QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]

Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?

Why OWS is bigger...

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

Whine and G's?

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

Really?

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Not your grandfather's "traditional".

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast

Really?

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.

[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]

[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]

[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.

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?]

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

Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

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?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.

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

Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".

They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.

It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.

The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.

I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".

Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson

Moving on:

I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.

I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.

Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.


That Train Keeps On Rolling.

Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.

Roger Larson


(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)

* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.

[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]

Obtusity?

Not Here.(Kay label added)
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.

In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.

In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?

[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]

** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:

If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

With my lemon twist on it:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.

OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]

[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

Blame to go around?

Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!

Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*

Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.

That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.

And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."

[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]

* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]

NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.

** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]

Carry On Comment!

Borrowed from an AM1090 caller to one of the afternoon talk shows, the interesting dilemma of Karl Rove is his confessing apparently...

that he has no diary or record of his work with the administration.

This with his apparent plan to write a book, means...

either he has a very good memory or it will be in the fiction section.

Actually I just rearranged the caller's comment to my own taste in my usual way.

His point was that it takes "I don't recall" and all it's variations "off the table" when it comes to congressional investigations.
I would add
the only alternative
is straight to "the pen".

More lines of investigation on Rove history
For later read, not that I have read the above.
"...who know what"
Democrats vow...
political fighter
Picking Bush's Brain ?
...avoid Capitol Hill
WaPo editorial

[pause]
Clinton, Rove's candidate in '08
U.S. Attorneys
First Read
Divider

[Having just read the last one first, it is a reminder that his nickname "turd blossom" is something that survives in a field of fertilizer.]

[Second thoughts on First Thoughts from First Read: There should NEVER be another Karl Rove. It is a cheap shot and a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to promulgate such a character [italics and link added 8-15-07]by looking for the next one.

At least they admitted that "they" (the media) create them (the turd blossoms), but of course there will be, on the Right, as several of his (Rove's) proteges are distributed amongst the Republican candidates. But on The Left there is too much distribution of brains to get away with anything like what the administration has so far distributed. Genius should be about what works, and nothing much has, with this administration, except accumulation of ruin and power. * [it.a.l.a. 8-15-07]
Shame on MSNBC for such work. There is some good news on the new Hillary ad, but to follow with a piece on Rove? And while running the bottom line, "the next Karl Rove" under "her inner Bill".]

* [8-15-07 Re: David Frum link "and power", reminiscent of Lakoff where he points out that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former run to govern, and the latter govern to run. That may say as much about governing as running, and as much about the left as the right, but rather than looking for a third way in the middle of any political spectrum, maybe the perspective [way to see it] is from above the plane, while a plane requires a third perspective that is not in line.]

[ bold italics added 3-12-08]

Legislative District Townhall Meeting

[A conversation of sorts in questions raised and answered by the participants.]

On the issue of horse trading*, I guess my point was the question: is the sacrifice worth it with a side that will not even stand behind their own word? [In particular the school funding majority issue]. It may be a pragmatic approach to differing views, but from the view of either side or the middle how should not standing behind ones principles let alone ones own horse trading get viewed? And if the public does not know what is being traded, let alone that they are not stood behind, then it may be just them that is sacrificed.

But this may be no better than the perspective of the guy who wanted to get hate and divisiveness out of politics ** but was not really clear what it had to do with the 2004 election, except that maybe he had the answer or yet at least did not say where he laid the blame.

But back to my question/comments and my segue to the guy who recommended that you as state representatives, tell the county and city level what his views are, (Sports Arenas) and while he was not connected to the facts on state dollars and getting returns on "our" money, (there will be no state money as far as you are concerned) I wished to endorse the reverse concept that you carry our concerns up the ladder rather than down, where I inquired on the SJM 8016 (impeachment) and 8003 (escalation) and as you informed us on the SJM 8012 regarding the National Guard. Thank you.

Lastly in comments on the side: the expression that the Building Industry provides 1/3 of the budget is awkward or seems to need a tweak of perspective or economics. I understand the comment but it seems divorced from the concept of who actually pays or what the budget is for. Like the transportation issue with 122 different plans or sports arenas and their several localities/municipalities and 3 levels of government funding or influence, with the BI there are a multitude of economic transactions filling needs and customers paying. They are no less interwoven, or in need to be penciled in, but bottom line, is not the cost and needs relationship revolving around the people? I think that your understanding of it and it’s complexities are much greater that you can express but I hope I have tweaked something.

