[Sent to KC Journal, 2-21-03 in reply to upcoming column that had been in the NY Times.] [Link and bold added 8-2-10]
The Yes-But Parade, by William Safire was very good. He made the administration’s case as best it can be made. However if turned inside out, the argument is useful in demonstrating the reverse. It is better to be in the "Yes-but parade" than be following the Butt Head in the wrong direction leader who sees the choice as acting now or doing nothing. Sorry, it was just too tempting to put it in Bush diplomatic terms. It is easier to focus on what we label people than what they may mean. Safire takes the "yes but fellows" label that Franklin Roosevelt used for those who agreed with his goals but had reservations about moving forward in the manner he prescribed. Somehow this is equated with the multitude of questions that arise about the war with Iraq. One could easily turn his argument inside out if not for the need to answer these questions and more.
True, making up words does not deserve the ill repute Bushisms have attracted. However "yes-but fellow" does not really contain anything new. It is tempting, not to mention childish to resort to name calling. It is not a question of acting now or doing nothing, as possibly the strongest argument the administration has, suggests. It does alleviate me of the need to address the serious if not slightly distorted questions that Safire relies on heavily in his case since he simultaneously minimizes the need to answer them. He even simultaneously concludes that the same "yes but fellows" who supposedly share these common goals of the administration would be better off challenging those same goals.
The most important question is why can’t we do something, without ignoring all the questions? Just to point out the emptiness of such labeling for purposes of thinking, is there really any constituency, or consensus, or poll numbers for doing nothing? Is there really a do nothing group we can label? Only in the minds of the schizophrenic Butt Heads, (childish, patriarchal if not abusive parents) who maintain it is my way or the highway, or I want things my way or I’m taking my toys and going home. If only it were so simple.
I am no psychiatrist but this may be an analogy that can be followed, that is more similar than divergent. Both parent and child have their way. They want to get it. They may not be going in the same directions. Being on the path may be better than not going somewhere, but you better know where you are going and how you are going to get there. And making a move is not in and of itself better than not. One fault in the analogy, is that Nations and their leaders or diplomats are neither parent nor child. However it is further useful that they may want to be, and often behave like both.
It may be reasonable to see how carrying a big stick and being on a bully pulpit can be confusing, not to mention from a different Roosevelt. For the plain spoken, it is easy to see the case they make for violence as a means, if they don’t have to answer the questions on the end or the means.
The cost, not to mention the courage, it takes to answer these questions may indeed be high, but we can’t even begin to compare it to not answering them, let alone acting before we do. Safire may be right that there are "yes but fellows", but it can go both ways. He just sides with the yes but head in the wrong direction (away from questions) crowd. Sure "acting now" has not exactly been rushing it, but where has the delay come from in answering more of the questions?
Maybe alternate analogies are more useful. Progress may be in their mind too. But are we really moving in a new direction? Are we really using any new means? Only more questions are arising to confront, confound or run with.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query "do nothing". Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query "do nothing". Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
RERUN:
Post from Wednesday, April 16, 2003:
ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?
A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?
They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?
They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.
Post from Wednesday, April 16, 2003:
ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?
A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?
They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?
They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?
A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?
They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?
They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?
A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?
They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?
They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.
Monday, September 24, 2007
MoveOn!
There is hope that things are about to turn. They could not get worse than the week that was. Well really they always can, but we can hope. There are hints that there will be some feet put down. It only takes 41 Senators to hold up a "heckuva" lot. And now that it has been acceptable to admonish a group for what they say, a real hard look should be taken at Bush.
Search Leahy and Pelosi as I will add links here.[The next day;]
[ Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos] ]
[ On the Table! See A. & B.]
[ What's going on? ]
[The point is that the Democrats are getting the message and contrary to the do-nothing plan that the Republicans have, Democrats should be moving on with subpoenas and may switch to "do-nothing" without a timetable for withdrawal. It only takes 41 votes to not vote on a bill. It only takes 41 votes to hold things up until something gets done, even if it is only a sense of the Senate.]
Search Leahy and Pelosi as I will add links here.[The next day;]
[ Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos] ]
[ On the Table! See A. & B.]
[ What's going on? ]
[The point is that the Democrats are getting the message and contrary to the do-nothing plan that the Republicans have, Democrats should be moving on with subpoenas and may switch to "do-nothing" without a timetable for withdrawal. It only takes 41 votes to not vote on a bill. It only takes 41 votes to hold things up until something gets done, even if it is only a sense of the Senate.]
