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 !]

Existential Preemption?

Building our nation,

not policing the world.

My original intent was to link the Pre-SOTU references to Post-SOTU finds.

Not to mention Pop Culture:

President Obama* tells Congress Get it Done,

Not Mission Accomplished.

[I think the gist of my jest should be just right for the getting.]

*Ctrl F "get it done"

< previous post >

Do Nothing Filibuster

First I must say there has been progress. (Updated)

But there is need for a flip-flop while it is still a high wire act if you do the math.

On the bright side a comparison to the Republican wave of 1994 and the 1997 congress shows Democrats getting things done. But if we could get it together there are 10 Democrats that are so called "not progressive", and some of the best known "progressives" rated "only kinda" number another 11.(from above: you do the math) But Democrats should be able to get it together to highlite the fact that they have made progress despite their numbers and the media coverage.

A recent whine of the right about the media could be the occasion for investigations, but that would be too much on the table. So maybe I have made my own flip-flop here or lost momentum in the math of getting it together. But when it comes to accountability, it is easy to get fired up again.

Basically the math is so difficult, not just because of the unity of Republicans and the diversity of Democrats, but the bulk of problems that have resulted from the variables in the equation of our constitutional government, and what is for someseemingly {*} only political calculus.

[BREAKING/BROKEN? If there were ever time for a filibuster: THIS IS IT! not to mention INVESTIGATIONS!]

{*} go there see [*]

Second?

[Dug out from previous post.]
Three strikes you're out or third times a charm?
You've heard of Whitewater.
You've heard of Blackwater.
You've heard of Clearwater,
as in CCR. Creedence Clearwater Revival
Now you must hear of the latest CCR.
Center for Constitutional Rights or
Credence Clearwater Revival

[From the last post, the preemptive links refer to earlier comments regarding the link to Watergate, (Hmmm, I forgot, more water), actually a phrase from that era:

"What did the president know, and when did he know it?

Since the Neo-cons are not that dumb, but are preemptive, the questions should be:

"What did the president not know and when did he not want to know it?"

They are still going *, and we are still waiting.

* "words fly" NPR
hawking threat
"still going"

And still dancing in briefs. or thru Smoke and mirrors.
President not briefed on details he briefs Olmert on.

The point is, the administration is promoting offensive behavior and misrepresetation of intelligence before the intelligence has been fully studied, and it is really probably the case that the administration does not have the intelligence (in evidence or thinking) until someone reads it to them the way they want to hear it, and the president might not hear it until it is what someone wants him to hear or they know it is what he wants to hear. But the case is that he is operating on principles and facts that he expects other to support him on, while they do not get it either. BINGO! Maybe I can get to a point. Until he is forced to come clean we will have more water works of trickle down, and I have a hunch the alernative or delay tactic will be that Cheney will be the dam or water fallguy. Boy, don't these metaphors flow like d'Nile.

Wake Up Congress! This is the intelligence the administration has. It is the National Intelligence Estimate. Bush gets the last word. "Estimate". He is the decider and he is not done having the estimate analyzed so he can decide and then it will be an estimate he will decide to act on. END OF STORY, End of His Story.

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

NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.

The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.

[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.

Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.

Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.

"OFF A CLIFF"

Dumbest Proposal Ever.
by Joe Conasan The New York Observer

HUMPTY DUMPTY! COME ON DOWN!***

A quick glance at the headings put this together. But preemptively[*] I will say that a friend of mine has had a squabble with a builder over a fence or the height of it. There is a drop off on the other side which anyone would be concerned about kids or just anyone slipping or falling into. Well, I don't know about the height of any projects but as Obama has indicated "We are in this together". Maybe my analysis or faith has been too flip-floppy. But it is better to ride the fence down than to slip or fall off on either side. Riding a fence does not mean D-riding the project as irony would have it the Republicans seem to do, by having it both ways and expect things to not be on the fence and by not working on it. This metaphor may not work exactly, as government is not a business and both sides of the fence are not down hill. But maybe they are, just one is away from the fence (the project) the other is toward it. But my real point is that if you get pushed off the fence (the project) nothing will get done and we will all be slipping. But if the fence is the thing not the people, and it is at the top of a hill so to speak, getting pushed off will pop all our bubbles or maybe it is more like Humpty Dumpty

[UPDATE 3-16-09: "OFF A CLIFF"]
[3-16-09: The Fence? Is Obamanomics Conservative or Revolutionary? by Robert Reich, Salon]

[3-18-09 bold added with update].]

