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:

"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.]

Censorship or just Business?

A belated comment on the firing of Mike Malloy:

Dear Mike:

Here is a comment I sent Air America Radio.

"Listening to Mike Malloy's last broadcast (August 25th) on Air America Radio, I am trying to determine if it was anything he said that lost him his job, assuming that maybe he crossed a line: However having listened up to the point that he came up with the bumper sticker WWYD?, [What would you do?] I feel that he actually was mellower than I had expected not being a regular, just due to the time slot.

I don't know if he foresaw his fate, or it is just financial, but I can accept that you are not necessarily in this for anything more than financial reasons. I just hope that that is the case and not some sort of displeasure with his message. His most extreme words cannot compare to the reality of this world, that must be challenged with reason or it will only be for force."

Having finished listening your (hopefully not) last program, there may be many places where you crossed a line, but as I said above and to a friend, compared to reality "there is no line". Well that is not exactly what I said, but I progress (as opposed to digress).

Now I can send you my improved well wishes.

Roger Out.

P.S. the above format is such as I had already shared this issue with a friend from Canada. In the overall lineup of Air America, you were not (necessarily) my favorite, but it may have just been your time slot (or being too similar in "sentiment"). After all the fine talents, it was usually just too much, to get jacked up all over again so late in the day, not wanting to cross any lines myself. But I must say, I really enjoyed your "last program" and look forward to wherever you end up.[italic words added now]

P.P.S. Listening again I get to the point where Bush says "there is no point in having a philosophical discussion" ? Appointing justices it was all about philosophy. Did anyone ask what was the philosophy? Not the media or the politicians. But we have leapt to the answers.

This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL

The Dream is Justice! Ever moot?

[Update: Belated Calls and Commemorations? ]

Another preamble:

Please consider the impact of doing nothing or just doing what is more immediate.
Please consider the meaning of words and the spirit of so many that have fought for so much that so many still do not have. Yes your focus is on your local constituents, and they are struggling in so many ways, and fighting in so many causes. Well, some of us are really doing just fine and dandy, but please...

It is really ironic that so much of our current difficulty is caused by some who believe in another timeliness. Not only in the hereafter, but somehow in the preemptive. Well they both may have a reality, but that does not mean which our actions will feed.

Ever Moot?
The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know...

I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?

All people must not only know that there is a line which they should not cross, but know where it is, to know if they have. Not to mention needing to know where the line is, to be able to cross it, as sometimes that is the only way justice reaches the table. The administration knows this, and the legislature and the media should hear it from the people.

As it usually is with my presentations, they evolve, and I hope that this is as clear as I feel. The point which I am making is that there are consequences, whether there is truth, and there is preemption, but results have accountability, whether we look for them or like them or not.

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.

Civil Disobedience...

I am not calling for it, but googled it, and found no mention of the current case, not that it might be called something else.

My one and only point(well...2 or three)is(R) that 1) those that partake actually have a line to cross, 2) they have consequences for crossing any lines, and 3) that government is also bound by such clarity.

Speaking of whatchamacallit...what is the flip flop of Civil Disobedience? Criminal Pathology(I mean following)?

[9-20-11 Update: Note Pathology Pun ]
[Not to mention ge oh me trick segue. BTW: It is a vision thing. No Burning Bush, but... "bad faith" v. good math Speaking of Highways: I originally mis-heard the president. I thought he said "It's MAD! Which is Bane or...see di-mentionism.]

What is a slut?

Tracy Clark-Flory in Salon draws an interesting conclusion:

The trouble is that everyone has a different idea of where that line is. It's all very subjective, because how many partners is too many? How much cleavage is too much? When does flirting cross the line? As feminist activist Jaclyn Friedman explained in her SlutWalk Boston speech, "That's how the word 'slut' usually works. If you ask 10 people, you get 10 different definitions" -- and, of course, therein lies its power.

