FEMALE ENGAGEMENT TEAMS

Posted on April 25, 2012 by asknod

An article in this morning’s paper caught my eye. I give it the A.E. Neuman award for this month. The Army utilizes women (usually NCOs) as an interface in situations where they enter villages. The old program was  labeled Lioness wherein a female soldier accompanied search teams in when they tossed a house. The “Lioness” was used to calm female locals while their residences were searched for weapons and explosives. She was also utilized to search women for weapons. The lioness model was, and is, probably vital if you’re going to engage in behaviour that is guaranteed to alienate you from those you are attempting to Westernize. If you hope to eliminate violence against our troops, you have to employ a kinder, gentler form of coercion. Either that or a ham-handed iron fist that brooks no resistance. You certainly don’t need women soldiers for the latter model.

The newer Female Engagement Teams (FETs) are another one of these touchy, feely attempts to “interface”. The soldiers assigned to it described their mission as attempting to find out what the local women want from their government. That would be the Afghan government. We already know what they want from us -to leave. Since when did we get in the business (in the midst of a conflict) of trying to ascertain what that je ne sais quoi was that we weren’t getting as we trundle through these little  burgs?

During the Vietnam War, we attempted to throw mass quantities of funds, farming implements and modernization at villages. too. It was called the Pacification program. We hoped to bribe the South Vietnamese villagers into supporting the corrupt central government in Saigon with cash and other inducements. The counterfoil to this was the Viet Cong. Any villagers who sided with the American/RVN pacification program were assassinated, tortured or never heard from again. This had the undesirable effect of  alienating the populace against us. We couldn’t be everywhere at once to defend them. We became inured to the subtle rejection and started a new “pacification” procedure. If you weren’t with us, then you were against. Any munitions or tunnel systems indicating Charlie’s activities in a village was a legitimate reason for burning it to the ground. This didn’t win friends or influence the natives either. In fact, it drove them into the arms of the enemy in record numbers. In the end, the Pacification program involved rounding up those souls who still desired to be part of the “democratic” system into fenced, guarded compounds and feeding them. Farming for sustenance was  optional.

What does the Army hope to gain from FETs? Well, according to those at the forefront, they’ll be in touch with the hopes and desires of the Afghan women. Young girls will look up to these female warriors and be emboldened to “be all they can be”. In fact, this will instill independence and bravado into these young girls and enable them to overcome insurmountable odds in the coming decades. Not.

When we bail out in 2014, these young girls will be re-educated in the Muslim ways of being seen and not heard. They will speak when spoken to and memories of gender equality will evaporate or be a fond memory. I find it odd that the Army has to go through this painful learning process again. Pacification programs are all well and fine but you cannot entice a people or a nation to become educationally self-sufficient just by role models. Building schools and digging wells does not placate an ignorant, suspicious populace. Nothing but time does that if you’re lucky. If the women are lucky, they will forget they ever heard or felt these new emotions. It will be pounded out of them soon enough anyway by the enlightened Taliban and their tribal elders.

As a last comment, I rate FETs right up there with striking a medal and awarding it to troops who refrain from shooting the enemy and try to interface with them.  Imagine if they constructed the medal like one of those new Hallmark greeting cards. You touch it and it plays Kumbaya, my Lord-Kumbaya. Now we’re getting somewhere…

It is hoped that being assigned to a FET will not become a precursor for PTSD. Simply commingling with young Afghan women shouldn’t be traumatic on its face but wait until 2014 when their progeny are being stoned for these new, instilled notions. War is ugly. Putting lipstick on it doesn’t improve the outcome.

Posted in General Messages, Humor, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

We Were Soldiers

Posted on April 24, 2012 by asknod

Did you know that 2/3 of Vietnam Vets have already passed? That’s 66 % of 2.1 million Vets who served there. We don’t count the other 6 million who were never in the military who said they were there. Here’s an old Marine’s take on it. Member Harry put it on my Facebook site. As the 37th anniversary of our unexpected and hasty departure  is near, I’ll probably put up a few posts on this subject. Tony Zinni’s memories…

Posted in All about Veterans, Food for the soul, From the footlocker, Inspirational Veterans | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VA’S DEFINITION OF EVALUATION

Posted on April 24, 2012 by asknod

Have you ever been misunderstood? Well, perhaps something was lost in translation at the whorehouse in Cholon lo those 40 years ago but I am talking about now. Now, set aside VA’s propensity to “misconstrue” that which we claim so frequently, and focus, if you will, on this yahoo news blurb that Joe Vet sent over. I saw it on page 7 of the local paper this AM and was going to comment on it today, but the Yahoo piece is more nuanced and detailed on the particulars.