Friday, August 05, 2011
Bleep 'n Compromise (Dept Ceiling) Review**
Not to be prophetic, but "I told you so."
In particular in The Jig is Up? and Bleep 'n Compromise,
but more importantly under Respected Sources.
IMHO: Randi Rhodes and Lawrence O'Donnell are radio and TV's number one(respectively) explainers* of the Obama Administration. Here are two Debt Ceiling recaps from Randi Rhodes which are nothing compared to hearing her.(AM 1090 Forum )
*respectfully
** which is not the same as bleepin'
(See Bleep & Compromise)
[Related Links and Nets or Roots & branches.]
[I wish I could unembed a little more plain language from this post, but maybe a counter example might do. With a do nothing congress***, the best thing to do is to kick the can down the road for political purposes.
*** or more accurately an undo-everything-House
edited (bold and spacing only)
[On the other hand: No Labels(slash)New Party
More musing: architect, archetype / archespectral, archiflightese]
[Speaking of hooks or hoofs? Read Herring?]
John Deering
In particular in The Jig is Up? and Bleep 'n Compromise,
but more importantly under Respected Sources.
IMHO: Randi Rhodes and Lawrence O'Donnell are radio and TV's number one(respectively) explainers* of the Obama Administration. Here are two Debt Ceiling recaps from Randi Rhodes which are nothing compared to hearing her.(AM 1090 Forum )
*respectfully
** which is not the same as bleepin'
(See Bleep & Compromise)
[Related Links and Nets or Roots & branches.]
[I wish I could unembed a little more plain language from this post, but maybe a counter example might do. With a do nothing congress***, the best thing to do is to kick the can down the road for political purposes.
*** or more accurately an undo-everything-House
edited (bold and spacing only)
[On the other hand: No Labels(slash)New Party
More musing: architect, archetype / archespectral, archiflightese]
[Speaking of hooks or hoofs? Read Herring?]
John Deering
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Do Nothing Filibuster
First I must say there has been progress. (Updated)
But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.
On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.
A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.
Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.
[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]
{*} go there see [*]
But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.
On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.
A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.
Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.
[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]
{*} go there see [*]
Friday, September 21, 2007
To Democrats in the Senate:
CAP THE FILIBUSTER!
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?
I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.
What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?
It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.
The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Bottom Line Update
[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]
On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]
On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]
The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.
* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?
[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.
[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:
Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]
[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]
On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]
On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]
The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.
* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?
[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.
[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:
The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.
"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.
Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]
[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
THANK YOU DAVE ROSS!
For exposing the PVRHT act.
(Otherwise known as: H.R. 1955: for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism)
OK, I left off(or spun off) the PA (prevention act)for its Patronizing Attitude and the quip that the act itself could fall under its own spell.
[Dave Ross interviewed Alicia Mundy (1) of the Seattle Times and Chip Berlet (2) of Political Research Associates.]
[If you read nothing further: read (1) and (2), above]
Bottom Line: The Senate should hold hearings on this act! Or have the guts to act as fast in rejecting this act as premature and ill advised based on the fear it was enacted under. One major failure of this piece is the appointment process which should be balanced in favor of the majority party. The other is the need to review current intelligence gathering and its use. That is what the committee should be limited to, if not extended to the suggestions contained here.
[OTHER COMMENTS]Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security "Boondoggle"
technocrati thought police? 3 tags
The Agonist "pointed at the Republican Party"
Video from the middle (link) 1st one Kennedy
Previous Posts:
Unity in Principle July 22nd, 2004
Intelligence for Commission
Bicameral Brain
Up The Filter August 2nd, 2004
CIA our job one November 17th, 2004
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
The links that connect
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike" August 26th, 2006
Caution merited? September 26th,2006
Lastly: The words of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 seems innocuous enough, but so do the words of the [Project for the New American Century] but it must be looked into. Recommendations for any new intelligence or laws must be put on hold until investigations of old intelligence and laws have been made, not to mention the Phase II.[Apparently done, yet...]
[For more radicalized research yet more conservative as in fiscally responsible consider what is already "out there" (I do not recommend you trust, but verify? YES!)
* Patronizing Attitudes may be the cause of radicalization and terrorism as spelled out in current research. Not to mention the problem of defining ideology and intelligence: having more of it, does not mean you have enough to handle it. The process is important and it must be considered what is being done to complicate the process by those who have no faith in the process, yet want to add to it.
