaller musicians i.e. rates are paid based on consensus surveys, not sample surveys, of “airplay”.

While I am sympathetic that (big) artists don’t make the amount of money they used to make from CDs, new radio services like Pandora shouldn’t be blamed for it. Roger Waters claims are a bit below the belt i.e. it’s easy (if not foolish in this case) to attack the newer guy. What would have made more sense is that he arm-twisted FM radio stations to pay the same rates as online radio.

For what it’s worth – I am not a Pandora fan-boy; you will find me on 8tracks instead. I am, however, a Pink Floyd fan and buyer.


After years of complaining about piracy, someone wants to pay musicians for online music and the musicians complain it’s not enough. A one-hit wonder like David Lowery should be glad he gets anything (although i did just listen to Low for free on youtube and it brought back some nice memories, Thanks Dave :)

So you wrote a song. Good for you. How about this, get out on the road and earn a living day to day like the rest of the world


Sure, just as soon as Pandora stops using that one hit to make money. Oh, wait…

Will Buckley

Sorry Benny, the difference between streaming and piracy is a fraction of a cent, nothing more.

As far as Lowery. He’s been out on tour for a few months now.


The market, vs. law, should be free to set the royalties in a different medium. There is no compelling reason to intervene at this time.

The article left out Spotify and didn’t discuss how they have spent the effort to resolve the licensing and payment issue directly – through arduous negotiation – vs. trying to get a law passed.

I think this is an important comparison.

I’m not sure why music is different, but no one thinks that Netflix should have video content available to them at certain prices as determined by Congress, and that the prices they pay can’t be different than what cable pays.

This is the nature of markets, and I think someone needs to show a compelling reason why Pandora shouldn’t work it out through negotiations first. We all can agree that technology markets move fast enough that locking certain models into legislative fiat is risky at best, with many potential unintended consequences around locking in the wrong business models, reducing innovation, etc. — and smacks of crony capitalism at worst – which I think we all agree is the opposite of the innovator’s ethos that we all love.

My two cents.

Derrick Harris

This is a really good point that I’d usually wholeheartedly back. With copyright, though, it seems like content holders are happy to maintain the status quo at the expense of consumers. If there’s a time to legislate to ensure an industry doesn’t stifle innovation or play favorites re: who gets sweetheart licensing deals, perhaps this it it.

Pandora — and internet radio, generally — just isn’t the same business model as traditional radio, and is arguably better for most artists. But the record labels and the big acts they’ve swayed to their side just don’t care or don’t get it.

Jeff John Roberts

Thanks for the smart comment, Princeton Al. I too am generally wary about the government interfering in industry — the market is typically better at picking winners and losers.

But I think my colleague Derrick is right to point out (here in the comments) that there are anti-market, anti-consumer forces here in which entrenched industry players are abusing their copyright power (which is itself a government-granted monopoly in the first place).

I’d also argue that one-off negotiations don’t work for something like music catalogues — there needs to be a wholesale clearance mechanism or else conglomerates will discriminate against new entrants (like the industry is doing to Pandora).


Interesting. Something that is earning less money today than when it was released over 35 years ago.

That being said, all the royalties should be at the same rate regardless of medium.


We’re all making less in real terms than we were 35 years ago. Well, 99% of us are. Thanks, Retardlickons!

Scare Crow

A true Floyd lover would not skip to the three minute mark.

Tom Krazit

If we had a like button, I would have liked your comment.

Zach Tirrell

“The money they used to earn from CDs and records has dropped off a cliff and income from iTunes or Pandora is not making up for it.”

Do you have a citation on this? I hear this stated a lot, but wonder what the truth behind this is. What does an artist make from the combined sources of Pandora, Spotify, iHeartRadio, YouTube, etc. While I understand that the landscape is more complicated and perhaps the pieces from each are much smaller than CD sales at the peak… is there a good source for combined revenue from all distribution year over year?


The question should not be why internet services have to pay more than radio stations, but why the radio stations don’t have to pay performers. If that were the case for movies and TV shows, only the screenwriters would get compensated when their video performances were broadcast, and anyone would be able to start their own internet TV station by just making a deal with the writers.

I don’t understand why Pandora feels entitled to low cost access to content; Netflix negotiates with video content creators to get streaming rights. Are the performances of music that worthless that anyone should be allowed to publish them?


Reblogged this on STORY 2 SUCCESS BLOG and commented:
lookinh at it ,they are both right but what is wrong is aking pandora to pay more than other services of it kind its not fair.


Pink Floyd may have a point but if they do it’s got nothing to do with Pandora. ‘Concern about dwindling royalties’ among a few big name artists might be related to a pervasive problem or it might not, a link is not established. Even if it exists there’s absolutely no logic to insisting Pandora and Pandora alone needs to make up the difference with higher rates. Honestly it seems like a vendetta at this point since they’re even willing to charge lower rates to internet broadcasts of terrestrial radio. So much lower that Pandora was reportedly looking into buying a radio station (in 2013!) of all things. I know you want this to seem balanced and all but the reality of the situation is not balanced. Pandora is right and at best Pink Floyd is right about things that aren’t even on topic.