[Also (nfry) Obama wants G20 to act on stimulus, reform]

[*] Update 3-16-09: Preemptive in that I had not yet read the referenced "cliff" link below or the "Dumbest"** piece on the Republican obstructionism. And still not having read the "G20" but append it where appropriate in text, I think it is safe to say that when Buffet spoke of Obama, and Obama later spoke, Wall Street listened. Not that they said anything. Talk about clarity, I don't know if I should rock or dine.

** since have
*** 3-27-09 update heading inserted here and pre-post-or-us link inserted at Humpty Dumpty

[11-4-11 follow up move up link

Rough Draft or Quick Vent

Here is my reply yesterday, which I don't want to waste, and need to use as a preamble to other news.

Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.

REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"

Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.

However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.

[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]

Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.

Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.

The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.

Peace and Progress be with you, Roger

P.S.

One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.

FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying

A Pre-emptive Comment:

Remember this next October, when it is too political now to set a timetable, but then there will be talk of a troop withdrawal when an election is at stake.

Now when giving a timetable would be to cut-and-run, closer to an election reducing troop strengths will sound better. But remember that the Democrats wanted a timetable only to get it done, when the Republicans finally flip-flop in talk it must still be done.

Follow-up

And post insert.[Update]

Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform

Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.

A calling of Blues and Jazz?

Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.

P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.

[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]

[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels

[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]

*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?

Understanding the nature?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being a Blank "is Hard Work".

Meaning found in file folder:
Being a Heretic is Hard Work.
Or maybe it is the difference between being and getting 'er done.

[OWS verse the 1%?]
[Getting 'er* done?]


*apologies to*** whom[!]?

[Speaking** of Labels...U.N? Not to mention fair and balanced.]

** a, b, c, d (thin blue line ?) Or Re:U.N.

*** LOL: Laughter Occupy Lawyers (not to make light, but...)

[Note Labels U.N.(Unhate, Nuance), G'Ribble(or D'Ribble?)]
[Bottom line? See commenT and lede, and found'ers: Being a Blank "is Hard Work".]
[Super Stick: Debt Deal or Leverage: One thing about the Debt Ceiling deal and the Super Committee is that its failure is a not really that crucial. If it gets something done, the next congress can undo it. If it doesn't get anything done, the next congress will handle the cuts. Heck, I am not even certain it would be binding. Either way the next election will be telling. But anything balanced from the committee will not only be unlikely, but will not balance the history of Republican obstructionism since Obama game into office, nor balance the Republican debt.(See saw)]

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.]

It's Obama's Turn

[Keep the Change(scroll down)]

Of course.
Stay the course.
The private* sector is fine
verse US economic turn around.
[Hardball Metaphor.  Making the case.***]

* E. G. Private Equity Government
(The nuts and bolts?  If Romney cannot understand that the economy has turned around, then what will happen when he turns it around.)
[Ouch ! ]
[Politics Nation ? ]
[Whip Republicans with Reagan and Clinton!]
Thom Hartmann?
Word of tomorrow?  Pernicious.**
[Coffee Table This! The Fifth Element.]

6-10-12 Keep the Change!
Yes this is a bumper sticker for Obama!  Though the links may be a bumper sticker for Clinton or nuance.  Not that I have fully read them yet, I will try to stay the course, not to mention other threads.

6-11-12
Inconvenient Try-Angle !
NOW w/ Corny Copy Ah. "Mind the Gaffe(added 6-13)": "food fight"



Verse us Tony TruthyahKnow.

** anachronism approved:  "Perspective" was Norman Goldman's word of the day(Thursday). "Scale" was my suggestion(for Friday), and "pernicious" was my word for Monday.