What got my anger up is the perfect aplomb  shown when caught in this lie. “Yep. Yessssiree, Bobbie. We get ’em in by ten and out by five just like the dry cleaners. Evaluation? Why, almost immediately. Always the same day we get the paperwork.” Now that the phrase is no longer operable (and never has been), an “evaluation” has metamorphosed into being entered into the “books” and scheduled for an inspection, detection and potential adaptablility to Prozac. But wait. That’s always been the definition. You and I knew that subconsciously but probably disremember it.

What’s a scream is nobody, not even Sgt. Peppermint  Patty, called them on this baldfaced fiction. If I read this, the focus of my consternation would be immediate and clearly articulated.

 However, the VA measures how long it took to conduct the evaluation, not how long a patient waited to receive an evaluation. For example, if a patient is referred on Sept. 15 and the evaluation is scheduled and takes place on Oct. 1, then the VA would show that the veteran waited zero days, when in reality the patient had waited 15.

I built houses for a living before all this started. If a customer had called up Tuesday morning and said “Okay, you’ve got the contract. Go ahead and start.”, I couldn’t very well call them back  Tuesday afternoon and say I was done and just had some “followup” work left to do. Suddenly parsing  a difference between “conduct an evaluation” and “receive an evaluation” is disingenuous. They both have that big transitive action verb in there that implies lots of busy little hammers and saws.  VA would rather throw in the “other rental car place’s  plaint “( Well, not exactly.)

If this were the first misunderstanding among friends over what was meant or implied, it wouldn’t look suspect. This is the 10th iteration of the same excuse for not treating Vets yet it gets a bye.  Nobody raised their hand and said “Excuse me, but no one else counts their Veterans before they’re hatched. Why do you do it this way? Better yet- when did you start counting them this way? About 10 minutes after you discovered you were busted?” Apparently that isn’t done in news conferences. It’s too judgemental and demeans the VA spokesperson into feeling small and personally insecure.

Ladies and Gentlemen Veterans, nothing will ever change unless this type of mindset is called out. Getting down in the dirt over a definition and  apologizing for the misunderstanding is just moonwalking to distract from the 50 day wait for a meaningful check up under the hood. Hello? McFly?

Oh yes. I almost forgot…the new “office of making sure the Vet gets his evaluation thingymajiggy”.

The VA said it concurred with the findings and has already begun taking steps to address the findings, including establishing a new office with oversight of the mental health program.

Posted in C&P exams, Complaints Department, Medical News, PTSD, vA news | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

38 CFR §4.16–A Window For HCV Vets

Posted on April 23, 2012 by asknod

I have spoken numerous times of the enigma we encounter when we get the double whammy of both HCV (7354) and cirrhosis (7312). The ratings overlap so much, the danger of pyramiding under §4.14 causes VA to lowball you on both issues resulting in a Catch 22. You can’t get any higher that say 40% for Hep and still get 20% on 7312. Conversely, the same is true in reverse. In truth, you could qualify for 100% just on the Hep. but the duplication in the lower cirrhosis  rating percentages drag you back.

Here’s the repair order. Member J. A. Vet sent me this. He didn’t know he’d found the repair order. He simply sent me a BVA case and I spotted the VLJ’s logic in his rating decision supports what I am about to describe. First the decision:

Vet w/ 1000% P&T

Truthfully, it may not be 1000% but this guy would have to be the poster child for the highest % SC of all the little 10s, 20s and 40%ers. What I noticed was the VLJ’s observation that §4.16 holds a little known codicil. I will highlight the pertinent section of 4.16 first then go to the decision proper:

§ 4.16

Total disability ratings for compensation based on unemployability of the individual.