Comments are closed.

Faigh pandora

pandora charms à vendre
azienda pandora
песни пандоры

View, change, or cancel your subscriptions

Learn how to view active, expiring, and past subscriptions, change subscription preferences, and cancel subscriptions and memberships.

Canceling subscriptions is slightly different in Israel, South Africa, and Turkey. If you live in one of these countries, follow these instructions.

Some apps and services offer subscription-based access to their content. Unlike single item purchases or most in-app purchases (such as for game currency like gems and coins), subscriptions will automatically renew until you choose to end them.

Subscriptions that renew automatically include:

  • Apple Music Individual (Monthly or Annual), Family, or Student memberships 
  • Apple News subscriptions
  • Newspaper subscriptions
  • Magazine subscriptions
  • Subscriptions to many apps available in the App Store
  • Online memberships or subscriptions to services such as HBO NOW, Spotify, Netflix, Pandora, Hulu, etc.

Your membership or subscription might renew if you don't cancel your membership or subscription more than 24 hours before your renewal date.

Manage your subscriptions

Follow the steps to view, change, or cancel your subscriptions from your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch; your Mac or PC; or your Apple TV 4K or Apple TV (4th generation).


On your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch

To view your subscriptions, tap this link: View my subscriptions. Or follow these steps:

  1. Go to Settings > [your name] > iTunes & App Store.
  2. Tap your Apple ID at the top of the screen.
  3. Tap View Apple ID. You might need to sign in or use Touch ID.
  4. Tap Subscriptions.
  5. Tap the subscription that you want to manage.
    If you're being charged for a subscription, but you don't see it in your list of subscriptions, it might be billed through someone other than Apple. Get help with subscriptions that aren't in your list.
  6. Use the options to manage your subscription. You can choose a different subscription offering, or tap Cancel Subscription to cancel your subscription. If you cancel, your subscription will stop at the end of the current billing cycle.

On your Mac or PC

To view your subscriptions, click this link: View my subscriptions. Or follow these steps:

  1. Open iTunes.
  2. If you're not signed in, sign in with your Apple ID. If your Mac has Touch ID, you can use it to log in when you're asked for your password.
  3. From the menu bar at the top of your computer screen or at the top of the iTunes window, choose Account > View My Account.
  4. Enter your password or use Touch ID, then press the Return or Enter key on your keyboard, or click View Account.

On the Account Information page:

  1. Scroll to the Settings section. 
  2. To the right of Subscriptions, Click Manage.
  3. To the right of the subscription you want to manage, click Edit. 
    If you're being charged for a subscription, but you don't see it in your list of subscriptions, it might be billed through someone other than Apple. Get help with subscriptions that aren't in your list.
  4. Use the options to manage your subscription. You can choose a different subscription offering, or click Cancel Subscription to cancel your subscription. If you cancel, your subscription will stop at the end of the current billing cycle.

On your Apple TV 4K or Apple TV (4th generation)

You can only edit subscriptions for tvOS apps that are installed on your Apple TV.

  1. Open Settings.
  2. Select Accounts.
  3. Under Subscriptions, select Manage Subscriptions.
  4. Choose the subscription that you want to manage.
    If you're being charged for a subscription, but you don't see it in your list of subscriptions, it might be billed through someone other than Apple. Get help with subscriptions that aren't in your list.
  5. Use the options to manage your subscription. You can choose a different subscription offering, or select Cancel Subscription to cancel your subscription. If you cancel, your subscription will stop at the end of the current billing cycle.

On Apple TV (3rd generation or earlier), you need to use an iOS device or computer to manage your subscriptions.

If you still can't view your subscriptions

  • You might have been signed in with a different Apple ID when you originally subscribed. Sign in with that Apple ID check to see if your subscriptions are billed to that account. If you have two-factor authentication turned on, you might be prompted to enter a verification code. If you can't remember the password to that Apple ID, we can help.
  • A Family Sharing organizer can’t manage subscriptions for other family members. Family members' subscriptions can only be managed from their account. Use that family member’s device with their Apple ID logged in to view their subscriptions. You can also use Ask to Buy or Restrictions on your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch; Mac or PC; or Apple TV.
  • iCloud storage is another type of recurring charge you might see on your account. You can view and change your iCloud storage plan on an Apple device.
  • If you still can't view your subscription and you signed up inside an app or iTunes (and not through a third-party provider), contact Apple Support.

Get help with subscriptions that aren't in your list

If you're being charged for a subscription, but you don't see it in the list of subscriptions on your device, it might be billed through someone other than Apple. Make sure that you're signed in with the Apple ID that you used to subscribe originally. If you are, you might have subscribed directly with the provider and not through iTunes. In this case, contact the content publisher or app developer directly to cancel your subscription.