I won't define or defend the word or its use. But my original comment or lede had to do with Trumping the word, or flushing a show. There is no profundity in having to explain, not that either are funny but it is about breaking things.
[Saved in draft till 5-31-11]
[Over the weekend, I was ranting this ribble with a friend and really got riffing, or was it flushing. But I also pondered the genderless generic form of a "slut". Not until today did the word "monger" present itself to me. Somewhere before(of course), the word "scatology" may have entered the rhetoric. So I believe that the most useful appropriate word for the likes of most right wing talk peddlers, is scatmonger, as opposed to...well, I guess the left can have some scatmongers, but if it were understood how a septic tank works, it might be different.
[This is a deeply embedded and plumb'd ribble, with leaks in italics, and may be clarified or upgraded(updated) upon review.]

"Feel the Love"?

Anger Management.
Caution:  Who you talkin' to?

Too often it is the case in my blogging that I make cultural leaps without fully reading articles. 
Example:  Tan Gent to BaneOr**   
But maybe my GPS Cross Rhodes*** process depends too much upon or may not consider sufficiently a diversity of understanding.  Here I may have perfectly expressed the dilemma/dynamics of rhetorical progress.  To bring it back to Earth, con descend shun is not pretty.  Well, not exactly...
At least I did read the link I am now not paraphrasing*.  My point is that I hope that it is read, but with caution and consideration for whom it tolls. 

*  note that the heading and lede line are referenced in the link, my not paraphrasing is a perspecitivizing. (caution scrolling over as well, some may choose not to bother with the other asterisks, BUT choose well to read the link.)

(PLEASE READ the full text of my post before bothering with asterisks or scroll overs)
** not to associate with the persons or perspectives
***  the pun stops where ?

(Follow-up: Specious and Spacious Species ofor Iron Knee[!])
[Look who's talkin'?  (To be referenced later.)]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label) also re:"understanding"]

Crisis in Austrian Thought

Re-Evolutionally the missing link[!]

The crisis in thought is a split ideology regarding who is in charge, by George[!]

Think Washington the figure, not the DC or state. A founding father for sure, but the crisis is in leadership, and perspectives on the founding documents, not to mention Democratic Character.

Alex Witt's topics cross these threads. Including an MD/rX of DC?

{"crisis in leadership" Boehner, Bain or Bane or change. Mitch Daniels, not to mention Harold Ford Jr. }

[Breaking E-Mail: I haven't even read what it means but it might be the missing thought.]

[1-30-12: adding links, crisis,(2)(3)(4)* Ford, leadership**, there is a reason there are three branches of government and one is called the legislative, and it is not the executive's job to legislate, besides they can see the legislative ideas if they bit 'em.]

* not finding the exact link*** really, not yet

**Boehner: “Last Night Was Just Another Campaign Speech.” “He [President Obama] wants to take no responsibility for his policies that have failed and made no reference last night to really stepping into the game and legislating. He has spent every day since last Labor Day campaigning - not legislating, not involved in the process of our government here. And last night was just another – another campaign speech.”

*** this comes closest (sausage grinder?)

[Bottom line: there are two Austrian perspectives that come to mind, the economic and the psychological.]

WHEN DOES THE JOKER CROSS THE LINE?

WHAT LINE?

In the Nation section of the King County Journal, 5-5-04 (AP, by Ron Fournier). “Bush uses humor to soften Kerry criticism.”

“The President must speak clearly and mean what he says.” Bush said.

But speaking clearly does not clearly mean anything if it is not clear you know what you mean. It is not even clear if this was supposed to be humor. I have heard him answer questions very clearly and in fact repeat answers even more clearly thinking it had even more meaning that way. See why he had to appear with Cheney before the 9-11 commission.

Even in cases he knows what he means the clear words have alternate interpretations. He was a uniter not a divider, so he united the Democrats and the Arab world. Separately of course, I must be clear there is no linkage. Though there is more linkage between the U.S. and Saudi leaders. He trusts the people not the government. He did not say whom he would trust when he is in the government and not the people. Let us hope he will get clearer. I at least know I may come across obtuse, ironic and/or nuanced, which he is none of.