Bonus hit: trust but verify
It may also be worthy to study the words of Thomas Jefferson under subheadings, When Revolution is the Only Answer, Consequences of Revolution, and Prospects for Reformation, and just before these The Need for Leadership:
Speaking of "nuance" meaning nothing in this post should suggest violence is the answer, nonetheless I was surprised to find this, thinking I was reaching for something more "out there": from Goldwater
Bottom line is the people, bottom line is your job. The political spectrum is not linear but needs ones own perspective and the realization that the answer is not limited to that linear spectrum either. This should be realized by the three branches of government and the light that intelligence should shine on the process as well as the "hard work" of all people.
FURTHER: Nothing is more important than the focus on activities not words, except for the law, as proper protest must have a line to cross and confidence that there is a line to stand on and the same one to cross to suffer the consequences. And that line must be applied up and down the process and its people. And a quick search of "laws, not people" found the fog of our ways, another act that needs following up to be certain congress has done the "hard work" spelled out in their job description .
[Long Story Short: Update from Slate found after my Pre-Empting Crimes.]
(Otherwise known as: H.R. 1955: for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism)
OK, I left off(or spun off) the PA (prevention act)for its Patronizing Attitude and the quip that the act itself could fall under its own spell.
[Dave Ross interviewed Alicia Mundy (1) of the Seattle Times and Chip Berlet (2) of Political Research Associates.]
[If you read nothing further: read (1) and (2), above]
Bottom Line: The Senate should hold hearings on this act! Or have the guts to act as fast in rejecting this act as premature and ill advised based on the fear it was enacted under. One major failure of this piece is the appointment process which should be balanced in favor of the majority party. The other is the need to review current intelligence gathering and its use. That is what the committee should be limited to, if not extended to the suggestions contained here.
[OTHER COMMENTS]Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security "Boondoggle"
technocrati thought police? 3 tags
The Agonist "pointed at the Republican Party"
Video from the middle (link) 1st one Kennedy
Previous Posts:
Unity in Principle July 22nd, 2004
Intelligence for Commission
Bicameral Brain
Up The Filter August 2nd, 2004
CIA our job one November 17th, 2004
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
The links that connect
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike" August 26th, 2006
Caution merited? September 26th,2006
Lastly: The words of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 seems innocuous enough, but so do the words of the [Project for the New American Century] but it must be looked into. Recommendations for any new intelligence or laws must be put on hold until investigations of old intelligence and laws have been made, not to mention the Phase II.[Apparently done, yet...]
[For more radicalized research yet more conservative as in fiscally responsible consider what is already "out there" (I do not recommend you trust, but verify? YES!)
* Patronizing Attitudes may be the cause of radicalization and terrorism as spelled out in current research. Not to mention the problem of defining ideology and intelligence: having more of it, does not mean you have enough to handle it. The process is important and it must be considered what is being done to complicate the process by those who have no faith in the process, yet want to add to it.
Bonus hit: trust but verify
It may also be worthy to study the words of Thomas Jefferson under subheadings, When Revolution is the Only Answer, Consequences of Revolution, and Prospects for Reformation, and just before these The Need for Leadership:
"The moderation and virtue of a single character [i.e., George Washington] have probably prevented [the American] Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. ME 4:218, Papers 7:106
Speaking of "nuance" meaning nothing in this post should suggest violence is the answer, nonetheless I was surprised to find this, thinking I was reaching for something more "out there": from Goldwater
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Bottom line is the people, bottom line is your job. The political spectrum is not linear but needs ones own perspective and the realization that the answer is not limited to that linear spectrum either. This should be realized by the three branches of government and the light that intelligence should shine on the process as well as the "hard work" of all people.
FURTHER: Nothing is more important than the focus on activities not words, except for the law, as proper protest must have a line to cross and confidence that there is a line to stand on and the same one to cross to suffer the consequences. And that line must be applied up and down the process and its people. And a quick search of "laws, not people" found the fog of our ways, another act that needs following up to be certain congress has done the "hard work" spelled out in their job description .
[Long Story Short: Update from Slate found after my Pre-Empting Crimes.]
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Short Cuts
Maybe the previous post could use a hint. Democracy is a choice that relies on truth. Bush’s reasons for attacking Iraq have changed, though being policeman to the world and nation building are admittedly given short shrift or are trying to be skipped, they are where we are bogged down and where we should turn it over and where if Republicans had not been chosen may have resulted from a Democrat without the long bad trip we have taken. But given that truth is for sale, we must pay* the price. It’s not been a bad ride for some.