Additionally, if the app that you want to manage the subscription for is not installed on your Apple TV, you'll have to use your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Mac, or PC to change it.

Learn more

  • To set up subscriptions, you must have a valid payment method on file or have enough store credit to cover the amount of your first billing period. Learn how to change your payment method or add store credit to your account.
  • Learn about types of subscriptions and other in-app purchases.
  • Learn how subscriptions are billed and appear on your statement.
  • You can also manage an Apple Music subscription in Apple Music on Android.

Information about products not manufactured by Apple, or independent websites not controlled or tested by Apple, is provided without recommendation or endorsement. Apple assumes no responsibility with regard to the selection, performance, or use of third-party websites or products. Apple makes no representations regarding third-party website accuracy or reliability. Risks are inherent in the use of the Internet. Contact the vendor for additional information. Other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

Published Date:


Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Goolsbee's moral vacuum

Where there is Austan Goolsbee, there is always the stench of a moral vacuum. Glenn Thrush (Politico) reports:

The Treasury Department is looking into allegations that Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee illegally snooped into the tax status of a privately held corporation run by some of the country’s biggest conservative political benefactors.

Several prominent Republican senators pressed the department’s inspector general to investigate why Goolsbee claimed Koch Industries hadn’t paid corporate taxes.

The White House says Goolsbee, who made the remarks in a late August background conference call with reporters — just before his appointment to CEA chairman — misspoke.

What a loser. Remember when he was whispering to Canada that they didn't need to worry about Barack's remarks about repealing NAFTA, that he didn't mean them? And when he was caught, he denied it and the Barack campaign tried to blame Hillary? What a prince. All the stinky turds float with Barack in the sewer.

Big thanks to Elaine for "Ed Rendell is the new Clayton Williams" last night. I wish I had thought of the Clayton Williams comparison she and C.I. did but I certainly appreciated her kind words.

Meanwhile, I'm sick of the sexism. I'm sick of Krystall Ball being sexualized. And I'm sick of it with Christine O'Donnell as well. This doesn't happen with the men. I'm sick of it. And I'll call it out regardless of party (Ball is a Democrat, O'Donnell a Republican). It needs to stop.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, October 6, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the political stalemate continues, the US takes 'meetings' on the stalemate, violence in Iraq did not drop last month, Iraq's religious minorities remain persecuted, US peace activists refuse to testify to grand juries as part of the governments fishing expedition, Congress is out of session but Chair Daniel Akaka holds a hearing, and more.

The US hasn't left Iraq and who knows if troops ever will? Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) interviewed Iraqi Staff Lt Gen Anwar Ahmed who states that Iraq will not be able to protect its own air space for many, many years to come: "In the modern military sense, the Iraqi air foce cannot be completed . . . before 2020, and until then we would not be able to say that the air force is ready to defend the skies." In possibly related news, the editorial board of the Washington Post frets that if Congress doesn't fork over all the money the administration wants to spend on Iraq, Iraq's so-called 'democracy' or whatever will fail. Newsflash: Democracy doesn't depend on cash. Forget that the GAO found that Nouri's sitting on billions (the Post has forgotten), democracy is made by citizen participation, not by money. Iraq has been a sinkhole for US tax payer dollars and at a time when Barack's "Fiscal Commission" is making noises about slashing Social Security and veterans benefits, forking over more money to Iraq is insane. That money needs to go towards helping people suffering in the United States from the Great Recession. What the Post confesses, if you read between the lines, is that conventional wisdom is puppet Nouri will be re-installed and he can't hold onto the position he and the other exiles were installed into by the US government without US money to control and attack the people of Iraq. Democracy doesn't depend on money. During the Great Depression, the US didn't stop being a democracy. It's really juvenile -- not very mature, not very 'fiscal,' -- to claim that the US needs to waste more tax payer monies during a recession. At Politico, a War Hawk and former Bushie stomp their feet over the same issue. By contrast, Greg Sheridan (The Australian) argues it's time for the US to leave both Iraq:

In Iraq I believe it was reasonable for the Americans to intervene on the evidence they had at the time. What did they achieve?
They brought an end to the rule of the most murderous tyrant, Saddam Hussein, in the second half of the 20th century. They ensured Iraq would not revive its nuclear weapons program or threaten its neighbours any more. And they gave Iraq a chance at a better future, something approaching self-government and democracy. The violence that accompanied the process was the cause of the terrorists and extremists who opposed the US-led operation, which shortly after it began acquired the legitimacy of UN sanction. Now it's up to the Iraqis.

Or at least up to the exiles the US government installed in Iraq.