* the act of trading votes or bargaining for bills
** he had his own perspective on the way it should work: somehow magical or without appreciating even his own part in the problem [my words not his]

What's going on?

Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.

But enough of the usual stuff.

Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:

Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal

Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]

Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!

Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.

One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001

Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.

And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]

In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.

[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?

Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]

These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.

So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?

Two more sources - in their defense?

Laughter is the Best Medicine?

This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.

*on disagreement with involvment in Libya

[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]

[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]

** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.

ROF, WOF

Ring of Fire

War on Freedom!

Rough Comments:

BBBB

Better Business Beyond Bull!

Or Bush!

Tale Gating !

[I may have forgotten the original excuse for the BB acronym. It was not the Buffet Bureau, and I am not sure** of (yet to find) the Ring of Fire links from this weekend(as I jotted down the above thoughts yesterday), which may have triggered the wag*on Freedom.]

* Republicans Repeal Beatitudes?

** sure: Occupy Movement

not: Mortgage Fraud Settlement (or vice verse us)

[Yes the wag is war on freedom. Woof? (on or?) War on/or freedom? Wag the Woof? Yes, Freedom is wagged as a word, but the effects are farther*** from freedom.]

*** It seems that Rick Santorum has raised nuance to a parsing of religious and economic freedom.

[NOW with Alex Wagner: Ari Melber sitting in on six months of OW.]

[Andrea Mitchell, Eva Longoria and American Progress .]

[Martin Bashir: Oil Fabrication, and Culture War.]

[Hard Ball,"Wow, it's getting too sophisticated." through 3-and-a-half men and Winning!]]

Alter Under Construction

not to* mention** Altar.
It's the change thing.

* NWRoots
** Follow ups
[7-18-11 Bleep 'n Compromise posted and up dates
[7-19-11 America under De-construction: Not exactly Triangulation or is it ?]
[Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? Or the revisit the ditch metaphor?]
[7-20-11 - New Metaphor - Voodoo Or Stock Car: Not exactly new, but the analogy for the complaints from both sides of the political spectrum is that they want the roof on before the walls are built. But then there is the D-Ri've punned or they've punned, which I have Re-vised, where the economy is in the ditch and some have the solution of running it into a ditch again to fix it. Not to get too sunk in metaphors, rising tide or not, there are D-R i've O(a)rs of the economy no matter the vehicle or passengers.]
[From the desktop: Thom Hartmann and Ravi Batra 'n WME]
[On the other hand, in context:

Redistribution has a "from" side (taxation) and a "to" side (spending). On the "from" side, the notion that government should use taxation to increase rather than decrease equality is hardly Marxist. In "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith begins his section on taxation with the following maxim: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities." To ask otherwise, Smith writes, would be obviously unfair.]

[Loose thought- Cut, Cap and Balance- vs. The Badger 14 Re: fleeing their jobs. Pappa mmm Mow Mow, speaking of olds mobile oar 'n balance.]
[Quick Sand of Sorts: Rove, Ailes, Nordquist, Eyman- see Four Horsemen of the Trick-L Down.]
[The Change Thing? - Sanders on Ratigan? Debt Restructuring - Pour Analogy: If the US were a household and the GDP were its income, its overall debt would be close to but still less than one year's income. Note: this is a poor analogy, but fair in the light of the alter. SEGUE: A caller to AM1090 pointed out a better analogy. The debt does not take into account the true assets of our country. Mt. Rushmore / The Grand Canyon / The shiny seas.]

[7-21-11 Fair and Balanced, and Leaning Back: "Cry me a river" Michael Steele leans back at Joan Walsh's Obama/Reagan comparison(Fair link - 3:20) on MSNBC's Hardball, but the reality is that Obama as a Senator and as a President fits the bill of the history. As a Senator his vote against the debt ceiling raise, was an attempt to address the deficit, just as what forced the compromise Reagan made to get his. Meanwhile the people are with President Obama as well as Cenk Uygur.]
[7-22-11 Obama 2012]

34-Day War

Just before I left for a 4 day boat trip, a friend expressed concern about a term that he had heard. The Status Quo Ante had been used in reference to a resolution to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. There must be something to it, since Al Franken was also concerned about it's new usage. The meaning that things go back to as things were before the war seems a huge flip-flop from no cease fire until there is lasting resolution of the causes of the Middle East conflict. Whether this is lasting is still to be seen, but after 2 to 3 billion in damages to Lebanon and nearly 1000 lives lost.

