Breaking News Events

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Actually, if this were a Republican President there would be no comment what-so-ever.

Look, the POTUS can't just catch a commercial flight out of Dulles and land in Mumbai. He is going to have an entourage. At *minimum* he's going to be traveling with:

1) His Secret Service detail.
2) The Presidential medical team (and yes, he has his own medical team and no, they SHOULDN'T just check the POTUS into the nearest hospital)
3) His military advisory team (meaning the guy who carries the 'football').
4) Vehicular support team (and no, the POTUS shouldn't just use whatever transportation is convenient at his destination).
5) His advisory staff--so probably his CoS and a few others.
6) Ground support crew for all the vehicles (the Air Force and Marines are NOT about to let someone else work on vehicles carrying the POTUS).


That's the minimum. Figure a dozen people on his personal detail (immediate, close-in physical protection plus the snipers, driver, etc.). The Secret Service advance team (before the President even sets foot on AF1 a team of agents is already on the ground at the destination, coordinating the security arrangements with the locals). Figure the medical team is two or three people. There's the guy carrying the football. Then there's the drivers for the vehicles which is usually three or four--the one carrying the POTUS and two or three other vehicles for the security detail and as decoys.

Now, that means two aircraft (AF1, as far as I am aware, has no more cargo capacity than a standard, commercial 747 since the aircraft is packed full of electronics so that the POTUS can run the country from anywhere); AF1 and a cargo aircraft to carry the vehicles. Marine 1 (the Presidential helicopter) also flies with him requires another cargo vehicle (a C-5 Galaxy) to carry it.

So when the President takes the show on the road, we're talking upwards of 50 or 60 people total. C-5s and 747s are NOT cheap vehicles to operate.

Now, is the $200 million figure correct? No, I would strongly doubt that it is a quarter of that figure but it is not cheap to fly the President anywhere. Now, we COULD, I suppose, decide that the POTUS simply doesn't travel but the consequences of that would be rather negative. In fact, I did a little research on what it costs for the President to travel and found the following:

1) In 2002 the entire White House travel budget was around $4 million for the YEAR! Now, I understand that inflation happens but it would be shocking to see that ONE trip, 8 years later, would cost 50 TIMES as much!

2) Cost of flying AF 1 = ~ $60K per hour (figure from 2002 is $34K to $56K so I'm taking the highest number and adding to it a bit)

3) Food and board for his entourage = ~ $60K (again, the figure is from 2002 and I'm taking the upper range)

Now, taking these numbers--in fact, I'll actually be generous and err on the side of it being more expensive.

Flight time DC to Delhi (18 hours) @ $100,000 per hour (meaning I've almost *doubled* the operational cost of AF 1). $1,800,000 one way. Total cost = $3,600,000.

Food and board for the Presidential detail. Call it $100,000 per day (like I said, I'm being generous) Length of this visit is 2 days so ~ $200,000.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that the actual operational cost of a C-5 or C-17 (the only aircraft that could lift the vehicles the POTUS travels with) is 1/4 the cost of operating AF-1. But to be generous, we'll double that figure. So call it $50,000 per hour. That's another $3,600,000 for two aircraft (assuming one carries the helicopter and the other carries the ground vehicles).

Let's also say that it's another $250,000 per day for miscellaneous (meaning salaries, etc. although it's going to be nowhere near that).

That means that the two day trip is:

$7,200,000 for transportation costs (all three aircraft)
$200,000 for food and lodging
$500,000 for miscellaneous expenses.

Total cost $7,900,000. That's for the WHOLE trip. Now, in order for this story to be at all true, we have to account for another $392,100,000.

Let's say that my figures are too low by half--that brings the total to $16,000,000 for the entire trip. Meaning we'd still have to figure out where another $384,000,000 is going.

Now, my figures are rough, back-of-the-envelope numbers and I doubt that we can get at the actual figures for a very simple reason. If you know what an entity is spending money on, you can--if you are a trained intelligence analyst--make some kind of reasonable guesses as to WHAT they are spending it on and thus their capabilities. There is a reason why every intelligence agency on the planet keeps their budgets as a closely-guarded secret--keys to the kingdom secret. When I worked at NSA one of the things we listened for were mentions of budgets for the Soviet military. Why? Because if we knew what, say, a Guards Tank regiment had allocated we could know if they had gotten new T-80 tanks, for example. If you know the precise figure that is spent shuttling the POTUS then you can start to make reasonable guesses about what they money is going to. So given that, how likely do you think it is that the White House would allow a leak of what this trip will cost? How likely do you think it is that the Secret Service would let that kind of leak slide?