Some will argue that the administration could not have prevented 9-11. That is easy to assume, given that many would still do nothing different. It is assuming that nothing would have been done different by Democrats, which they certainly would not claim.
*The links are interesting tangents. "Republican"-[Bubble Boy], "they"- [News Weak] and this "we must pay"-[Pentagon roles out stealth PR] revolve around the press. We would not be on this trip if the press were truly independent, not independent of truth and dependent on buyers.
Some will argue that the administration could not have prevented 9-11. That is easy to assume, given that many would still do nothing different. It is assuming that nothing would have been done different by Democrats, which they certainly would not claim.
*The links are interesting tangents. "Republican"-[Bubble Boy], "they"- [News Weak] and this "we must pay"-[Pentagon roles out stealth PR] revolve around the press. We would not be on this trip if the press were truly independent, not independent of truth and dependent on buyers.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
TAKE NOTHING AWAY FROM THIS SUCCESS
Let's punctuate it.
Congratulations are in order to our forces and the administration in Iraq and here on the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is truly a great plus that he is not now free to do whatever he has been. One down and one to go and terrorism will be ended forever. Need I say not likely?
Take nothing away from this success. The anti-dichotomous nature of this statement should be obvious. We really must make the most of his capture. Where we go now is the next question. Any reduction in terrorism and tensions will be most welcome. But will we make the most of it?
For those concerned about rewriting history, that is a fallacy. We have yet to investigate it. With one down, can we now look at how we got here and where we are going? The excuse has always been something left to do that prevents the full investigation of prior events or intelligence.
With one in hand at least we no longer have two in the bush and we should begin shaking at least that tree. Find out and double check the thinking that got us here and if we will ever have reason to trust any administration again. For altering the future by one success does not change the questions about how we succeeded or failed in getting here.
Winning peace will continue to be a problem that some will see as “doing nothing” and others not even one of the only two choices. Will we get anything from success? Will we at least see the power of nuance or continue to prey on the dichotomies?
Or maybe we just have a crying need for a leader with a better combination of grammar, punctuation and anger to fuel the process.
Let's punctuate it.
Congratulations are in order to our forces and the administration in Iraq and here on the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is truly a great plus that he is not now free to do whatever he has been. One down and one to go and terrorism will be ended forever. Need I say not likely?
Take nothing away from this success. The anti-dichotomous nature of this statement should be obvious. We really must make the most of his capture. Where we go now is the next question. Any reduction in terrorism and tensions will be most welcome. But will we make the most of it?
For those concerned about rewriting history, that is a fallacy. We have yet to investigate it. With one down, can we now look at how we got here and where we are going? The excuse has always been something left to do that prevents the full investigation of prior events or intelligence.
With one in hand at least we no longer have two in the bush and we should begin shaking at least that tree. Find out and double check the thinking that got us here and if we will ever have reason to trust any administration again. For altering the future by one success does not change the questions about how we succeeded or failed in getting here.
Winning peace will continue to be a problem that some will see as “doing nothing” and others not even one of the only two choices. Will we get anything from success? Will we at least see the power of nuance or continue to prey on the dichotomies?
Or maybe we just have a crying need for a leader with a better combination of grammar, punctuation and anger to fuel the process.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Who Let the Dogs Out?
Original reaction: Not to Second Guess.
This idea coalesced from a Melissa Harris-Perry(*) panel and a Jared Bernstein reaction.
What irritated me was the piling on upon Mitt Romney. The second guessing was how Jared Bernstein discusses the context he was taken out of. As the panel on MH-P continued after her weigh-in on words via Barack Obama the segment on Word Police had nothing to do with my change, but everything to do with it; change and context and victim hoods. Not to mention "quote(s) from Nerdlandia" creeping into the X-change. (The hazzards of live blogging.***) I had no clue in the "footnote" controversy.** Am I falling for the spin, that Raw Money is a victim? Or do I forget my own theory of Share 'n Angle? Not too mention differences of intents[!]
* to be updated
** to be related later[!]
*** the alternative would be more awkward[!]
7-9-12 A Hunch Revisited as Obama prepares* to speak on extending part of Bush tax cuts.
[Segue/break: the "Dogs" above are "aTax dogs"; my subtle skirt of the issue.]
