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?]

Brackets and the Debt Clock

[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]

[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]

The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.

The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.

Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.

Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.

But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.



[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]

*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself

[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!

[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]

Cherry paraphrasing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live From New York: Saturday Night Live

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

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

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

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

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

Make it so.

No Captain Picard.

Some think President Obama has done too much already. Others think he has not done enough. The problem, is they are on both sides of the partisan divide. Some don't even understand the divide. Tea Party goers are a good example. Spurred by Libertarians and encouraged by the further right (or wrong) "just say no" crowd. Another good example is the stimulus package. "It was too much." [* update correction] Yet only a portion has gotten out yet. Which some confuse with the bailout, and others the budget or fiscal responsibility. Even bankruptcy is not recognized as a process rather than an end.

But I think that one of the main ideas in the slow rate of change for some social and legal issues is the balance of powers. Congress makes laws and the executive should follow them. Sometimes by not following them, the laws are changed, and sometimes by following them. It would not really be non-partisan or even good for a party, if the Justice Department did not do its job with the laws it has or the executive get too involved in changing them beyond his actual power to execute them.

The other is that the president has an agenda. To fix the economy, by focusing on education, energy and health care reform, and to be a leader in the world that the world can follow. He is not the bringer or breaker of laws, but he is burdened with alot on the table including a congress that is not of one mind, even if it has a partisan majority.

[The above commentary was completed before I found this on top of my inbox. Along with the complications of checks and balances designed into our constitution and the partisan and corporate aspects not so specially mentioned, it is ironic that a free press is mentioned. Yet such must be especially carefully balanced in times of crisis and change, in particular when it comes to national security, diplomacy and markets. Congress shall make no laws, in regards to certain freedoms, yet the executive is not free to give rights or free all information.]

[6-19-09: No Buddha either.]

[* 6-14-11: update correction: quotation marks added, not that it is a quote.]

Bane(Or) Change

[11-17-11 Update Labels]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.

There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.

Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.

*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]

** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]

Truth Tellers

Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.

That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.

Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.

*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)

**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]

Here We Go Again

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz

I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.

In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.

In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?

[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]

[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]

[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]

* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...


...Financial News with a real anchor!)]

"The irony..."

(in turning pages)

...is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families-- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. * The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world than we inherited.

(in three paragraphs ...we... can agree) but he continues.

The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in.

It is not fair of me to pick on "a few" words that bring up age, since it is valid as well, that Obama is young, but not that he has bought in to what is old, but maybe what works. And McCain has bought in to change, but who has bought in to him? It is good that attitude is brought up as well as faith, not to mention the people. But it is not these words that must be brought up, but the forces of history that must be held up to scrutiny and evaluation.

* "for too long" we have let Bushisms outrun our media filters(them and us). Have they been vetted enough to not get used to this? [...this run around? and I just caught a mis-embedded link, bottom lined**, that fits. The Bush exit strategy may be a good example of a Catch-44. Where is McCain? [Let me make perfectly clear,*** the above block quotes are direct from McCain's speech and three paragraphs in the gap are commendable] Where will the Democrats be? And where have they and Republicans been in "your government". I was going to say the bold was on me, but it also on you and on them (?).

** previous post bottom link
*** bonus hint

[final comment: "The irony" is that McCain's words start a paragraph here as well as a serious tone, while it is ironic that I saw any humor (not) in age earlier.]

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

Relative Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism, was coined by a Frenchman.

American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."[3]

Well, not literally. It was actually first used by Joseph Stalin.

The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[4]

Speaking of original intent*:

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[1][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[6]

Since the 1960s "postnationalist" scholars on the left have rejected American exceptionalism, arguing that the United States had not broken from European history, and has retained class inequities, imperialism and war. Furthermore, they saw every nation as subscribing to some form of exceptionalism.[7]

But here is the trigger** for my lede. See *** there:

Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights.

*mine was in the lede(pre-wiki)
[But here are more links]
** not to suggest more than civil disobedience(but Relative in the lede)

[Meanwhile, there also may be room for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. But that is problematic, in that I suggest a choice. Or rather politics might make it. The idea is not that dangerous, but putting any parameters on it, is what would make it a deal breaker. If it could be the GOTV for 2012, it might make for good dialogue for the Republic.

Follow-up: Tragedy or not[! Still Life with Romney.]

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

The Billy Club...

needs some explaining.

---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---

(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence

It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).

I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.

But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.

* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)

** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.

[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]

[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]

Resolved?

"Sacrifice" A tribute to reality: my way of subtitling a segue to a fine piece of emotion, and sense of reality by Keith Olbermann. And now for a tangent into my reflection on reality.

Reality?

There is no reality.
Reality is what you make it. (Long Story Short: pop down to *)
Scratch that.
Reality is what we make it.
Scratch that.
Reality is what the "is" is.
Now that triggers a reaction.
Scratch that.

But beyond these perspectives
consider our actions.
The third time may be the charm.
The charm is not to ignore the you and I,
or the us and the them,
but the interaction, that we can cause.
and to consider where we can take reality,
if we can face reality
at all.

* Bush is the prime example, and a leader in this regard. The reality is that we can each feel we can make it alone, and disregard or force a perspective.