This isn't a partisan argument, this is an argument about math. The numbers simply do not work, UNLESS, of course, the POTUS is traveling with a light infantry division. If he's taking the entire 10th Mountain Division with him then I can see $200 million a day but since I doubt that he's traveling to a foreign nation with a fully-armed infantry division (nation's tend to take a dim view of that kind of thing) I don't see how this figure can have anything to do with reality.

One other thing, regarding the fleet of warships in the region. That would be the US 7th fleet. The 7th fleet is ALWAYS on station in the Indian Ocean. That is their area of operations. Whether they are loitering off the coast of India or steaming around the region, about a quarter of those ships would be there no matter what.

There will be at least one carrier battle group in the area (probably centered on the USS George Washington) which means--at minimum--the following:

1 aircraft carrier
2 guided missile cruisers
2 anti-aircraft cruisers
2 anti-submarine frigates or destroyers
Add to that one or two Los Angeles-class attack subs and a boomer (missile submarine) for a total of ten.


Cheers
Aj

THANK YOU, Aj for this knowledgble break-down as well as the cost of the Afghan War on a daily basis (and we still are spending in Iraq). Why anyone would think that the US President (any time, any president from any party) would be able to travel worldwide on JetBlue rates and free luggage, is just stupid! FerGoddessSakes, the US President is the leader of the free world and of a nation that is high on the nuclear weapons list as well as one that is the target of terror cells all over the world! He is going to another country that has nuclear weapons and in an unstable part of the world in which Pakistan and India are not exactly friends! And we have a lot at stake in Pakistan as well as other counjhtries in thsi region.

Do I believe that saving money is important in the government, yes. I also believe that the numbers in that artilce are trumped up. And MsD is right about the fact that these people get paid the same no matter in travel or not. What is wrong with people???

[Jess]

Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.

There are some of us out here who do not agree with one another and that's fine. I have however not chosen to name call and behave as demeaning as what I just saw above. I can appreciate your position and not bash you even when I might see it as very biased and not at all logical based on the information that was being discussed.

If AJ were perhaps working for the White House and presenting known numbers based on this trip, instead of saying..."Figure this.". or "let's say that", because to me, those are guesses. Even if loosely based upon an article she came across from some former presidential envoy, they are not current, not based on this trip, so to me they hold no water.

The article that was linked clearly states that the comment was made from inside officials within the government of India. I don't know Bachman from Eve, however, I can read an article without extrapolating words or innuendo that isn't in print. So, while you may feel justified in making snide snarky comments, I feel quite justified in pointing out that A) I was responding directly to a specific post B)I was responding based purely on the article presented, C) Snide comments hold no merit.

Sorry I didn't hit quote, but this post in in response to this:

MsDemeanor " Plus, it's not like the government is coughing up fresh cash to hire those folks. Most everyone involved is getting paid the same amount whether they are on the trip or sitting on their ass in some office playing solitaire on the computer.

Enough of this silliness, though. I'm sure that our local drive-by conservative got a big thrill by dropping yet another bit of baseless crap in a thread just to stir up the liberals. Let's get back to the important stuff. Like why the repugs haven't fixed everything yet. Come on slackers, where are all the new jobs?"

This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.

[Corkey]

Jess it is hard to give exact numbers on something that hasn't happened yet.
Each trip the POTUS takes requires any number of precautions, some more than others even in the US proper. GW had the same amount of coverage as did Clinton as did Bush SR, as did Kennedy. That is the whole issue to protect the POTUS from harm, and I dare say that the numbers are higher now than when Kennedy was in office due to 1. higher fuel costs, 2, higher threat levels, 3, higher federal employee costs, among other things. Numbers are an estimate of the total until the time as to which the costs are actual.

[Jess]

I don't and didn't disagree with that, Corkey. Not at all. I actually said I think the cost of protecting our President should not have a bottom line. My original post was an attempt to perhaps suggest that the article actually be read. If it is read, without bias, it is clear the statement came from other officials and Bachman was merely commenting on that information.