(a) Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities: Provided That, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. It is provided further that the existence or degree of nonservice-connected disabilities or previous unemployability status will be disregarded where the percentages referred to in this paragraph for the service-connected disability or disabilities are met and in the judgment of the rating agency such service-connected disabilities render the veteran unemployable. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. For purposes of this section, marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran’s earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination.

Okay. So the salient parts describe a single disease process-Hepatitis C. Let’s ignore, for a moment, the secondary side effects of the cirrhosis. The Hep is the primary disease process all by itself. Absent this gorilla, you wouldn’t be here reading this. The cirrhosis is merely a side effect of the hep. As such, it is part and parcel of the whole enchilada. Here’s what your favorite VLJ and mine has to say about the interpretation of it:

The provisions of the Veterans Benefit Administration Manual M21-1 (Manual M21-1) showed that in defining “single disability,” the provisions of Paragraph No. 16 of the rating schedule applied. The Manual M21-1 also showed that the independent 60 percent or more disability was determined based on a regular evaluation based on the rating schedule. The disabilities of 60 percent or more had to be separate and distinct from the single 100 percent disability and had to involve separate anatomical segments or bodily systems.
Although the rating schedule provided that separate 
evaluations be made for each diagnosis relating to a single 
bodily system, when such diagnoses covered a single 
functional entity and were all parts of a common disability, 
they could not be considered as being independently ratable. 
Within these limitations, however, the fact that a
100 percent disability and an independent 60 percent
disability resulted from a common etiological agent, such as
single injury, did not preclude entitlement. Manual M21-1,
Paragraph 50.38 (June 25, 1965). The Court has held that 
substantive rules contained in Manual 21-1 are binding on VA.See Montalvo v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 312 (1995).

Paragraph 16  [38 CFR 4.16(a)] of the rating schedule indicated that disabilities of one or both upper extremities, one or both lower extremities, disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, disabilities affecting a single body system, or multiple injuries incurred in action were considered to be a single disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (1972).

One thing I have noticed in the Court is that they will look at other parts of 38 CFR for guidance on contested law. Thus, if you come before them with a bitch about said dichotomy in the 7354/7312 Catch 22, they go afield in search of what is and what isn’t. Here Judge Hindin did so. He took a gazillion little bits and pieces of 10% for burnt calf, 10% for burnt thigh, 10% for burnt right palm and 10% for burnt left palm and cut the Gordian knot. As this all involved one chopper crash, one accident and one injury, our fried Vet should have gotten one burn rating-100%. I don’t think anyone reading this can say the Vet is ready for the Anaheim 10 K fun Run for Muscular Dystrophy. He’s also got a shit ton of other disabilities stacked up in the closet, the least of which is PTSD and blindness.  Yet the VA, in their inimitable way, is down in the weeds fighting over whether he can grip a steering wheel and is therefore not entitled to a grant for auto adaptation. This is the history of the VA. They do this day in and day out. They will fight over the most mundane things you and I would assume are a given. This decision is a perfect example of it.

This decision came out of one of the most overwhelmed ROs in the country next to, say, Oakland and Seattle. The fact that they continued to spoon feed 10 and 20% pieces of ratings to the Vet over 30 years is why you and I have to fight for every scrap too. By realizing this in advance, you can line up all the evidence, nexi and proof needed to win it all at the outset rather than do what this Vet and I did for 20 years.

We had this same problem with member Rob down in Salt Lake City. After fighting for years, we finally got him a win. The next thing we know they gave him 10% for hep and 10% for Cirrhosis. The only problem is Rob is on the Last Roundup. He’s Stage 4 and on the border of decompensation. One can hardly say he’s 10% anything. He’s legitimately entitled to 100% for the Hep and whatever they feel ambivalent about handing him for the cirrhosis. VA will inevitably fight him over this for years until he dies in the traces.

