FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK

=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)

Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991

Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.

=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================

*

This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to 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 wake up. 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.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.

===============================================================================

On Democracy and media coverage:

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?

It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.

What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?

Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.

UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html

This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.

Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.

Roger Larson Bellevue, WA

===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================

Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.

Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)

While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.

When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?

Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

Roger Larson




ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]

To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000

COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000

RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.

This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.

[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===

TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.

TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic

It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]

Also a version here.

[*] Update link 1-18-10

Leaking Intelligence

Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.

{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?

BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.

Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.

[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]

Understanding the nature?

Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong

"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"


"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"

Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?

If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.

Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.

I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".

* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]

Freedom is not a tool.

Not that it is not a force.
Nor is it a farce.
But here is the source:

Freedom is not a tool*.
What is economic freedom?**

* "but an end that doesn't justify economics."
** what is "clear and unapologetic"
*** C-rhetoric


[C-schtick ] ***


< previous post >

Happy President's Day

Speaking of Shout Out:
Just where did George Washington say:
"Government is brute force." ?
Really! Not to mention where does the question mark go?
So even though it is neither president's actual birthday
and not our first president's till next Sunday,
I do him the reference here:Better context

At his inauguration, Washington stated, "This Constitution is really in its formation a government of the people . . . in which all power is derived from and, at stated periods, reverts to them. . . . It is purely a government of laws, made and executed by the fair substitutes of the people alone. . . [The American form of government is] a new phenomenon in the political and moral world, and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brute force."

[UPDATE:ARARA not... ]
In this regard for wondering:
From LewRockwell.com
and Where thin air meets hot air,
there is More Scrutiny Needed.

And more on Thrasymachus:
Or the Mealymouth Debates.*

The Nature of Justice. The question which opens this immense dialogue is: what is justice? Several inadequate definitions are put forward, but the most emphatically presented definition is given by a young Sophist, Thrasymachus. He defines justice as whatever the strongest decide it is, and that the strong decide that whatever is in their best interest is just (review again the Athenian position in Melian Debate). Socrates dismisses this argument by proving that the strong rarely figure out what is in their best interest, and this can't be just since justice is a good thing.

*No disrespect for the Athenian position but a play on the media or maybe the right. (Actually I did just review it, and then the history that Athenians were defeated by the Spartans or Typhoid. ) Story aside I wish to note my leap based on the words that preceded and how one leaps. To this: Some expect their thinking or success to not be based on others. While they may be right in parts, together they cannot stand without facing the wrong. Freedom in particular does not stand or fall alone. And in view of some wrongs, must not. Yet arguments on economics and the environment are a case of not even being able to survive without some outside force. Or a case of the case for a free market, not being able to survive without the workings of the market as it actually exists, while anachronism and stories run through it. [Bumper stickers and name calling aside, there is a tendency to oversimplify, but here goes. It may be a case of the bubbleheaded elite and who blows it for whom.]But I guess that is just disrespect for the Athenian position and respect for the review.

Myths for review:
Ruin your health with the Obama Stimulus...
Thin air meets hot air...

Presidential SOTU

Huffington On Bipartisanship *.-Text-
PBS Annotated SOTU text/video
GOP Responds to SOTU
and promoteown solutions.
Oh, it's the economy(brainy)! -Newsweek**

My summary of SOTU: Heavy on hope, light on hype.

My reply to response: It was "fair and balanced" and with less rhetoric almost a Blue Dog, and with better facts almost a someone that could work across the aisle. Talk is cheap and hype costly. Hope is very economical, but progress takes investment.

* It seems that the following is very odd(my bold):

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second most powerful Republican in the Senate, was just as blunt and brutal. "It was a campaign speech," he said. "I thought it was a very partisan speech. He did not help himself with Republicans tonight. You do not bash the opposition and then encourage them to work with you."

How, specifically, did he bash?

"Every third paragraph was complaining about the mess that George Bush got him in. He didn't mention the words George Bush but he didn't have to," said Kyl. "After more than a year, take ownership of the problems you have. You campaigned for president to solve these problems so stop complaining about the mess that you inherited. That was okay for a few weeks or a few months, but after awhile it gets a little tiresome."

Kyl went on to complain about "thinly veiled suggestions that all Republicans do is say 'no,' that we have to stop saying 'no' to everything. That's not the way to encourage productive cooperation with the other side."

Especially as it continues:

Was he offended by the shot at skeptic(sic) of the science behind climate change?

"Well, he probably meant it as such, but frankly I didn't receive it as such, since I'm one of the skeptics," he said.