It was an attempt to once again say "hey, don't just read the headline or the slant, but read all of the information provided". I just get really tired of folks getting all bent out of shape and making assumptions based on half truths, ya know?

Thanks.

[Diva]

Just heard from NBC News that Aretha Franklin is seriously ill and her doctors have instructed her to cancel her appearances until May.

Her illness was undisclosed.

[dreadgeek]

So let me see if I've got this correct:

You take as having veracity a statement that a Presidential visit has a cost out of ALL proportion to any OTHER Presidential visit EVER--EVER!!!!--and yet, you dismiss my breakdown even though:

A) I admit that the numbers I'm working off of are dated (they are from the Bush the Younger administration)
B) I take those numbers and then, just to see if I can get anywhere NEAR the numbers mentioned in that article, double them.

In order for this logic to work, what one would have to believe is that the cost of an overseas Presidential visit has gone up by a *full* order of magnitude in a space of less than a decade. To communicate the sense of proportion, that means that the Toyota you bought in 2002 for $25,000 would now be a $250,000 car. In less than ten years. Now, do I have all the numbers? No. I don't. I admit that. But I'll bet you dinner, at any restaurant in this country, that my numbers are CLOSER to reality than the numbers that you think have some veracity.

I'm sorry but how that logic works is *utterly* inescapable to me. How anyone could believe that this trip could cost anywhere *near* $200 million per day is absolutely beyond my ability to comprehend.

The point of the numbers I ran was not to give an absolutely accurate picture of what the Presidential trip would cost--even if I HAD access to that information I wouldn't publish it for the reason I already elucidated, to do so would give a reasonably talented intelligence analyst enough information to begin building a picture of the security arrangements. I wouldn't do that because I would not want the Secret Service showing up at my door wanting to have a conversation about Presidential security and how I'm making their job harder--something I think that they take a rather dim view of. No, my point was to demonstrate that this $200 million figure is patently ridiculous. If the figure were, say, $25 million or $50 million a day okay I wouldn't quibble but we're talking about a sum of money that is keeping the best part of 100,000 soldiers in the field in combat operations. That is a non-trivial amount of money.

You can dismiss my back of the envelope math if you wish and accept as being true a figure that was created out of sheer prestidigitation but please don't try to pretend that there is a *logical* reason for doing so because, quite plainly, there isn't. AT LEAST the numbers I was working with had some tenuous connection to reality and, as I stated, I was generous and assumed that the cost of everything had doubled so I took the 2002 figures, took the high-end number and then doubled it.

Since this Indian official has no BETTER access to the information than I do why is it that you consider his figure of $200 million to be at all plausible while you dismiss my more conservative figures out of hand?

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Jess

Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.

There are some of us out here who do not agree with one another and that's fine. I have however not chosen to name call and behave as demeaning as what I just saw above. I can appreciate your position and not bash you even when I might see it as very biased and not at all logical based on the information that was being discussed.

If AJ were perhaps working for the White House and presenting known numbers based on this trip, instead of saying..."Figure this.". or "let's say that", because to me, those are guesses. Even if loosely based upon an article she came across from some former presidential envoy, they are not current, not based on this trip, so to me they hold no water.

The article that was linked clearly states that the comment was made from inside officials within the government of India. I don't know Bachman from Eve, however, I can read an article without extrapolating words or innuendo that isn't in print. So, while you may feel justified in making snide snarky comments, I feel quite justified in pointing out that A) I was responding directly to a specific post B)I was responding based purely on the article presented, C) Snide comments hold no merit.

Sorry I didn't hit quote, but this post in in response to this:

MsDemeanor " Plus, it's not like the government is coughing up fresh cash to hire those folks. Most everyone involved is getting paid the same amount whether they are on the trip or sitting on their ass in some office playing solitaire on the computer.

Enough of this silliness, though. I'm sure that our local drive-by conservative got a big thrill by dropping yet another bit of baseless crap in a thread just to stir up the liberals. Let's get back to the important stuff. Like why the repugs haven't fixed everything yet. Come on slackers, where are all the new jobs?"

This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Jess

Ya know, I was merely commenting on the article(s) provided. You can decide that I am "conservative" if you choose to even while I have freely and openly admitted being bi-partisan and have stated repeatedly in threads that I TRY to look at all sides and read all information provided.
...
...
...
This is the type of post that does not create discussions or debate, it just promotes further division between folks who could be allies.