Regarding the president's speech, here are my rough notes: Jobs.. core mission... rebuilding economy...stalemate...choice two views. Top down- wrong...typical middle class tax cuts $3600... repeat $3600 Obama midle class tax cuts... for sake of misinformation. We tried, slowest job growth, falling income, rising deficits... we can't afford more. [me: we 1/2 tried more or other way]. People are with him, cut small business taxes 18 times, for 97% of them. We should agree to do what we agree on! [poor 1%, 2% 3%] One year extention for under $250K then we can debate the rest and act or wait till after the election. You are the ones driving the economy. Learn lessons of the past, build foundation for the future.
* speech here[Note that links for "A Hunch Revisited" were contemporary, not later insertions. Referencing democracy and choices of direction.]
[Andrea Mitchell follow-up here: "fiscal cliff"?** and tug of misinfo! Deficit distraction or key?]
[Bingo was his dog! NewsNation "big tent" not to mention simple math from idiots. I'm sorry, but math is where the numbers lie. It is math warfare. But I digress. Well,* not exactly ! ** And pardon my pun but Swiss Romney Knife?]
** bit of a cycle/anachronism here*** regarding insertion of links & today's asterisks.(I may not have the right fiscal cliff clip but neither does the math add up for AM or RNC. Re:Bingo and math of the dog carrier or station waggin')
*** (rather here **) HW B? (SK re/v SE: 5:25 HW Harvy Weinstein)
[OW to Act?]
[Bingo too point OH! (see poor 1%, 2%, 3%: LR RL)]
(Anachronistically where does MB fit in here ? i.e. I can' remember where Luke Russert was nailed down. But I think it was Martin Bashir who was asking about the 1, 2 or 3% and the previous sequence w/links does hit the nail on the understanding or aTAX jobs.)
[Hardball: David Corn to Smerconish "Sin of making sense". Then Bob's your uncle. It certainly rots at the head. MM Marshalling Message ?]
This idea coalesced from a Melissa Harris-Perry(*) panel and a Jared Bernstein reaction.
What irritated me was the piling on upon Mitt Romney. The second guessing was how Jared Bernstein discusses the context he was taken out of. As the panel on MH-P continued after her weigh-in on words via Barack Obama the segment on Word Police had nothing to do with my change, but everything to do with it; change and context and victim hoods. Not to mention "quote(s) from Nerdlandia" creeping into the X-change. (The hazzards of live blogging.***) I had no clue in the "footnote" controversy.** Am I falling for the spin, that Raw Money is a victim? Or do I forget my own theory of Share 'n Angle? Not too mention differences of intents[!]
* to be updated
** to be related later[!]
*** the alternative would be more awkward[!]
7-9-12 A Hunch Revisited as Obama prepares* to speak on extending part of Bush tax cuts.
[Segue/break: the "Dogs" above are "aTax dogs"; my subtle skirt of the issue.]
Regarding the president's speech, here are my rough notes: Jobs.. core mission... rebuilding economy...stalemate...choice two views. Top down- wrong...typical middle class tax cuts $3600... repeat $3600 Obama midle class tax cuts... for sake of misinformation. We tried, slowest job growth, falling income, rising deficits... we can't afford more. [me: we 1/2 tried more or other way]. People are with him, cut small business taxes 18 times, for 97% of them. We should agree to do what we agree on! [poor 1%, 2% 3%] One year extention for under $250K then we can debate the rest and act or wait till after the election. You are the ones driving the economy. Learn lessons of the past, build foundation for the future.
* speech here[Note that links for "A Hunch Revisited" were contemporary, not later insertions. Referencing democracy and choices of direction.]
[Andrea Mitchell follow-up here: "fiscal cliff"?** and tug of misinfo! Deficit distraction or key?]
[Bingo was his dog! NewsNation "big tent" not to mention simple math from idiots. I'm sorry, but math is where the numbers lie. It is math warfare. But I digress. Well,* not exactly ! ** And pardon my pun but Swiss Romney Knife?]
** bit of a cycle/anachronism here*** regarding insertion of links & today's asterisks.(I may not have the right fiscal cliff clip but neither does the math add up for AM or RNC. Re:Bingo and math of the dog carrier or station waggin')
*** (rather here **) HW B? (SK re/v SE: 5:25 HW Harvy Weinstein)
[OW to Act?]