For any of you who have run into this or have a VSO who wants to throw the book at VA on your claims, be sure to point this problem out. Forewarned is forearmed. I’m just sorry it took so long to find a way around it. VA has lots and lots of rules. So many, in fact, that they sometimes have one to argue for both sides of an argument. Here is the winner when they drag out the old pyramiding bullshit. As a last resort, I suppose you could respectfully decline to accept a rating for cirrhosis and ask them to politely remove it. I wonder how that would play out. This would then remove the perceived roadblock to a P&T for just the hep. Hell, if you die, it’s going to be due to the Hepatitis-period. The cirrhosis might be the actual killer, but it wouldn’t be an issue if not for the Hep. I don’t know if they are capable of mentally digesting that though.

Posted in BvA Decisions, HCV Health, Medical News, Tips and Tricks, Uncategorized, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

SINGLE PAYER PROGRAM

Posted on April 22, 2012 by asknod

Ever heard of that concept? It’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about. The government is eventually the one in charge of medicine and health care starting in 2014. What, then,  to make of  member Joe Average Vet’s contribution on how to sign up and obtain it? Considering the grinder VA puts us through to obtain anything, be it medical or compensatory,  imagine a civilian with nothing more than name, rank, airspeed and tail number waltzing in to a VAMC  and receiving care.  Not only that but  hornswoggle them out of a brain surgery and other valuable considerations for years and years.  What? No 214? Ne problemo.

Do you think you or I could pull this off ? It makes you wonder. Apparently, if not for a greedy insurance company, he’d still be hitting on them. What gets me is that the VAOIG acts as though they Sherlocked this one out with no help from anyone. Right.  Anyway, it’s very instructional if anyone feels daring. Steal from your friends. Steal from your state government. Steal from anyone but the U.S. Govt.

Keith “not a Vet” Morris

Posted in All about Veterans, General Messages, Uncategorized, vA news | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

DVNF– WHO?

Posted on April 21, 2012 by asknod

DVNF. Just when you had all the Veterans outfits cataloged and tagged, out come a new one. What’s more, they are VA’s biggest fan. Check out this delicious news release where they positively gush over what a suuuuuuuuuuper job VA is doing for Vets now.  Or is beginning to do. Or is gearing up to get ready to do. I quote:

“The Disabled Veterans National Foundation(DVNF), a non-profit organization that exists to help men and women who come home with emotional and physical wounds after serving our country, supports the Department of Veterans Affairs for its plan to significantly increase its staff of mental health workers.“

Huh? Well, let’s think about this. How many are opposed to the idea of increasing staff? Go ahead and weigh in with comments.  I thought that was the province of all VSOs. I doubt anyone is adverse to the idea. How about this:

The VA announced April 19th that it would add 1,600 clinicians, including psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers and counselors, and about 300 support staff, in order to deal with a shortage that has become apparent as more veterans return home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The department’s current mental health staff is about 20,590.

There are 56 VAMCs next door to VAROs and some states have two or three. Dividing 1600 by 60 VAMCs says each one will get 26.6. Knowing VA, I expect each VAMC to get:

1 each- Psychiatrist(FNG) fresh from school.

1 each- Psychologist who is more insecure than those being treated

6 each- nurses to carry the water for the overwhelmed shrinks

12 each -social workers to keep track of all the new PTSD patients and try to figure out how to schedule the thousands of new appointments-all for about $47,000/yr.

6.6 each- counselors (part time only) for twice weekly evening Kumbaya sessions and the coffee Meet and Greet afterwards.

Vets should notice a remarkable difference in getting timely appointments after the endemic of suicides culls the herd. VA expects that will occur by 2015 to coincide with that new 125 day rule for getting an appointment just to see the new folks.

Charitable Outfit?

When they sound too good to be true, Goggle them! Not google. I mean put on the eye goggles and check them out.

Eye goggles

Posted in All about Veterans, General Messages, Gulf War Issues, Medical News, PTSD, VA BACKLOG, vA news | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

VA– We’re Fixing It.

Posted on April 21, 2012 by asknod

This is the actual gist of what Mr. Murphy said at the House Veterans Committee the other day. I must hand it to VA. It was said by none other than Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) a mistruth could make it half way around the world before the truth got out of bed. I may have garbled that and feel morally superior to correct me if so. I don’t mind. The sad fact is that we have heard the same thing so many times in so many administrations that we are all becoming residents of Missouri. I, for one, will never believe we’ll get justice. It will be a speedier form of denial with even more errors. In the event you present a “virtually complete” claim that only needs a simple yes or no, the denial will lightspeed. The calibre of justice is flawed by the approach to the claim.