Alsumaria TV reports today, "Head of the Islamic Supreme Council Ammar Al Hakim's visits to Iraq's neighboring countries aim to hold talks with Arab leaders and brief them over the situation in Iraq, the Islamic Supreme Council's media advisor Bassem Al Awadi told Alsumaria." Harry Smith (CBS' The Morning Show) offers today, "This news is amazing on a number of levels if true. [Moqtada] Al Sadr helped fan the flames of what turned out to be close to all out war between Sunnis and Shiites back in 2006 when as many as hundred civilians a day were getting killed in Iraq." What's everyone talking about? The political stalemate and talk that it may be nearing an end as a result of al-Sadr backing Nouri al-Maliki. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains, "As the country lurched into the history books with one of the longest delays in government formation ever after holding elections, followers of hard-line Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr announced they had withdrawn their opposition to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and would back him for a second term."

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted last month, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's six months and twenty-nine days with no government formed.

As Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) notes, the US lodged their objection to al-Sadr being part of the government yesterday via US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey. Whether or not this is a deal breaker remains to be seen but al-Sadr is not the only one being objected to in recent days. Pakistan's Daily Times notes, "Ninevah Gov. Atheel al-Nujaifi said in an Associated Press interview Sunday that Iraq is "headed for a dictatorship" if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki secures a second term. His warning shows the serious challenges to US-led efforts at bringing Iraq's rival groups together in a unity government to end a nearly seven-month political impasse." Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) surveys the landscape and notes there is no done deal at this point and feels Syria will be a major player: "In theory, neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran is 100% committed to either Maliki or Allawi. Iran is very keen however, on not making Allawi premier in as much as Saudi Arabia insists that it will not tolerate another four years of Maliki, who it sees as a sectarian politician who greatly harmed the interests of Sunnis. This is where Syria's say comes into play, given its excellent relations with Sunnis and Shi'ites, creating a balance that neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran enjoy. Syria has the ear of Hakim and Muqtada of the INA and also is very influential with Allawi and Sunnis." International Crisis Groups' Joost Hiltermann speaks with the Council on Foreign Relations' Bernard Gwertzman about the stalemate:

Bernard Gwertzman: So, despite these latest stories over the long weekend, you're not necessarily enthusiastic that a deal has been struck?

Joost Hiltermann: No deal has been struck. The only thing that has happened is that Maliki was chosen to be the designated prime ministerial candidate for the Iraqi National Alliance, which is the reconstituted Shiite alliance minus the Islamic Supreme Council [headed by Adel Abdul Mahdi] and some other independents and smaller groups. So that's the only thing that has happened, but Maliki, even with that kind of blessing, simply doesn't have the number of seats that he needs in order to form a government.

AFP reports that Nouri and US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (and one-time acting Secretary of State) William Burns met today in Baghdad and that Nouri's office issued a statement noting, "The prime minister expressed the hope that in the coming days, there would be openness in the ongoing negotiations between the political blocs to form a government of national partnership." Wang Guanqun (Xinhua) reports that that Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Issawi visited Turkey today and held a joint-press conference with the Ahmet Davutoglu, Foreign Minister of Turkey, and that al-Issawi stated that the cause of the stalemate has been foreign intervention. Meanwhile Hurriyet Daily News notes that the government of Turkey presented "a motion to [the Turkish] Parliament to extend a mandate for military strikes against bases in northern Iraq belonging to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK." If the motion is extended, it would be the third time since 2007 that the Parliament has extended it. Today's Zaman states it's a one year mandate and "The motion allows the government to stage cross-border operations to eradicate terrorism threat and attacks against Turkey from north of Iraq." Rudaw reports that Iraqi Army Chief of Staff Babakir Zebary has stated, quoting Zebary, "the Iraqi Army has no capabililty and readiness to fight the PKK." From the Kurdish rebels to the KRG, Charles McDermid (Time magazine) interviews KRG head Barham Salih:

[Charles McDermid:] Do the Kurds in Iraq want independence?
[Barham Salih:] Yes. Every Kurd dreams of independence. But life is not about what you want; it's about doing what you can do with what you have. I believe we made the right choice to work for a democratic and federal Iraq -- one that guarantees Kurdish identity. Had we pursued our own state it could have been an arduous journey with uncertain consequences. Working for a federal Iraq could have more tangible gains, and I genuinely believe most of the Kurdish people are with us. We have to see if Iraq ends up being truly democratic and federal.
[Charles McDermid:] How long, in your opinion, before a new central government is formed in Baghdad?
[Barham Salih:] I don't know, but I hope not long. This has gone on for far too long -- while the country is plagued by violence and collapse of basic services. It is embarrassing and shameful.