Jess, my comments were not directed at you. The original poster of the link to the article is a notorious drive-by-drop-a-pile-of-lies-crap-article-and-then-run-away conservative. I get tired of that bullshit behavior; the person has no interest in facts or in debating, just in stirring up shit. If a person wants to debate or discuss, then they should show up with some facts and they should bother to stick around.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Jess

I don't and didn't disagree with that, Corkey. Not at all. I actually said I think the cost of protecting our President should not have a bottom line. My original post was an attempt to perhaps suggest that the article actually be read. If it is read, without bias, it is clear the statement came from other officials and Bachman was merely commenting on that information.

It was an attempt to once again say "hey, don't just read the headline or the slant, but read all of the information provided". I just get really tired of folks getting all bent out of shape and making assumptions based on half truths, ya know?

Thanks.

Here's my problem with this:

IF Ms Bachmann had, over the last 18 months or so, had proven herself to be a fair-actor then okay. However, Ms Bachmann has *repeatedly* made statements that are, at very best, wildly inaccurate. To wit:

Ms Bachmann has stated that there were FEMA camps being set up in which the Obama administration would put their political opponents. Do these camps exist? No. Is there ANY evidence such camps exist or were planned? No. Yet, she has repeatedly said this.

Ms Bachmann has stated that the expansion of Volunteer for America and Americorps was meant to create a cadre of young Marxists who would go out and be the Obama administration's thugs. Is this, in fact, what is happening? No. Is there any evidence that anything remotely LIKE this is happening? No.

Ms Bachmann has stated that the HCR bill had provisions for 'death panels' in it. Did it? No. Was there any evidence that would point to something even remotely like a death panel? No. There was payment for end of life counseling but that was simply to allow people on Medicare to have Medicare pay for any EOL counseling that they might seek (Medicare didn't pay for it).

I could go on and on. So when Ms Bachmann latches onto an off-the-cuff remark and runs with it on national television, it seems reasonable to dismiss what she is saying as having no more veracity than any of the statements above. What's more, Ms Bachmann is NOT speaking as a private citizen. If you or I want to rant about the money it costs for Mr. Obama to travel or even what it costs for him to use the toilet at the White House that is fine. We are private citizens with very limited sphere of influence. On the other hand, if a sitting member of Congress, who aspires to be House majority leader, starts parroting things without fact-checking them that is a different kind of matter altogether. It is irresponsible and i am being *very* generous.

Lastly, my concern--and you can dismiss this if you wish--is that Ms Bachmann will, as House majority leader, have the power of the purse. The White House cannot spend money not approved by Congress. Now, it doesn't take a particularly active imagination to conjure up a scenario where the House slashes the White House travel budget for FY 2012, just before the Presidential election. Now, Mr. Obama either has to stay in D.C. and not campaign OR he has to take the risk and travel on a seriously restricted budget. He has to do this and travel to places where people have been convinced--thanks in no small part to the effort of people like Ms Bachmann--that the POTUS is a Marxist, Manchurian-candidate, terrorist. The geometry of THAT scenario is too horrible to pursue further.

Baseless non-logical claims that may make us emotionally satisfied, or which comport with a pre-existing ideological commitment bother me and I'm not going to just pretend that it is just as likely that Ms Bachmann's parroting of this claim has anything to do with reality as, well, any of the OTHER statements she has made in the last 18 - 24 months regarding this administration.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Jess, my comments were not directed at you. The original poster of the link to the article is a notorious drive-by-drop-a-pile-of-lies-crap-article-and-then-run-away conservative. I get tired of that bullshit behavior; the person has no interest in facts or in debating, just in stirring up shit. If a person wants to debate or discuss, then they should show up with some facts and they should bother to stick around.

Ms D:

Like you, I am done with the 'drive by' crap. If one of my neighbors ran into my house and took a dump on the hardwood, I wouldn’t take too kindly to it. I see no reason why I should let slide someone doing the Internet message board equivalent. You have characterized it perfectly. What this person does is post some crap that has about as much fact to it as a Harry Potter movie and then scampers off until the next time she chooses to do that act. While I understand all the arguments for "don't give them energy" I am also reminded of a line that Terry Pratchett, the British satirist, likes to have his characters quote: "a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on". Every time that we allow an untruth to sit in these forums unchallenged, we do two things: We *encourage* the behavior of posting untruths and put the wind at the back of the lie. We have had a real-world view of how that plays out watching how the Democrats dealt with (or failed to deal with) the lies told about Mr. Obama and the HCR bill.