On the war on terror front, the facts about the major plans for blowing up airlines are still coming out, or rather could have been timed differently. Britain and U.S. disagree on when was the right timing for breaking that investigation while Lieberman accuses Lamont of being a threat to the war on terror.

This is just a quick note as I may catch up on the last four days but things will move on.

THE COUNCIL OF NICE

versus THE COURSE OF TRICKLE DOWN:

What we need is a Council of Nice, and anyone who does not want to be, can go to a place of their own choosing or can choose who will tell them where to go, and see if that gets them there.

But seriously, it would be nice if we had a benevolent dictator, but would that really stop the blaming?

Talk about having a polarized choice...this should at least argue for more choice, but others think that even the argument is not needed. Where will that get us?

Apparently they think the ultimate place, and that is hard to argue.

[This was composed following the June 30th 20/20 and saved in draft after a few posts on their message board into July 1st and first emailed in present form on July 8th.]

THE LIAISON REPORT:
Between Common Sense and Kant
[Just a quick tangent on the topic of where this is coming from:]

My thinking is somewhere between what Bush thinks is common sense and just thinking that one is thinking. It may be all about me: a wannabe pundit, benevolent dictator and general do-gooder. But seriously, somewhere between what the press should have been wondering and where Bush wonders not.

But back from that tangent, a new book apparently has done much of the research on what I merely quipped about.[Hint: Not so far fetched, as the principle is that we would all love to be dictators.] But of course most people do not want to filter through what academics have worked on, but that is the point of his book, there are those that think they are free and those that don't know they are not. It may not be that simple, but it's title is: Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.

See Democracy in a Republic is not Black and White

Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness. for my comments about the problem of following no matter what.

For those who hate "hard work":
Some people will tell you where to go. Others will take you there.

Facebook Town Hall (amended)

[originally tacked on to previous post]
[SEGUE: amendment written after a District Democratic meeting and get together(see footnote.)]

[...I note here an additional gripe from Sam Stein (for continuity sake, Sam Stein is writing about the Fiscal Speech not the Facebook Town Hall]:

Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing. Obama’s speech came after Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) unveiled his own budget plan, giving his own remarks the veneer of a presidential response rather than executive leadership.

Well, excuuuuuse me! But the President came out with his 2012 Budget proposal almost two months before the Ryan budget. But one hanging chad here is that the context of the debt is not just about the good economic times under lower taxes(which is shakey) but that there was excessive borrowing and spending that helped the economy. It was not so much tax and spend Liberals, but war and borrow and spend and bailout Conservatives. Which merits a further comparison from the Facebook Town Hall (transcript) :(President Obama)

Because this recession came at a time when we were already deeply in debt and it made the debt worse, if we don’t have a serious plan to tackle the debt and the deficit, that could actually end up being a bigger drag on the economy than anything else. If the markets start feeling that we’re not serious about the problem, and if you start seeing investors feel uncertain about the future, then they could pull back right at the time when the economy is taking off.

So you’re right that it’s tricky. Folks around here are used to the hills in San Francisco, and you’ve driven -- I don’t know if they still have clutch cars around here. Anybody every driven a clutch car? (Laughter.) I mean, you got to sort of tap and -- well, that’s sort of what we faced in terms of the economy, right? We got to hit the accelerator, but we’ve got to also make sure that we don’t gun it; we can’t let the car slip backwards. And so what we’re trying to do then is put together a debt and deficit plan that doesn’t slash spending so drastically that we can’t still make investments in education, that we can’t still make investments in infrastructure -- all of which would help the economy grow.

Then there is Speaker Boehner:

Boehner, R-Ohio, said the biggest accomplishment of the Republican House this year has been to change the debate on spending -- and the budget compromise sets the stage for even bigger cuts. "It's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse," Boehner said.

Which should complete the "who is in the driver's seat" metaphor.

[Footnote: In late night discussions, I brought up George Lakoff and in response, Systems Thinking was mentioned, and here is an article, which I may have already ran across in other form(Under Supported*). And yes it is similar to my Tetrahedron of Will, not that having dimentions alone denotes similarity.

[Speaking of parallels or tangents, I just missed a bit on Thom Hartmann reviewing Atlas Shrugged**.

* And apologies to my education and not yet having not fully reading the link, but I did study Systems Theory in Organizational Behavior.

** Ayn Rand