Monday another journalist died in Iraq. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "A magnetic bomb that was stuck to the private car of Tahrir Kathim, a media assistant who works for U.S. backed al Hurra satellite channel, detonated Monday morning killing him straight away." Reporters without Borders issued a statement as did the Committee to Protect Journalists. Louise Hallman (International Press Institute) notes the death and the continued pattern of targeting journalists in Iraq:

According to the "IPI World Press Freedom Review 2009: Focus on the Middle East and North Africa", in 2009 Iraq was the eighth most deadly country for journalists, down from 'most deadly' in 2008 -- a title it had held since 2003. So far in 2010, Iraq lies fourth behind Mexico, Honduras and Pakistan, all of which have seen significant conflict and lawlessness in 2010.
During the height of the Iraq War between 2003 and 2008, 167 journalists were killed in Iraq, according to IPI's Death Watch, with Iraq consistently topping the list as the world's deadliest country. Last year, however, saw a significant drop in journalist casualties in Iraq, with four journalists killed compared to 14 in 2008 and 42 in 2007.
"The recent increase again in violence against journalists in Iraq is a growing concern," said IPI Press Freedom Manager Anthony Mills. "So far this year we have seen more journalists killed in Iraq than in the whole of last year. Whilst, thankfully, this toll is nowhere near the heights seen during the war, Iraq cannot be allowed to slide backwards. On the contrary, the authorities must ensure that the killers of journalists are brought to justice. If a culture of impunity is allowed to continue to thrive, it may fuel further journalist killings."

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Director-General Irina Bokova stated of Tahrir Kadhim Jawad, "He died carrying out his mission as a journalist, in the name of freedom of expression, a basic human right that is a cornerstone of democratic society."

In today's violence, Reuters notes a Kirkuk rocket attack which injured one person and a Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing which injured two police officers.

Meanwhile, as last month came to an end last week, the spin was that September was less violent. Using Ministry of Health figures for dead (273) and wounded (485), many outlets insisted that violence was down as a result of lower totals. Two questions: Why would belive a ministry's figures and why aren't news outlets able to keep their own tolls throughout the month? At Third Sunday, we tallied up the reported deaths and wounded and, no, the ministry figures do not match up. The number reported wounded -- by Reuters, McClatchy, New York Times and Xinhua throughout the month -- came to 697, nearly seven hundred and over 200 more than the 'official' figures. Please note that reported deaths and reported wounded do not cover all the dead and all the wounded -- many go unreported. For those who need or want to check the numbers, from Third's piece:

Setting aside US service members and focusing on the day the deaths were reported, we note the following tolls. Tuesday September 2nd 17 people were reported dead and 40 injured, September 3rd 3 people were reported dead and 12 wounded, September 4th three people were reported injured, September 5th 18 people were reported dead and 56 wounded, September 6th 6 people were reported dead and 19 injured, September 7th 6 people were reported dead and 2 injured, September 8th 13 people were reported dead and 46 injured, September 9th 7 people were reported dead and 5 wounded, September 10th 1 person was reported dead and 1 wounded, September 11th 2 people were reported dead and 8 wounded. September 12th 18 people were reported dead and 25 were reported injured, September 13th 22 were reported dead and`18 injured, September 14th 12 people were reported dead and 5 wounded, September 15th 19 people were reported dead and 31 injured, September 16th 12 people were reported dead and 9 wounded, September 17th 6 people were reported dead and 11 injured, September 18th 10 people were reported dead and 28 wounded, September 19th 36 people were reported dead and 122 injured, September 20th 3 people were reported dead and 9 wounded, September 21st 5 people were reported dead and 30 injured, September 22nd 6 people were reported dead and 113 wounded, September 23rd 4 people were reported dead and 5 injured, September 24th 7 people were reported dead and 17 wounded, September 26th 9 people were reported dead and 18 injured, September 27th 7 people were reported dead and 15 wounded, September 28th 4 people were reported dead and 26 wounded, September 29th 3 people were reported dead and 20 injured, and September 30th 2 people were reported dead and 3 were reported wounded. Check our math but we get 252 dead and 697 wounded for the month of September.

In Iraq, the thugs target everyone: LGBT (and those suspected of being LGBT), women, religious minorities, professors, doctors, journalists, etc. First to Iraq's Jewish community and dropping back to the August 30th snapshot for the starred ("**") excerpt:

** Turning to DPA's "Iraq demands the return of a rare Jewish scroll from Israel," if the basic facts are correct (they may be, they may not be -- DPA is wrong as to the number of Jews in Iraq in 2003 -- they woefully undercount the Jewish population which I don't believe hit a dozen utnil some time in 2006), Israel is in possession of a Torah which the Tourism Ministry of Iraq is stating ought to be returned. It ought to be?

No. This has none of the complexities of the earlier call by the Iraqi government for Jewish documents. In the earlier case, the US, after the 2003 invasion, had discovered a large number of records that were kept by the Iraqi government on Jews in Iraq -- it was spying on them. They brought the records back to the US to preserve them -- they had been submerged in water when the US found them. Iraq demanded them back. The dispute was between Iraq and the US, between the occupied and the occupier. As I noted at Third, I was surprised the Israeli government did not step in on that. If they had and had made a claim on the documents, there would have been reasons to dispute claims. However, the US was the occupier and the documents were taken out of the country.