A claim is unique. There are no convenient compartments or categories all vets can fit into. There simply are no square and round holes with corresponding pegs. Starting with a negative precept and trying to work towards a positive outcome is always offset early. This creates the situation of garbage in, garbage out. A claim cannot be fed to the M-21 computer and digested. One minor error, one overlooked medical report, one blood lab that wasn’t included in the C-file accidentally and bingo. It’s done. You now can expect 3 years to pass before the thing unwinds in D.C. Imagine a claims process where they did what they said they do. A positive report supporting the claim in the pile on the left. A report of willful misconduct in the pile on the right and so on and so forth. At the end, a weighing of the positive and the negative. So simple but so unattainable. Yet they and their VSO minions crow about how it’s the neatest thing since the wheel. And, like the wheel, any moment now you’ll see the momentum build and the backlog evaporate.

Notice the motif below Federal Computer Week? Strategy and Business Management for Government Leaders.  This must be their retreat magazine in the event they feel abused and picked on. Alice (the author) is doing yeoman service with her shrink couch. VA might actually begin to beleive what they’re saying if they get enough positive feedback.

Backlog solved.

Posted in All about Veterans, Complaints Department, Uncategorized, VA BACKLOG, vA news, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Phone From Hell

Posted on April 21, 2012 by asknod

Member Cal sent me this. No, he’s not from Californicatia. That’s his Christian name. Not Calvert or Calvin. Just plain old Cal. I didn’t buy that so  I asked to check his birth certificate, too. He refused just like they all do. It’s not like I’m nosy but since all that birther nonsense one can’t be too careful.

Vets should have one of these. It’s the next big step in interactive hardware.

Phone From Hell

Posted in General Messages, Humor, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–Worthless VA Medical Opinions

Posted on April 21, 2012 by asknod

As I get older, I read BVA HCV decisions and see errors so egregious they make my hair stand on end. What passes for Independent Medical Opinions requested by BVA VLJs to facilitate adjudications is going downhill rapidly. The following decision is a classic example.

When you go through the grinder, one thing you assume is that the VA will at least use viable, truthful medical science to deny you. Summonsing hocus-pocus jibber jabber and framing it as cutting edge literature on the subject never crossed my mind. Would it yours?

Let’s start with the possibility that the Veteran could have picked this up in service. Is it plausible? Was he involved in something that could foreseeably herald a risk? The Vet had a background in Mortuary science-as in dead people being put in boxes. I’d give him a pass so far. He even claimed needle sticks which I would say qualifies him, too.

If you are unfamiliar with ELISA Tests and blots, I will give you a brief education. Dr. Edwin Southern, a molecular biologist, discovered the technique and perfected it. It was called the Southern blot in his memory. Further experimenting resulted in a “western blot” which was used to identify the DNA sequences for AIDS, mad cow disease (BSE) , HBV and lyme disease. In a crowning triumph, the northern blot isolated RNA molecular material which was instrumental in finding HCV. The reason is simple. HCV is an RNA-based virus. HBV and AIDS are DNA-based viruses. Therefore, you will never identify HCV by using western or southern blot-whether in conjunction with the ELISA test or not. Simple? Painfully so.

Southern Blot

Western Blot

Northern Blot

So what should surface  in this Veteran’s decision but the following.

In March 1985, the Veteran was treated for venereal disease. In December 1987, while in the Reserve, an ELISA test with western blot was negative. In March 1988, the Veteran tested positive for venereal disease.

In November 2010, the Board obtained an expert opinion from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The Board had asked the VHA expert, a specialist in infectious diseases, considering accepted medical principles and the medical literature and a review of the Veteran’s file, to express an opinion on the following question:

Whether it is more likely than not (probability greater than 50 percent), at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent), less likely than not (probability less than 50 percent), or an opinion is not possible without resort to speculation that the current hepatitis C was related to the Veteran’s exposure to blood and body fluids as a trainee in mortuary science in service?

