Reporters need to stop using bloggers words as their own

It's really terrible when someone uses someone else's work and then takes credit for it.
I used one of his articles and pointed out the fact that he must have just started to discover what's been going on in the VA since he used the word advocate instead of adversary. Then a few days later he pulls out that word? He gets paid for what he writes. I don't get paid for what I do. July 8th he posted his story in the original form and the next day I posted my comments along with part of his article. July 13th, he republished it with the different title. This really ticks me off. What kind of game is being played on bloggers by "reporters" when they keep doing this. It's not just me this keeps happening to. It's happened several times to Lily over at Healing Combat Trauma. If we can bother to give credit where credit is due, give reporters the publicity for their work, then why in the hell can't they return the same courtesy?


I spend 16 hours a day trying to take care of these veterans along with posting. What you don't see here are the articles I decide to not post. This is not a pass time for me. It's my life. In the over 25 years I've been doing this, 15 years online, I depended on reporters to provide the stories so that I would know what's going on. I put my two cents in when I feel the need to and write essays when I feel compelled to. Reporters will spend a few hours here and there, write something, get paid for writing it and then get their name in the newspapers and online. That's great when it is their work but when it isn't, when they refuse to give any credit to bloggers, that's a shame and we shouldn't stand for this anymore.

Warning to reporters! I value your work. I never use what you do without posting where the report came from. Usually I will only post what will grab the attention of my readers so they can be off on their merry way to read the rest of what you wrote, unless there is no way for it to be cut. Then I post the link and ask my readers to click on the link so that you get the hit for the work you do. Be warned if you do not do the same for me.

Martin Schram: Why is VA adversary, rather than advocate, of vets?
By Martin Schram - Scripps News Service
5:04 p.m., Sunday, July 13, 2008

When it comes to war and peace, we indeed are two Americas.

One fights our nation’s wars. The other pays those who go to war so the rest of us, our children and our grandchildren, won’t have to.

At least, that is the way it is supposed to work. But a new book, written by this columnist, details scores of shameful ways in which our nation is failing the men and women who volunteer to fight our wars in distant lands — and especially when they return home and discover they must battle anew, this time with their own government, just to get treatment and benefits earned long ago.

“Vets Under Siege: How America Deceives and Dishonors Those Who Fight Our Battles” (Thomas Dunne Books) chronicles more than a half century of tragic tales of veterans who have been wronged, stacks of dust-gathering studies of delays and denials, official studies followed by official inaction, as problems festered and veterans suffered.

There is the sad story of Gulf War Army veteran Bill Florey, who developed a rare cancer after being exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons that the U.S. Army mistakenly detonated at Khamisiyah, Iraq.

A series of horrendous failures and treatment delays left him horribly disfigured and cancer-ridden.

Then the VA coldly rejected his modest request for service-related disability compensation — without even checking its own data that would have proven the merits of his request. The VA case adjudicator simply asserted in adversarial language that it was “less likely than not” that Florey’s chemical exposure caused his cancer.
go here for more
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/Jul/13/martin-schram-why-va-adversary-rather-advocate-vet/

This is what I posted on July 9th with my comments and part of his original article.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Veterans Adversary
You can always tell when people have just begun to discover what our veterans go through as soon as they use the word "advocacy" when talking about the administration end of the VA. To hear of claims approved years after filing is nothing new. To hear claims denied that obviously should have been approved is nothing new either. None of this is new and that's the most infuriating part of all.

Old timers like me will say the VA is more Veterans adversary than anything else until the claim is approved. Then they cannot do enough for the veterans needing to have their wounds treated. Getting from wound to treatment however, is like trying to be admitted into an exclusive club where membership is regarded as a privilege instead of a debt owed. We still have veterans trying to fight to have their Agent Orange claims approved and they are still trying to find out how many illnesses are actually attributable to AO. It's almost as if every claim filed is automatically suspected of being a false claim until they finally honor it.While claims may be worthy of a total rating of 100%, they will approve 50% and then make the veteran fight for the increase instead of just awarding it fully in the first place and this only comes when there has been many years of fighting to have it honored.

Ask the Vietnam veterans who came home fighting to have PTSD treated, which had been around since the beginning of time and they will tell you horror stories of getting claims approved.The following story is just more of the same and will break your heart.

Main Entry: ad·ver·saryFunction: nounPronunciation: 'ad-v&(r)-"ser-eInflected Form(s): plural -sar·ies: one that contends with, opposes, or resists : ENEMY - ad·ver·sari·ness noun

VA or Veteran's advocacy?Submitted by SHNS on Tue, 07/08/2008 - 17:11.
By MARTIN SCHRAM, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and opinion
When it comes to war and peace, we indeed are two Americas. One fights our nation's wars. The other pays those who go to war so the rest of us, our children and our grandchildren, won't have to. At least, that is the way it is supposed to work. But a new book, written by this columnist, details scores of shameful ways in which our nation is failing the men and women who volunteer to fight our wars in distant lands -- and especially when they return home and discover they must battle anew, this time with their own government, just to get treatment and benefits earned long ago."Vets Under Siege: How America Deceives and Dishonors Those Who Fight Our Battles" (Thomas Dunne Books) chronicles more than a half century of tragic tales of veterans who have been wronged, stacks of dust-gathering studies of delays and denials, official studies followed by official inaction, as problems festered and veterans suffered.
There is the sad story of Gulf War Army veteran Bill Florey, who developed a rare cancer after being exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons that the U.S. Army mistakenly detonated at Khamisiyah, Iraq. A series of horrendous failures and treatment delays left him horribly disfigured and cancer-ridden.Then the VA coldly rejected his modest request for service-related disability compensation -- without even checking its own data that would have proven the merits of his request. The VA case adjudicator simply asserted in adversarial language that it was "less likely than not" that Florey's chemical exposure caused his cancer. Florey died of his brain cancer on New Year's Day, 2005. Six months later, a government study discovered that actually it was twice as likely as not that Florey's chemical weapons contamination caused the cancer that killed him.
There is the tale of Eric Adams, a military policeman from Tampa, Fla., who served in both the Gulf War and the Iraq War. His job in Iraq included leading truck convoys through dangerous territory. A roadside bomb exploded in front of his convoy and when he braked, a truck smashed into the rear of his rented van, which had no seat belts. Back home, a VA adjudicator initially felt there was inadequate proof that his service even constituted combat conditions!click post title for more

Posted by Chaplain Kathie Costos at 7:21 PM
http://woundedtimes.blogspot.com/2008/07/veterans-adversary.html