Iraq felt no need to protect the Jewish citizens from targeting by various thugs since the invasion began. The Jewish population was targeted and was wiped out either by violence or by fleeing. To now assert that they have some right to Hebrew artifacts? They have no right. Nor do they or did they ever belong to Iraq. Whose culture was it? And since when can a nation-state, developed centuries later, attempt to lay claim to the people's property?

These are not documents that the Iraqi government kept. Even now the Tourism Ministry can't state whether it was ever in the government's possession, whether it was privately owned by someone in Iraq or whether it belonged to a Jewish facility in Iraq (as many as 100,000 Jewish people were living in Iraq as late as the 1940s). These are religious artifacts and they belong to the people of that religion. The scroll is in Israel and in Israel is where it should remain. Iraq did not protect the Jewish population, it allowed it to be decimated. It has no claim or right to the scroll.

Iraq is created in 1932. The scroll predates the creation of the country by centuries. Having no Jewish population today, the fact that they would even assert a right to the scroll is rather offensive. And that's before you even wiegh into consideration the fact that Iraq's unable to keep their treasures, artifacts and museums open to the public. **

From zero up to seven is the Iraqi Jewish population (all in Baghdad) according to a 'man of the cloth' known and caught spinning. But 7 Iraqi Jews may remain in Baghdad. At Huffington Post, David Harris has reworked his 2003 essay on being Jewish and we're emphasizing the Iraq part because it should further explain how Iraq has no claim on any Jewish artificat:

And I wonder if you have ever heard of the Farhud, the breakdown of law and order, in Baghdad in June 1941. As an AJC specialist, George Gruen, reported:
In a spasm of uncontrolled violence, between 170 and 180 Jews were killed, more than 900 were wounded, and 14,500 Jews sustained material losses through the looting or destruction of their stores and homes. Although the government eventually restored order ... Jews were squeezed out of government employment, limited in schools, and subjected to imprisonment, heavy fines, or sequestration of their property on the flimsiest of charges of being connected to either or both of the two banned movements. Indeed, Communism and Zionism were frequently equated in the statutes. In Iraq the mere receipt of a letter from a Jew in Palestine [pre-1948] was sufficient to bring about arrest and loss of property.
At our peak, we were 135,000 Jews in 1948, and we were a vitally important factor in virtually every aspect of Iraqi society. To illustrate our role, here is what the Encyclopedia Judaica wrote about Iraqi Jewry: "During the 20th century, Jewish intellectuals, authors, and poets made an important contribution to the Arabic language and literature by writing books and numerous essays."
By 1950 other Iraqi Jews and I were faced with the revocation of citizenship, seizure of assets, and, most ominously, public hangings. A year earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Sa'id had told the British ambassador in Amman of a plan to expel the entire Jewish community and place us at Jordan's doorstep. The ambassador later recounted the episode in a memoir entitled From the Wings: Amman Memoirs, 1947-1951.

And now we turn to Iraqi Chistrians. As David E. Miller (Arab News) noted last month, violence has resulted in Iraq's Christian population being cut in half -- some dead, some fled. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) explained last month, "The persecution of Christian communities across the Muslim world has escalated rapidly since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Christians are often seen as the natural allies of western occupiers and, as a minority, are highly vulnerable to retaliation. In one case in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul a few years ago US soldiers damaged a mosque with their vehicle and Sunni Arab insurgents retaliated by bombing two churches." Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) reports today that more Christians are planning to leave Iraq and "Alarmed that their flock could face extinction, Iraqi Christian leaders appealed to the Vatican for help. Pope Benedict, also worried about the shrinking Christian presence in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, has called a synod of bishops for October 10-24 to discuss how churches can work together to preserve Christianity's oldest communities."

Often the attacks on Iraqi Christians are pinned (rightly or wrongly) on al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Kelly McEvers (NPR's Morning Edition) reports today on the re-emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq. Last month, Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported on Speaking with an Iraqi who studies the issue, McEvers speaks with Abu Ahmed on the topic.

Kelley McEvers: Abu Ahmed researches militant groups in Iraq and is writing a book about the Sunni insurgency. He doesn't want to give his full name because he maintains contact with some militants. He calls the most recent iteration of al-Qaida in Iraq the Third Chapter. The first one was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who led al-Qaida operations during some of Iraq's most violent years. He was killed in 2006. The Second Chapter was headed by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, an Iraqi. They were killed in April. The Third Chapter, Abu Ahmed says, is made up of men who worked with Zarqawi, left Iraq for a time, and have now returned; and men who've recently been released from American and Iraqi detention centers after serving out short sentences. Abu Ahmed says this group is just as fiercely committed to waging jihad as Zarqawi was. But there are some key differences.