Anything else?

"He started out talking about the constitutional requirement to report on the state of the union and in the very first part of the speech he did. And then he veered off of it and got into this big campaign mantra, which just isn't done. I know this is his first one, but still, it shouldn't be so much about him, and how he didn't come here to do this and he didn't come here to do that and he's going to fight on and so on. It's not about that. It's about the American people and how you're going to react to what they've been telling you -- or trying to tell you -- about what they'd like to see done."

I thought that was pretty much what President Obama did, and it seems odd if not forced that this Republican take makes any sense. Of course they believe in an invisible force (Ctrl F hand) not to mention freedom as a force, which is even less accurate.(just speaking economics and physics). It seems that MassAChooseIts independents, moderates, democrats, and apparently the Senate's #2 Republican has given the president a mandate. Now congress, "may the force** be with you".

BTW: we don't have to worry about deficits anymore**, there is no looking back and it is the President's economy.

footnote:
asterisk * is post I am commenting on
asterisk ** refers back to preemptive crack and source(Newsweek/YouTube)
But seriously.
*** see comment 3 of more there re: change agent

[UPDATE: On Thom Hartmann, Congressman Blumenauer suggests Valentines for the Senate (Valentines are the broken parts of the bills that need passing. Progressively: ping pong, reconciliation, nuclear option, Valentines [*] . Seemingly how I put it[**] & within the mechanics of the process and politics.)]
[*] 1-29-10 link to Valentines for the Senate
[**] The Nature of Things (posted 1-20-10) also "up, down, or side ways" not to mention the Mass A Choose Its Dilemma. Make it so! May the force be with you.[Is there a Mass A Choose Its Lesson?]

Yesterday was a nice round number: 02-04-08

Today is the day for the tide to turn.
For Change!
The day before was a Super Bowl,
today is a Super Tuesday!
The Giants beat the Patriots. Hmmm.
Post Prophetic? Or just luck?
It was "hard work", but they play by rules,
a season ends and another begins.

But today we can take this ground swell for change,
for the underdog, and for hard work
and work the force for change.
Freedom is not a force.
History does not blaze a trail.
People and leaders do,
by passing laws and making sure they are followed.
I knew I was going somewhere, I hope you can see now.

Let impeachment process begin
RICHARD W. BEHAN GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle PI

The above link supports much of what I have noted in this blog in the last 7 years, and a few I missed. It follows a pattern of preemption that if leaked, actually caused a preemption cycle of its own. An important question is, how long has this been the policy of this ship of state, and how long has it been leaking. These are not mountains out of mole hills, but trickle down by passing the buck. Investigations must begin, while shoring up the process of accountability. It is not too early to begin the work of transition. But never too late to join a tide of change. And if this metophor seems to imply a washing away, or just another cycle... true. Things will wash a away, but people will still be the point, not the boats and the driftwood.

See link below, in particular.

Bringing it up?

Consider the Source.
Mine not me.
Usually such headings and opening lines would be a self deprecating if not journalistic attention getting misdirection. But in this case, they are a direct reference to the links which I have only briefly scanned and I simply post them for later digestion, if not comment. Their sources, and the fact that I have heard their memes through my filters, is the reason I have selected them.

By Eric Alterman * [3-15 reply]
By Isaiah J. Poole [3-16 reply]
By Rick Perlstein [3-17 QCON]
By Bob Herbert

"Freedom is not a force, but thoughts are not just memes."
(The above is brought up from Consider the Source and I have been replying separately and only update the third for purposes of more digging.)
Meanwhile, I will say that beyond monopsony and my so-called memory, the little knowledge is what passed my filter as a meme. A "quaint" saying I had ran with earlier if not in these posts. "If a little knowledge is dangerous, just what is more?" Of course I hope this is the demonstration of my D-eliteness, but is not then a little knowledge the point and their4 a great weapon? That may be how some think.

Un-Exceptionalism

Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?

Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.

This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]

No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?

The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.

My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.

In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.

BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]

[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]

Catch-44

President Obama seems to have doubled down on the culture war.

2-15-12 Politics and the Table.

Politics is the pinnacle of the power play.

Physics, Psychology and Philosophy are the base.

Culture is the result and the field of play.

Economics, values and pragmatism the material.

The Irony Leviathan.*

* not the same vehicle

(Million Dollar Baby/Inconvenient Segue)***

[I have a hecuva lot in draft as well as embedded in previous posts that need sorting, and this may be a crack at that. And to un-Ribble it is in the social Darwinism and the yo gurt! If this is too fantastical, well just ask Raw Money, "Corporations are people too, my friend." See Leviathan, and intestinal Darwinism or rather the cultural state of progress.]