[Bingo too point OH! (see poor 1%, 2%, 3%: LR RL)]
(Anachronistically where does MB fit in here ? i.e. I can' remember where Luke Russert was nailed down. But I think it was Martin Bashir who was asking about the 1, 2 or 3% and the previous sequence w/links does hit the nail on the understanding or aTAX jobs.)
[Hardball: David Corn to Smerconish "Sin of making sense". Then Bob's your uncle. It certainly rots at the head. MM Marshalling Message ?]
Monday, May 09, 2011
Temporal
Problematics
Rachell Maddow: more than just a perspective. Facts do change with time. Past facts are still past, but present facts will soon be. Not to pun on what will be, but Osama bin Laden's past was really not so much the issue. Nothing will change* the mishandling of facts and choices made by the Bush administration. (By this I mean the importance of not having focused on getting bin Laden when the Taliban made offers asking for evidence before September 11th, 2001)
*actually congress can change and the presidency did (see "hypocrisy" and "flip-flop" under can change link)]
[Dylan Ratigan: Mega Fatwah.The difference* between opinion and ruling.
[Speaking of timing, I mean Dylan. It is alsmost as if, I had already read these. Not. Actually I have read the last link here, before this Temporal rant, but the rest of the links in this bracket are yet to be read, yet seem to fit the bill or fill the tetrahedron, and a prior intent, or rather a comment yet to be found. Note on timing thing: refers to monkey see monkey do of original intent, meaning an email going around about the psychology experiment(a seam in time with the Dylan cracks), and how some people think they know better.]
[Note bolds as read in balancing act or narrative of labels and perspectives. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, No Labels, Herman Cain, not in context of "more than as if not to be".]
Rachell Maddow: more than just a perspective. Facts do change with time. Past facts are still past, but present facts will soon be. Not to pun on what will be, but Osama bin Laden's past was really not so much the issue. Nothing will change* the mishandling of facts and choices made by the Bush administration. (By this I mean the importance of not having focused on getting bin Laden when the Taliban made offers asking for evidence before September 11th, 2001)
*actually congress can change and the presidency did (see "hypocrisy" and "flip-flop" under can change link)]
[Dylan Ratigan: Mega Fatwah.The difference* between opinion and ruling.
A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]*spirt and letter of the law]
An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future Muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.
[Speaking of timing, I mean Dylan. It is alsmost as if, I had already read these. Not. Actually I have read the last link here, before this Temporal rant, but the rest of the links in this bracket are yet to be read, yet seem to fit the bill or fill the tetrahedron, and a prior intent, or rather a comment yet to be found. Note on timing thing: refers to monkey see monkey do of original intent, meaning an email going around about the psychology experiment(a seam in time with the Dylan cracks), and how some people think they know better.]
[Note bolds as read in balancing act or narrative of labels and perspectives. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, No Labels, Herman Cain, not in context of "more than as if not to be".]
Thursday, May 15, 2008
No Bearing?
Good! The president's words have no bearing on the 2008 race.
Last read? (nfry)
[Embarassing is a reference or interesting usage in the top link here: "ABC News' White House troops point out..."]
[Embedded and unembedded, but pulled up? See inserted block quote above.]
[In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."]
Last read? (nfry)
[Embarassing is a reference or interesting usage in the top link here: "ABC News' White House troops point out..."]
[Embedded and unembedded, but pulled up? See inserted block quote above.]
Friday, July 18, 2008
On the Flip-Flop.
Update: from "my friends" humor indicates authenticity
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.
[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]
And Satire class action?
"mental depression" no joke...
neither is Schizophrenia (nfry)(nor planning to)
But on the flip-flop of McCain(or FOX)and Friends David Sirota is spotting the gymnasts, while I would suggest a filibuster.
How do I get there? The Democrats should hold a filibuster in honor of the Republicans flip-flop on the filibuster and set their record straight and place a moratorium on "do nothing" Republicans.
[7-23-08: Gergen suggestion ]
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Dubious is the word...
NOT PRINTED [a reply to Ari Fleisher's letter to the editor in the Washington Post]
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.
At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.
In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.
Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'
In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.
On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.
In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.
[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.
At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.
In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.
Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'
In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.
On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.
In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.
[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Two Clever by One Third?
Or both ends against the middle?
Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.
BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)
* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.
[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]
[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)
Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.
BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)
* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.
[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]
[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Certainty out-sources faith.
[Saved from 10-18-04 10:03:00 AM]
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The New Trinity
Contempt of the People, by the people, for the people.