I get it that my fact-based, reality-based commitment doesn't make me the most popular poster here. I don't care. Thirty years of epistemic relativism to the contrary, there really are facts, there really is reality, and no one is entitled to their own set of facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but no one is entitled to their own facts.

I think it's long past the time that we stopped pretending that everyone gets their own facts.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

So I did some more research into this matter. If you believe this story has any legs at all Jess, then what you believe is this:

1) That the United States government is going to somehow figure out how to spend $200 million every 24 hours when a full-blown war, with tens of thousands of troops in an active combat zone, can't *quite* get to that figure per day.

2) That the United States Navy is going to task 10% of its ENTIRE fleet to provide off-shore security for a 48 hour visit. What that means is that 3-THREE!--carrier battle groups (30 ships) will be tasked to this The 7th fleet total is about 80 ships. Why on EARTH would they need three carrier battle groups to handle this task?

(To give you a sense of perspective, a carrier battle group is the carrier and between 9 and 11 additional ships depending upon the mission profile. A carrier battle group can pretty much control an area of between 100 to 200 miles surrounding the fleet. By control, I mean near *total* control of the seas and air around it. By total control I mean just that. NOTHING that is mechanical flies within 200 miles of a carrier battle group unless the CAG (commander air group) suffers it to do so. What's more, nothing larger than a dinghy sails the seas within 200 miles of a carrier battle group unless the group commander suffers it to be so. What that means is that the commander of the CBG centered on the Washington could shut down Indian aviation at the time and place of their choosing and there is not a damn thing the Indian government could do to stop it. That's ONE battle group.)

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Sabine Gallais

If this were any other POTUS, there'd be a revolt in the streets.

You've got to be kidding me.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Obama can't even blow his nose without a bunch of jackasses having a revolt in the streets. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a very vocal and very stupid minority of people in the US who have made it their new favourite hobby to toss a fit and revolt in the streets over EVERYTHING that Obama does - and even about things they are only pretending that he has done.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

You've got to be kidding me.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Obama can't even blow his nose without a bunch of jackasses having a revolt in the streets. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a very vocal and very stupid minority of people in the US who have made it their new favourite hobby to toss a fit and revolt in the streets over EVERYTHING that Obama does - and even about things they are only pretending that he has done.

Obama blows his nose? You know who else blew their nose? HITLER!!!

Also, blow your nose? Blow yourself up? So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is a SUICIDE BOMBER!!!!!


Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Cheers
Aj

It's cool, I also frequently can't help myself.

[dreadgeek]

Rachel Maddow's opening segment this evening had to do with acceptance of false beliefs in the conservative movement. She correctly described it as a *political* problem.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Ms D:

Like you, I am done with the 'drive by' crap. If one of my neighbors ran into my house and took a dump on the hardwood, I wouldn’t take too kindly to it. I see no reason why I should let slide someone doing the Internet message board equivalent. You have characterized it perfectly. What this person does is post some crap that has about as much fact to it as a Harry Potter movie and then scampers off until the next time she chooses to do that act. While I understand all the arguments for "don't give them energy" I am also reminded of a line that Terry Pratchett, the British satirist, likes to have his characters quote: "a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on". Every time that we allow an untruth to sit in these forums unchallenged, we do two things: We *encourage* the behavior of posting untruths and put the wind at the back of the lie. We have had a real-world view of how that plays out watching how the Democrats dealt with (or failed to deal with) the lies told about Mr. Obama and the HCR bill.

I get it that my fact-based, reality-based commitment doesn't make me the most popular poster here. I don't care. Thirty years of epistemic relativism to the contrary, there really are facts, there really is reality, and no one is entitled to their own set of facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but no one is entitled to their own facts.

I think it's long past the time that we stopped pretending that everyone gets their own facts.

Cheers
Aj

Count me in with being discusted with drive-by conservative crap that has no basis in fact! You bet disagreement via opinion is different than spewing facts without research and getting to the primary sources. I could line up a kazillion "facts" that align with my views from several sources, but to do so is only doing exactly what the likes of beck, O'Rielly, Limbaugh and Coulter do.