She establishes the point that 'cutting off the head' doesn't kill the group. (He tells her al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is in yet another stage.) What he's saying is in keeping with any political theory and yet the US government didn't grasp that under Bush and they don't under Barack. In fact, the current drone attacks on Pakistan will most likely mean terrorism remains a dominant force for many decades. (Terrorism is a response. It is not an initiating action.) Robert Jensen (War Is A Crime) notes:

Today the United States spends as much on the work of war as the rest of the world combined, and we are the planet's largest arms dealer. Professor Catherine Lutz of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University reports in her book The Bases of Empire that we maintain 909 military facilities in 46 countries and overseas U.S. territories, and we have more than 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilians working at those sites. That's in addition to U.S. bases, military personnel, and contractors occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
The military is there to project power, not promote peace. We regularly use these destructive forces, especially in the Middle East, home to the largest and most accessible energy reserves. Flimsy cover stories about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, or self-indulgent tales about U.S. benevolence toward the people of the region, cannot obscure the reality of empire. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were unlawful, in direct violation of international law and the U.S. Constitution, but such details are irrelevant to empires.
Terrorism is real, of course, as are weapons of mass destruction. Law enforcement, diplomacy, and limited uses of military force need to be vigorously pursued through appropriate regional and international organizations to lessen the threats. Most of the world supports such reasonable and rational measures.
In its global policy -- especially in the Middle East -- U.S. policymakers prefer force, not only though invasion but also by backing the most repressive Arab regimes in those regions and unconditional support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine. In the short term, this cynical and brutal strategy has given the United States considerable influence over the flow of oil and oil profits.

Back to the US, Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and Monday the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 89 days only, at the WBAI archives. (There are excerpts in Monday's snapshot and in Tuesday's snapshot of the broadcast.) Stephanie Weiner and Joe Ioskaber's home was among the ones raided. Andy Grim (Chicago Tribune) reports that they say "they will refuse to answer questions before a grand jury". Today Democracy Now! featured the news in headlines and showed Stephanie Weiner stating:

We believe we have been targeted because of what we believe, what we say, who we know. The grand jury process is an intent to violate the inalienable rights under the Constitution and international law to freedom of political speech, association and the right to advocate for change. Those with grand jury dates for October 5th and those whose subpoenas are pending have declared that we intend to exercise our right not to participate in this fishing expedition.

The statement was from a press conference yesterday. Fight Back! News reports Pastor Dan Dale spoke at the conference noting an interfaith statement people were signing on to: "We are people of faigh and conscience who condemn the recent FBI raids in Chicago as a violation of the constitional rights of the people organizations raided. They are a dangerous step to further criminalize dissent. The FBI raids chisel away and byprass fundamental constitutional rights by hauling activists before grand juries under the guise of national security."

This morning the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing held a hearing on the VA's IT program. Senator Daniel Akaka is the Chair of the Committee and his office notes:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, held an oversight hearing today on the status and future of VA's Information Technology (IT).
"Information technology plays a critical role in all that VA does, from delivering benefits to veterans' health care records," said Chairman Akaka. "VA's use of information technology has been marked by successes and failures. When it was first created VA's electronic health record was on the cutting edge, and I have faight that under the current leadership, VA's use of technology will continue to progress."
The hearing related to both health and claims processing information technology systems, and looked specifically at how aspects of IT have impacted GI Bill recipients. Witnesses at the hearing included top VA IT officials, a VA computer specialist, and a private sector authority on IT and electronic health records.
More information about the hearing, including statements, testimony and the webcast, is available here:
Kawika Riley
Communications Director and Legislative Assistant
U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman

Ranking Member Richard Burr noted early in the hearing, "Mr Chairman, I thank you for your willingness to schedule this hearing even though the Senate is out of session. I want to thank my colleagues Mr.[Mike] Johanns and Mr. [Scott] Brown, for being here." And if you're Senator was present, you should be thankful as well because the IT problems include the notorious lack of tuition payments to veterans that began in the fall of 2009 and continued well into the spring of 2010 (to be clear, waiting for their fall 2009 education benefit checks -- to cover tuition, books, lodging -- through the spring of 2010.) This is a serious problem and Burr, Brown and Johanns didn't have to be there and not only did Chair Akaka not have to be there, he's the one who had the say-so in whether or not the hearing would take place. He made the call to hold the hearing and deserves strong credit for that. In his opening remarks, Johanns noted that when he was US Secretary of Agriculture (2005-2007), "IT systems were the bane of my existence" so the current problems were not shocking to him.

Burr noted that failed programs and discontinued ones by IT have costs tax payers "millions" of dollars. He noted what he saw as a "genuine effort" on the part of VA Assistant Secretary for IT Roger W. Baker who was confirmed to that position 15 months ago. Baker was one of the witnesses appearing before the Committee. The others were Belinda J. Finn from the VA's Inspector General Office, Tom Munnecke who was a VA IT official, Edward Francis Meagher who chairs VisA Moderinzation Committee of the American Council and Glen Tullman who is CEO of Allscripts. We'll note this from Finn's opening remarks but LTS refers to the "fully automated claims processing system that utilizes a rules-based engine to process Post 9/11 GI Bill Chapter 33 veterans' education benefits."