Bottomline?
The Fourth Estate is not a Liberal Media.
The Liberal-Media-Bias is Biased.
Not exactly what trinity means, but then again, it may be why there is such a viscious cycle. There is what it is, there is what you see, and there is what you do. Nothing will change without trust and verifications, at least not for the good.
Bottomline?
The Fourth Estate is not a Liberal Media.
The Liberal-Media-Bias is Biased.
Not exactly what trinity means, but then again, it may be why there is such a viscious cycle. There is what it is, there is what you see, and there is what you do. Nothing will change without trust and verifications, at least not for the good.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Buy In or Sell Out
Red Lines and Towing the Line(on Syria).
The President is not putting America's credibility at stake, he is staking out the credibility of International Law and Globalization. This is a far cry from the Bush Era "war" president and unifier.**
Pre-title or heading: Rogers' Soap Box, might read "Pit Lip Schtick ".
Related: The Vatican, Steve Clemons, Steve Benen, Maddow Blog, [Boehner let her.]
8-30-13
From Thomas* Roberts, on Crisis in Syria: Re-Bolt On / Bring Em On [!]
(scroll click) Bay of Pit Bulls or Bay of Lip Schtick?
Wiping the Floors @ the UN[!]
* Italics reminder re:(un-bolds too)
** ibid[!]
(FP!)
(b.s.) read Make it so.
Bolt On: A. Toning Down the Lines. , B. Waiting for [Calm Cast] , C., D. Trick Question of the Day? , E.
Bring
Em On: a., b., c., {}D. Congress- - to boldly go... , E. Everything is on the Table! {Why not Hagel?}
{Will Obama declare the end of a war?/ Fix of war powers?}
*** (b.s.)
[(NOW) SOS Kerry]{..."standing on ceremony"}, }by Ghosh{, ^ un-telegraph/playbook
Clear segue: Secretary of State Kerry begins w/ my running notation
["read", un-Rumsfeld "know", smoking "social media", ^ }pinnacle of our perdicament{, "risk"/"do nothing","matters"..."know what we know", "respect" ... }general body/China-Russia-Arab signators/jury{ "ultimately".] close. [SOS]
Note: Quotation "marks" =Kerry comments, ^ marks= tangent to NOW, }{ = marks/highlites my comment/{urgency of now} AM "telegraphing"
[Juxta Position? ... AM numbers?/Clemons/Congressional Bane or?(letter) }I cannot say there should not be a debate, or a vote, or that it won't matter, but it is very important how the resolution is worded and if we can imagine congress krafting it?]
The President is not putting America's credibility at stake, he is staking out the credibility of International Law and Globalization. This is a far cry from the Bush Era "war" president and unifier.**
Pre-title or heading: Rogers' Soap Box, might read "Pit Lip Schtick ".
Related: The Vatican, Steve Clemons, Steve Benen, Maddow Blog, [Boehner let her.]
8-30-13
From Thomas* Roberts, on Crisis in Syria: Re-Bolt On / Bring Em On [!]
(scroll click) Bay of Pit Bulls or Bay of Lip Schtick?
Wiping the Floors @ the UN[!]
* Italics reminder re:(un-bolds too)
** ibid[!]
(FP!)
(b.s.) read Make it so.
Bolt On: A. Toning Down the Lines. , B. Waiting for [Calm Cast] , C., D. Trick Question of the Day? , E.
Bring
Em On: a., b., c., {}D. Congress- - to boldly go... , E. Everything is on the Table! {Why not Hagel?}
{Will Obama declare the end of a war?/ Fix of war powers?}
*** (b.s.)
[(NOW) SOS Kerry]{..."standing on ceremony"}, }by Ghosh{, ^ un-telegraph/playbook
Clear segue: Secretary of State Kerry begins w/ my running notation
["read", un-Rumsfeld "know", smoking "social media", ^ }pinnacle of our perdicament{, "risk"/"do nothing","matters"..."know what we know", "respect" ... }general body/China-Russia-Arab signators/jury{ "ultimately".] close. [SOS]
Note: Quotation "marks" =Kerry comments, ^ marks= tangent to NOW, }{ = marks/highlites my comment/{urgency of now} AM "telegraphing"
[Juxta Position? ... AM numbers?/Clemons/Congressional Bane or?(letter) }I cannot say there should not be a debate, or a vote, or that it won't matter, but it is very important how the resolution is worded and if we can imagine congress krafting it?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)