I am also tired of liberals and or progressives being viewed as not caring about how funds are used and just wanting tax revenues to be used without accountability. I don't feel that way at all and again, one would have to be stuck on stupid right now to not have concerns over US spending and the deficit. There are just different policies and approaches I would want to see over what the Right views as the way to go.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Andrew, Jr.

Fort Hood Shooting (Texas)

7 dead
20 injured
1 in custody after shooting (unsure of multiple shooters)
Army Base that deals with the soldiers coming back from overseas duty

Fort Hood to mark anniversary of shooting rampage

The final count was 13 dead and 32 injured. My impression is that some of the injured were *very* injured. The shooter is paralyzed from the chest down.

[Nat]

Glenn Beck Fantasizes About Obama Being Assassinated In India

On his radio show today Glenn Beck fantasized that Muslim extremists could assassinate President Obama while he visits India because, “If anybody thinks he was a Muslim over here, well God forbid, they think he was a Muslim over there because he left his religion for Christianity, death sentence, behead him.”

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011040016

[Nat]

Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (This is a month old, but it's new to me)

A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online. The post prompted wide speculation about whether the device was real, whether the young Arab-American was being targeted in a terrorism investigation and what the authorities would do.

It took just 48 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted its expensive device back, the student told Wired.com in an interview Wednesday.

The answer came when half-a-dozen FBI agents and police officers appeared at Yasir Afifi’s apartment complex in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday demanding he return the device.

Afifi, a 20-year-old U.S.-born citizen, cooperated willingly and said he’d done nothing to merit attention from authorities. Comments the agents made during their visit suggested he’d been under FBI surveillance for three to six months.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Nat

Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (This is a month old, but it's new to me)

That is so gross. Seriously.

(Oh, and regarding your other post just now - I bet Glenn Beck had an erection the entire time he was doing that particular show.)

[Greyson]

Published: 2010-11-04
What would you do with $11,255,272?

Couple lavishes entire lotto jackpot on charities, family

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter


LOWER TRURO — They won $11.2 million from a lottery ticket in July. And now every penny is gone. But Allen and Violet Large didn’t spend any of it on themselves. And that’s just the way they like it.

"What you’ve never had, you never miss," said Violet, 78.

Married since 1974, the Lower Truro couple don’t live large. They don’t travel, they don’t gamble and they don’t buy what they don’t need.

"We have an old house, but we’re comfortable and we’re happy in it," Violet said.

They spent 30 years in Ontario where Allen was a steel welder and Violet worked for cosmetics and chocolate companies. They retired in 1983 and returned to Nova Scotia.

"We were pretty well set, not millionaires, but comfortable," said Allen, 75.

So when they hit it big in Lotto 6-49’s July 14 draw, they decided to give it all away.

All that money "was a big headache," Allen said. Violet said she was concerned about "crooked people" who might try to take advantage of them.

But the big win came at a difficult time in their lives: Violet was undergoing treatment for cancer that doctors discovered in the spring.

"That money that we won was nothing," said Allen, choking back tears. "We have each other."

Violet has been through surgery and finished her last chemotherapy treatment a week ago.

"I’ve been very fortunate not to be bedfast," said Violet, who also pointed to the support of her family and neighbours who bring them meals and keep their spirits up.

"It’s very hard" to watch the woman he married 36 years ago go through so much, Allen said.

"All the money in the world can’t buy your health," he said.

After the win, the couple took about a week to work out the details before embarking on their $11,255,272 spending spree.

They took care of family first and then began delivering donations to the two pages’ worth of groups they had decided on, including the local fire department, churches, cemeteries, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, hospitals in Truro and Halifax, where Violet underwent her cancer treatment, and organizations that fight cancer,

Alzheimer’s and diabetes. The list goes on and on.

The couple won’t say how much they gave each group, but they’ve received plenty of phone calls, letters and plaques of gratitude. While they’re thankful for each one, they didn’t do it for the recognition.

"It made us feel good," said Violet. "And there’s so much good being done with that money."

She and her husband said they feel privileged to be able to give back to the community, to help the firefighters, the doctors and nurses and the volunteers who have helped them.

"We’re the lucky ones," Violet said. "I have no complaints."

( pbrooks@herald.ca)


http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1210191.html