In formulating the opinion, the VHA expert was asked to comment on the clinical significance that the ELISA test with western blot in 1987 was negative and whether the ELISA screen would detect hepatitis C.

As most of us know, competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer a medical diagnosis, statement, or opinion (38 C.F.R. § 3.159).  Thus it is very disturbing to see this Vet’s claim go down in smoke due to an “expert’s” testimony.

In November 2010, the VA expert, a board certified infectious disease specialist since 1986 and a physician in the infectious diseases section at a VA Medical Center, after reviewing the Veteran’s medical records and a literature search, expressed the opinion that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current hepatitis C infection was related to service including exposure to blood and body fluids as mortuary science trainee in 1973. The VHA expert explained that the negative result of the ELISA test in 1987, the first-generation screening test for detection of hepatitis C, had a sensitivity rate of 54 to 84 percent, citing three medical references. And that the negative western blot, also a first generation test, made the sensitivity even greater. The VHA expert therefore concluded that the likelihood that the Veteran acquired hepatitis C before December 1987 was low.

As we all know, VA will use any evidence of risk post service as the most likely reason for the disease. Knowing full well that the risk via sexual congress is extremely low (but not inconceivable), the VHA expert jumps in with both feet.

The VHA expert also found that the Veteran had tested positive for venereal disease in 1988 and that unprotected sexual practice was a risk factor for hepatitis C.

Were this a truly “independent foray” in IMOs there would seemingly be more discourse on this mode of transmission-perhaps a study or clinical paper with something to gnaw on? Nothing. Just an unsupported, conclusory statement with nothing to back it up. The Court, incidentally, has ruled this style of evidence inadmissible.

From this, the Board concludes that the VHA expert applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the case to reach the conclusion reached in the report. This evidence opposes, rather than supports, the claim.

This, ladies and gentlemen Vets, is why you will never get a fair shake at the hands of VHA “experts”. Who writes the paycheck?  To whom is their allegiance owed? Who endangers their future employment if they come up with the “wrong” analysis of the evidence?

I do believe you can get (or could in the recent past) a fair IMO from QTC if VA sent out for it. They are at least one step removed from the process. The VHA, on the other hand is at the beck and call of the VASEC. To cross swords with him is to invite problems best left sleeping like the oft-referred to dog in the proverb.

The teaching moment here is obvious to anyone. Do not, under any circumstances, accept the pablum handed down by experts. With our certain knowledge of all things via the internet, it is extremely easy to ferret out these untruths and misconceptions and counter them on appeal. You may not be a doctor or specialist, but you can readily ascertain whether the specialist inveighing on your claim is full of hooey or not. What is also a crime is that the VLJ bought it hook, line and sinker. Most do not know that VLJs have a cadre of 10-12 munchkins who do nothing but preparatory groundwork and research for him and present a decision that needs virtually nothing more than his review and signature. In this case, that’s exactly what the poor hapless vet got- a review and a signature with nothing in the way of confirmatory or corroborating evidence. This is VA Justice. Prepare for it. Expect it. Make plans to counter it. Assume it will happen.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp/wraper_bva.asp?file=/vetapp11/Files1/1108537.txt

Munchkins are also future VLJs in training. God help us.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions, Nexus Information, Tips and Tricks, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Future Applesauce

Posted on April 21, 2012 by asknod

I was working in the orchard on the grape vines yesterday and found something inexplicable. All the buds on my fruit trees start out as pink. Afterwards, the cherry and pear trees bloom pure white. Where’s the pink? 

What I can’t forgive Cupcake for is insisting on planting cheery trees that have no cherries. They look marvelous but leave me less than overwhelmed. No fruit = no sense.

While this has absolutely nothing to do with HCV, it’s wonderful food for the soul. One of our members, Leigh, has recently received a transplant and doesn’t have the opportunities we do to get out and see some of these sights. This is God’s idea of eye candy.

I have to disagree with the Christmas song. This, to me, is the most wonderful time of the year-bar none.

Posted in Food for the soul, General Messages, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment