WORDS FIT

[Submission trimmed to fit needs of the New York Times: September 17th, 2004]
WORDS COUNTING

The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. It is ironic he is in the paragraph profession and a Bush supporter, but not that he misses the connection to education having something to do with it. How much education does one need to see that an equation new or old needs more than a few words and that life is more than numbers crunching? Diversity is found in those that know there is more.

WORDS COUNTING

[Original draft--for submission to New York Times: September 16th, 2004]

The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". He appears uncomfortable with the irony that his profession is in the paragraph world and his hope lays in number crunching friends and gain. That may be why I find it hard to see his point, being more balanced.

At least he concedes there are those that don’t fit his theory, but it is ironic as well that he focuses on CEO’s and accountants that have some independence and freedom from words and education and avoided a conclusion that the world is more than just numbers. Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. Hopefully I have not been too conservative with my words, but I cannot prove that education has something to do with all this 2.

CAUTION: Editing may reduce meaning.
Roger Larson

Voting Course Not Curse

[Submission to local paper: September 14th, 2004]

Michael Medved’s "Fringe party sickness…" brought a cringe and later pause for thought. From Bush’s imperfections as a reason to vote for him that indicates being "mature enough to understand the workings of the Republic" to the claim that conservatives "should cure themselves of the sick infatuation with pathetic fringe parties" it came together. There is concern that there are not more choices and that other parties act as spoiler, but maybe a rational look would include the Green factor in 2000. But it was the "Does any rational observer really believe President Bush is evil? That got me.

I hope for rational observers too, but does any one really believe President Bush period? They try to paint things "good and evil" and now they want nuance and rational. Bet that they know the workings of the Republic, but wonder and worry about the workings of democracy and freedom. The nuance is in choosing when to see the choice between "good and evil" as metaphor, and when you think something is real or when it is our only choice.

A vote for a fringe candidate is not a vote for Bush or Kerry. Understanding does not mean results. Voting is the only thing black and white. Voting fringe sends a message that it can’t get any worse but can have the opposite result. Vote nuance over being flippant and flopping all over the world without a map. Vote Bush for change without a course. Vote Kerry for understanding and working.

Stuart Smally Anyone?

The Hollow World of George Bush
If positive thinking works, who needs weapons?
QED or Mobius Faith?

And what the heck are we positive about?
Only the shadow knows. What about between the words and the deeds?
The future may be our only end, but the golden rule is a two way street.

* http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092504Z.shtml">original link updated

Catch up.

There are a few submissions elsewhere where I will have to post later, as I am now referring to them. In the meantime I found Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/and Informed Comment which I must catch up on too if it won’t spoil me. At this post my readings on that site were limited to two, and had not found the site prior to my previous post.

Exporting Democracy

The ink is barely dry on my last post and Rumsfeld provides more clarity. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/
"Nothing’s perfect in life," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee on Thursday. "You have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

I contradicted history and vice versa when I said maybe elsewhere, the only thing black and white is a vote. Our 2000 election brings that and Rumsfelds claim into question.

Cherry paraphrasing.

The Seattle Times editorial today titled: Kerry's right to slam the president on Iraq.(see link) I agree when they say his Iraq vote and recent claim was "... not a 'flip-flop.' It is sensible and consistent."

However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."

Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."

The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.

We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?

It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.

* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)

Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.

Nation building and policeman to the world?

See previous post for background. See Link for the Secretary-General'spreemptive talk on law and order.

President Bush’s speech to the UN included admirable goals but the path is gilded with words that make it slippery.
"The proper response to difficulties is not to retreat. It is to prevail."

No one is retreating. It is how we will prevail that matters.
It is only a slight change from the only choice is between war and doing nothing, but still only words.
There was no camp or crowd for doing nothing either.

Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness.

One statement that may summarize or simplify the theme behind my writing is an old saying and an old joke:
Follow the "Golden Rule".

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
and
"Those with the gold, rule."

Both may be true, it is the extent that we apply them that matter and in modern terms it could be said that those with the oil rule. It is also to the extent that we know they are a joke, that we know anything. Or rather it is the extent that there is any truth that we we know it is a joke.

The theme is further complicated by just the trickiness of the words, rule and follow. Connections have been a sub-theme, but anybody can make them. Following may require a leader but a leader should remember that others follow what you do more than what you say. This would seem to be important whether we know what we mean or not.

It is tempting to want people to "Do as I say, not as I do." just as it is satisfying to "Have your cake and eat it too." But do people have faith in the words or math that power makes fuzzy? Do people really understand how to follow this?

This is what I have been saying in a round about way. It may be coincident that I run into the work of Philip Gold or it may be that I have been following public radio, but he has a book called "Take Back the Right." Not just that he has the right name(again) but his words echo mine and he seems to use the word right, among many, in a way that has meaning.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0786713526/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8108271-4043046#reader-page for a review of the book and see his article in Seattle Weekly at the link below.

We may not have the same destination but we need the tools to build the road and we cannot ignore as much in the planning.

September Eleventh

I DID NOT FORGET!

I chose to do something different about it. I gave words a rest.

I now remember the ones I had within hours of the unspeakable.

AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED. (Sept. 11, 2001)

The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wakeup. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the same terrible deeds.

[This was written before noon on that day but after doing what was much later recommended by the President: going on with our life, and I saw the flags already at half-staff as I jogged past my local fire station.]

MUTUAL OR CONGENITAL?

Sent 9-2-04: [Speaking of timing, this has been sent to a local paper, but not likely to see print. I can see that it assumes that the reader is informed of too many things which I do not have room for in the limit of 250 words, which is what the paper suggests and I happened to have hit. But the previous post may be a useful on this measure. ]

One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.

But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.

More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.

THE WAR OF THE WORDS!

One change Bush may want to consider is getting a new speechwriter. One who will write speeches he can’t mess up. He blames trial lawyers for Ob-gyn not being able to practice their love, with women all over this country. Structurally it may make sense if you are very careful, narrow-minded and know what is meant. But do we really want a president who stays the course, since one reason for the Iraq war was to make sure Saddam knew he meant what he says?

Maybe he is the great educator and this comedy a ploy to get the dictionary more widely read if not changed. How can we tell the jokes from the truth that may leak out? We know that leaks are a ploy and combined with increased information classification* to minimize actual truth getting out, very effective. A joke or not, is there a chance that at his first press opportunity when he said things would be easier if he were dictator that our friends let alone enemies knew what he meant?

Brace for more "catastrophic success". Which means winning what you don’t know how to win or ever will, faster. Or at least not being able to say it.

* After writing this I pursued a link that had been recommended by one of the links I have to the right by those NOTBEATING… It will be read later, but the only connection I make is to the reference on classifications not comedy. It has no link to my thinking this comical or the comedy line I pursued, as I had not followed up on it yet and don’t know if I will, follow up or find it comical. But in being preemptive or funny, timing is everything and words may be key too. This footnote while at first seemingly unnecessary actually tied up more than I expected.

UNITER NOT A DIVIDER

If one doesn't do nuance, everything is flip-flop or political. Cheney said it was mutual, he was close. They see it as uniting, and others as dividing. It may be the only way to see anything as united.

They started it.

So I am getting there. It seems a talking point that it was Kerry who brought up his military record and that it is fair game. Well Mayor Juliani pointed out that after September 11th, he made the comment, something like aren't we glad Bush is president. Well that comment alone is odd that such a failure should bring the comment but at least should open the door that Bush's record be looked at. As General McPeak pointed out in an interview with Dori Monson a day ago, Kerry's service made him a hero, and his protestsupon his return, made him twice a hero.

Meanwhile the convention dishonors those with puple hearts to mock Kerry. When men and women died for the freedoms Zell Miller ranted about others abusing he dishonors them more than those who practice their freedoms.

Fair game? Debate is a fair game. Using facts that are so twisted from facts is far from fair. All the moderation and hope that was on display the day before has one more reason to be questioned. Questioned while it is still possible.

They started it.

See same link... I say they started it. Two realities? Rumsfeld himself said facts change as noted here before I started providing links. You can check the archives around the time you think he may have said that. Reason enough for flip-flop. But a second reason as Cheney hit it, is mutual, sort of. Since they don't do nuance everything they can't understand has flip-flop potential. They do do French as in "pardon my French" as Cheney has been caught on a podium and the senate floor referring to a journalist and later a Senator.
Well if nuance is French, then pardon my Cheney. You would think that English is Greek to them but I won't go there. No I am not being vulgar just over my head academically.

Live From New York: Saturday Night Live

[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.

Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.

Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.

The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.

Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?