Justice may be the best example of why we must continue to look back as we move forward, as well as be held accountable for each, and may be why there is so much "hard work".

Maybe it is time to start from scratch
or at least put the "hard work" into a
model for progress.

Is there any irony in that that is too taxing?

Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?

[Sent to KC Journal, 2-21-03 in reply to upcoming column that had been in the NY Times.] [Link and bold added 8-2-10]

The Yes-But Parade, by William Safire was very good. He made the administration’s case as best it can be made. However if turned inside out, the argument is useful in demonstrating the reverse. It is better to be in the "Yes-but parade" than be following the Butt Head in the wrong direction leader who sees the choice as acting now or doing nothing. Sorry, it was just too tempting to put it in Bush diplomatic terms. It is easier to focus on what we label people than what they may mean. Safire takes the "yes but fellows" label that Franklin Roosevelt used for those who agreed with his goals but had reservations about moving forward in the manner he prescribed. Somehow this is equated with the multitude of questions that arise about the war with Iraq. One could easily turn his argument inside out if not for the need to answer these questions and more.

True, making up words does not deserve the ill repute Bushisms have attracted. However "yes-but fellow" does not really contain anything new. It is tempting, not to mention childish to resort to name calling. It is not a question of acting now or doing nothing, as possibly the strongest argument the administration has, suggests. It does alleviate me of the need to address the serious if not slightly distorted questions that Safire relies on heavily in his case since he simultaneously minimizes the need to answer them. He even simultaneously concludes that the same "yes but fellows" who supposedly share these common goals of the administration would be better off challenging those same goals.

The most important question is why can’t we do something, without ignoring all the questions? Just to point out the emptiness of such labeling for purposes of thinking, is there really any constituency, or consensus, or poll numbers for doing nothing? Is there really a do nothing group we can label? Only in the minds of the schizophrenic Butt Heads, (childish, patriarchal if not abusive parents) who maintain it is my way or the highway, or I want things my way or I’m taking my toys and going home. If only it were so simple.

I am no psychiatrist but this may be an analogy that can be followed, that is more similar than divergent. Both parent and child have their way. They want to get it. They may not be going in the same directions. Being on the path may be better than not going somewhere, but you better know where you are going and how you are going to get there. And making a move is not in and of itself better than not. One fault in the analogy, is that Nations and their leaders or diplomats are neither parent nor child. However it is further useful that they may want to be, and often behave like both.

It may be reasonable to see how carrying a big stick and being on a bully pulpit can be confusing, not to mention from a different Roosevelt. For the plain spoken, it is easy to see the case they make for violence as a means, if they don’t have to answer the questions on the end or the means.

The cost, not to mention the courage, it takes to answer these questions may indeed be high, but we can’t even begin to compare it to not answering them, let alone acting before we do. Safire may be right that there are "yes but fellows", but it can go both ways. He just sides with the yes but head in the wrong direction (away from questions) crowd. Sure "acting now" has not exactly been rushing it, but where has the delay come from in answering more of the questions?

Maybe alternate analogies are more useful. Progress may be in their mind too. But are we really moving in a new direction? Are we really using any new means? Only more questions are arising to confront, confound or run with.

So you don't have to?

Thanks to Stephanie Miller, for listening to Bill O’Reilly "so you don’t have to."

Approximate quote:

Bill O'Reilly * [If there was ever proof that American’s need the right to protect themselves, it was hurricane Katrina.]

Note that I don’t want to read or listen to Bill O’Reilly again ** , to get it straight, but I believe gun rights was the issue. Actually I believe Americans do have the right to protect themselves, just not the tools to do it. Am I agreeing with Bill O’Reilly? Now that is scary, but it doesn’t mean I’m right. It doesn’t even mean you can read me any better than him, but that is not the issue.

Three points here: 1.) It may make more sense to approximate what is said since that may be closer to reality than O’Reilly gets. 2.) We should have the right to protect ourselves. 3.) It is not absolute, but could be if the government does it’s job the way some talk.

This approximation technique really is a problem, as things would be more effective if we could depend on words and filter them properly. But this process was not intended to take the humor out of my original approach which hinged on the line, “so you don’t have to".

Actually there are a lot of fields now where people don’t have the tools to survive where they would have been dependent on their environment more than their government.*** Those fields today or job categories rest on the premise that people are specialized in the name of progress and the economy "so you don’t have to". But they would all not be possible without the changing fabric of society that requires the same (specialization) of others, and would not work without a structure called government to regulate this changing balancing act.

Bottom line...
or punch line: "Run for the hills".

* note that literary licence and formality causes me to note that I have sufficiently noted that I don't use quotation marks here.

** I thought I had a blast for O'Reilly in the past, but here are some from the more recent and yet to be read: sticking to guns on a tragedy to smear [thanks to News Hounds... they "watch FOX", dot, dot, dot]

*** in correcting the tense here, I add the Darwinian metaphor "sink or swim" but think of the music to Jaws.

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

What's good for the goose? Goose the gander!

American Perspectives?

It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.

Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",

followed by:

“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.

This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].

The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.

For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.

* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?