[Andrea Mitchell** and Ginzu Alice: Santorum and Romney slash the economy, with GM and the big dig but we need a big deal.]

** two segments Santorum spokesperson Alice, and reference to slashing the budgets in Michigan and Massachusett, under the light of federal projects.

***[Just caught this Thom Hartmann.]

[Common Ground the Enemy? Recent enlightenment on "The end justifies the means." At the moment I can't locate the link.*^^ But it might be Twain "The Prince"*^ and the Pauper. Martin Bashir segments enlighten, especially the Bane Or Change. Also on the Clint Eastwood Filmography, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, not to mention the Three Little Pigs. Not Bashir, that was elsewhere. Doom and Gloom Snobbery?]

*^ The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, not exactly ugly but three pigs in a blanket of rhetoric. Freedom is not a force, but the government is our creation.

*^^ Somewhere there may be embedded some links on the evolution of the 3 founding documents through the likes of Madison and George Washington.

Consider the Source.

Mine not me.

Usually such headings and opening lines would be a self deprecating if not journalistic attention getting misdirection. But in this case, they are a direct reference to the links which I have only briefly scanned and I simply post them for later digestion, if not comment. Their sources, and the fact that I have heard their memes through my filters, is the reason I have selected them.

By Eric Alterman * [3-15 reply]
By Isaiah J. Poole [3-16 reply]
By Rick Perlstein [3-16 reply, 3-18 Bringing it up?]
By Bob Herbert

"Freedom is not a force, but thoughts are not just memes."

[And while I pursue some off line work,
this is enough online work to pass the time:
EDUCATION
A Textbook Case of Misinformation and Bias ]

[[Not to mention this new mine field:
(email QCON 4-12-8) -

Speaking of intelligence...
leaks are hard to trickle up.

Speaking of curve balls...
remember the laffer?

Hence the hard work
and the screw ups.

Thought(?) sometimes I need footnotes for some.
intelligence -
curveball - Laffer curve -
screw ups -

Google is my post-elixir, but I often preempt the research and post the BS. (Meaning I just dug these up, but the lines were previous tangents from the whole.)
BTW: I disassociate myself from anything I have not read in these links, which is most of them. ]]

*scroll over source for titles

Between Two Farces.

Force A. Business
Force B. Freedom

Now that is climate change, the change in tone of my heading and lede or ship some are in. But my original intent was in all due respect to the opposition of the Affordable Care Act.  The farces?  You can keep your healthcare, not that the government is a monopoly and can tell them to keep you and they are not able to change. Now that is a swift navigator.

BTW: If some of my perspective is lost in translation it may be because I used them elsewhere.*  Example:  It takes more than three points for perspective, but one more to fix it.

* Knot so related Google Find: Paul ? Not yet read.[9-30-13 now not so unrelated, not to mention AB||BA.]
(insert order: 1,2,3, 4,6,5) Not that it was a $ixth $ents or B.S.[!]

9-30-13 2B Slighty(1) less(1e/t) obtuse(2).(2A&e/e)Lemon Ship /Obtusity?  xG Ctrl F(2) "'choice".
Note: 2B & xG(FC)
[update here @  =. ]

Between two other farces, and The Cycle.  Democracy and the Republic pop U lace.  I am talking congres as it is divided.  President Obama won his election, the Democrats took the Senate and the popular vote for the House is also a Democratic majority.  If not for Obamacare?  I think not.  There must be an end to the compromise and hostage taking.  Not to mention cats and dogs on Martin Bashir.  A clean vote would pass in the House.  I guess it is a filibuster of one, the House Speaker under the Hastert* rule**.  Knot so random insert.
* 10-1-13 **

The C Word.

Clever?
[Saved in draft for unknown reason, unedited*
i.e. written date above, posted 11-9-10 AM]
Toure's Turn? Do me a Favre and remember, government and politics are not football.
Except maybe for the commercialization with make me think of the Gecko and Aff Quack. But explain to me how the House, the Senate and the President, not to mention the two parties not being teams play into it.
Fair Game? Well that may be a separate rant. "Life is not fair..." that is why society evolved and gave us our founding documents. Freedom is not a force. But I'll give you something to cry about.[Mixed aphorisms or patronizing jingles.] There's no crying in baseball, is there in football?
* due to possible construction distraction and grapes of whine or patronizing refs.