Belinda Finn: Finally, our audit of the GI Bill Long Term Solution reported that OI&T developed and deployed both LTS Releases 1 and 2 on time; however these releases did not always meet the functionality that was expected for those releases. We concluded that the program still needed more management and disciplines and processes to ensure the project meets both the performance and the cost goals required.

We'll note this exchange from the hearing.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Baker, what can you point out that would help persuade the Committee that VA has learned from its past and that will not experience expensive IT failures in the future?

Roger Baker: Thank you, Senator, I will keep this answer brief because I'd love to give you ten minutes on that one. I think the biggest lesson that we took from the failure of the Replacement Scheduling Application was that we have to make certain that the hard decisions are faced and made. From there, I think you've seen a series of hard decisions made at the VA relative to other projects. Stopping 45 projects in July of last year was frankly a hard decision for our customers -- based on that those projects were not delivering. Stopping some of those projects and saying 'We're not going to be successful at those,' has been a series of hard -- of hard decisions. Frankly, reforming a few of them was not -- was not viewed positively but we recognized that they were not going to deliver if we didn't change them to an incremental delivery. Even some of the more notable ones that I think that we get criticized for -- for example, stopping the FLITE program [Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise], they're hard decisions. They're not decisions that we take lightly. And they're not decisions that we view from only one aspect. But in the end, we have to determine: Can we be successful? And if we believe we can't be, if we believe it's an overreach, we need to not do the program. So I would -- I would point you to not just some of the things we've done, some of the programs we've instituted but the results of those programs. And, most importantly, we don't allow a project to move forward today if they don't have a customer facing deliverable within the next six months. What that means is they're not going to go a long time like Replacement Scheduling did. Replacement Scheduling went years without delivering anything before they finally figured out it couldn't deliver anything. We now are implementing a technique we're calling "Fail Fast." If it's going to fail, figure it out quickly and stop spending money on it. That has generated a lot of facing up to those hard decisions again inside the organization. So I would give you those two things. Again, in many ways, that's my life inside the VA, is making certain we don't replicate those things from the past and we don't have anymore replacement scheduling. One thing I would add I've also promised Secretary [Eric] Shinseki that we will not have another replacement scheduling while he and I are at the VA.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Well let me give the other witnesses a chance, if you want to add anything to that about how to avoid these high profile failures. Mr. Munnecke?

Tom Munneck: Yes, as a software architect faced with these demands on the technical side, I often find that the users -- and this might come from Senate and Congressional committees, by the way -- want to have the penthouse suite on the skyscraper but they don't want to pay for the lower 22 floors and the foundation of the building. And so they say, "I want this thing up at the top, give it to me tomorrow or yesterday." And everybody else just scrambles to build the rest of the skyscraper -- the building. And, as an architect, you say, "First of all, I have to dig a hole in the ground to build a foundation.' They say, 'No, no, I want this skyscraper. I want this penthouse suite.' So I think Mr. Baker's approach, which I wholly endorse, should also include the requirements that people are building and not make gold plated penthouse suites but maybe even the 10th floor of an existing building and scale it down and allow it to evolve over time rather than go for the big push and the big bang that may not be possible. So it should be a process of discovery and working forward gracefully rather than expecting the gold-plated requirement to be met immediately.

Edward Francis Meagher: One thing I would add to this answer is this notion of accountability, personal accountability. When you have the projects broken up into small pieces, where you make sure all the parts are in place before you begin, that there's agreed upon business requirements, there's a business owner, there's competent, experienced program managers and then you hold people accountable for their deliverables and for meeting their milestones. That's a culture change that is taking place, I would suggest over the last 18 months that's very dramatic and is probably one of the main pillars as to why I think you're seeing the turnaround now that some of you have recognized and I really believe is there.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Tullman?

Glen Tullman: Yes, I'd again compliment Assistant Secretary Baker on the progress and what I heard today. You know, we believe that the private sector should play an increasingly large role in developing these systems. We're developing very similar systems for the civilian health care system and increasingly what we're seeing is these two are meshing together so people are moving back and forth in and out of the military and other services and the government as well. So we'd like to make sure that, number one, that the government is looking at what the private sector has to offer. And two, we believe that there are much better systems to form the community that my counter-part here talked about: A community of the VA, they're out there, they're social networking systems, their open platforms, their Microsoft-based systems. They're not based on what is essentially a 25-year-old transaction processing language called MUMPS. So we'd like to see the new system based on newer, broader standards and have the government in the role of setting the standards for what they want and let the private sector compete to deliver and get the and be punished if they don't.

Kat will cover more of the hearing at her site tonight.

alsumaria tv
cbs news
the morning show
harry smith
the christian science monitor
jane arraf
the wall street journal
sam dagher
the daily times
the asia times
sami moubayed

mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
reporters without borders
the committee to protect journalists
the international press institute
louise hallman
morning edition
kelly mcevers
law and disorder
michael ratner
heidi boghosian
michael smith

robert jensen
the washington post

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

great post thanks

Newer Post Older Post Home