Fearnauts

There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.

So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.

Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.

Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.

Dedicated to the Praxis Peace Institute

This poem was crafted just before the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The victims to which I also dedicate this)but it did not feel right to submit at the time, with the seeming implication of the first line, however there is no good and evil, but man's nature. (This is culturally precise(CP) given the view of women's nature)

I also dedicate this to the Great White line-up at the Republican debate last night. Not that there is anything wrong with power, but force is not the only power. If any of them are even half the Roosevelt who launched the Great White Fleet, they are the half that carried the "big stick" and only half understand the other Roosevelt and "the only thing we have to fear". They are no Roosevelt, not even half of either.

[5-10-07 reference back to link Council of Nice and a new link on Kant(as in The Liaison Report Between Common Sense and Kant
but reading it is hard work, so I will add- - what is wrong with faith
in reason and criticism and a process for progress ?]

The Hit and Run Gang

and the book ends of history or
THE CON-TEXT : (The Pinnacle? 1-11-07)
[from which I resubmit the following segment on my tetrahedron of being, to give context to the book ends and book marks, and why history will be not only rewritten but replayed.]
THIS MATERIAL WAS NOT ORIGINALLY SO CONTEXTED: [Comments and links added.]

* * * * * * * * *
[Now another spin-off.][From http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0105-26.htm ]

A Platonic(Model) Narrative? Or Being the Narrative?

Politics, Physics, Philosophy and Psychology may be the four points but politics may be the pinnacle. The pinnacle could be considered by some to be a W as well, and certainly by the current president. But the reality is that We are all susceptible the behavior, thinking and feeling that We each are the pinnacle and the Power. But W can also stand for the Wonders, the Words and the Works, not to mention the We that is too often denied. For many W is only about the Win, but it can’t be without the We, or it is just about the One. It may just prove the legitimacy of this model, that one cannot be without the rest.

Then I read:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1222-24.htm

* * * * * * * * *

There are several F words that can also be applied, freedom is the force that must have a form that must not be feared. A W which may get too much neglect is the want, while others emphasize it. It is all about what "I" want, while there are more "I"s neglected. The power of our ideas, our intentions, and our ideals.

Tolerance at the table?

People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...

[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]

[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]

[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]

Arrow of Time

or Symmetry of Inheritance?
Thanks to Keith Olbermann and
FOX News for the
Trifecta of Bad Times.
An end to an error, and the flip-flop of freedom as not a force but a purpose that requires work. There will be no end to humor or force for humility, as it is no longer funny that Comedy Central has more News and more balance. With inspiration I acknowledge the difficulty in laying down the tools of sarcasm and satire, but I will try to remember more than just the hope in this day of transition.

And maybe Biden can even aspire with a nod to Sarah Palin
and even Dick Cheney, to work with congress.
As far as leadership, and OBAMA
the time has come for change.

[Approximate closing of this post: 10:20 BG (before google)]
[update: 10:45 no end to humor or force for humility (links added and seemingly proof of some sense or other)]
[Please note that I DID NOT find it funny that Chief Justice Roberts could not get the oath straight.]
[I originally misreported it as Trifecta of Bad News]

[Update 1-21-09] to be sure see above: There will be no end to humor or force for humility...links to video of original Obama oath and actual oath.
[Update 1-26-09: Colbert catches it.]

Childish Diplomacy: Who started it?

Bill O’Reilly’s "Enough is Enough of Canadian Belligerence" hardly deserves more than the childish reply; "You started it." I don’t really know where it started. But to declare that Canada’s plan to send Iraq’s leader and other potential war criminals found in their country to the World Court in The Hague, is belligerence, certainly demonstrates the weak link to the many phantom reasons given for starting the war against Iraq. I won’t go into all of them either but did they not involve enforcing the resolutions of an international body while ignoring other resolutions of international bodies?

The villains have turned out to be those who threatened vetoes, like France and Germany. If vetoes are a guide to villainy then the U. S. and our former Soviet nemesis have combined for their fair share of more than ten times the vetoes France has ever used. Freedom is another phantom reason that was linked to the war in Iraq while those opposed are vilified for using it at home or abroad.

War was claimed as a last resort chosen over doing nothing. Now we hear how childish both sides can get when those are the only two choices. Arguments against phantom opposition are as easy to win as wars against formerly propped up regimes. The U. S. should be grateful that some were diplomatic enough not to force another U. N. Security Council vote on a resolution we could diplomatically veto. But then we would be clear on what started it.