6-12-12
Curb Your Enthusiasm !
[Duct Tape?  Goose Pate!]
[(Middle - Name / N SC ?)]
[ Bubble Up]

6-13-12
Jeb Bush: Walk Back ?
(Hardball)
*** link(s) added
McCain sabotage.
NOW "Picking up the Tab".

6-14-12
Keep the Change!
"Different Visions" NOW!
Past is prologue or (unpassed)Middle - Name.(Scroll-up)

Happy Birthday to us!
The Dickens We Say!
Better to look back than go back!
Preemptive Comment this AM:  Obama battles for Fiscal Reality!
Geitner is speaking on Andrea Mitchell Reports.
Andrea Mitchell pulls Geitner's leg on Romney, but he doesn't bite.

Romney wants to get it done.  He doesn't want to look back, he wants to Re-Right!  If we look back we will see his Re-Write. 
Overhang of Obamacare? 
It's coming back?
[Not to mention "No New Taxes"!  Old taxes will do fine.]
Segue: Presidents Speech to be inserted later.
[Thom Hartmann Couples Counseling/Next President will take credit for "breaking up" better economy.] Talk is cheap?

Replacement Refs or Not...

If it were a debate* we would have stopped it. 
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John!  Bring it on, Joe!  The President needs to hold a Sit Down.

Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks.  Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts.  By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while  disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs.  Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^  (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)

And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator.  Well, who knows?  But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates.  And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast.  Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter.  Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't. 

BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]

*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...

^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.) 
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism?  Might it be, rational subjectivism?

<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12  slight edit ( "r.... ",)

Courage to be...

taking a test.

Is it the right test? Who is tested?
Who makes the test?...Actually?

"Is there courage there? Is there boldness there? Is there ability to think outside of the box?" - Wilson Goode, Sr., Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Not exactly the questions for the test, but already demonstrated, by the way.

"They have to demonstrate the courage to be lonely. The courage to understand that they may be making a decision that no one will understand, no one will like, and few will respect." - Andrew Card, Former Chief of Staff of Pres. George W. Bush
Not exactly even questions, but nonetheless demonstrated, by the way.

Could the media pass the test? Or are they passing the buck? Will we pick it up?

McCain: "would rather lose a campaign than lose a war"

Obama: "not interested in a false choice"

The parsing the test problem?
What about* the blue book approach?

* I have yet to filter all these tests, but it seems that McCain is taking Andrew Card's advice. And I come now to the final line that ties this up:
"But, the article may have done more for the campaign without being published than it ever could have if it was." That seems to be the McCain strategy, perform poorly and blame the coverage. While it is mistakes that often get more coverage, whining is not winning, but it plays the refs. The irony in the rejection of McCain's piece may be balanced by the error in his parsing by CBS.

[And my own parsing is tested: "It is what it is". Just an update.]

Speaking of "global" ** and one for the books, who writes this stuff. (And I was going to note anachronism)

** Having read the speech Obama took it to the wall [... see bumped up material to next post]

"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.]

Political Football

What is worse than jumping to the conclusion that a bill has merit because both sides win some and lose some, is jumping to the conclusion that it is worth passing just because both sides compromised a little bit more. I am referring to the three separate paths of legitimate citizenship offered and the inclusion of guest worker programs. The path to legitimacy was sacrificed for some while the path to exploitation of others was left open. It is tempting to call it progress, but is it really, when the door is still open to guests that may require the same rights and needs that our citizens deserve while having little teeth in making sure that employers will not be exploiting workers rights and programs everywhere?

It just seems a shame that there is so much attention to something that is still so fluid and is actually taking a lot of their time and may get little done. Let us hope it is more than pandering and more than politics but it may be all we can get. I am embarrassed to point out that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and we can only hope that there is a lesson here to squawk about.

"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I’m confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."

These are well chosen words, but the actual bill and bringing them to reality are another matter for debate.

Obama is Obama!

Not an FDR, nor a Truman,
and most definely* not a Bush,
burning or not, but a man of faith.
Faith in our Founding Fathers,
and team leaders not just cheer leaders.

[Bold is speech link, like it or not.]
* definitely also

[6-16-10: Ironically I think I nailed it: Obama stayed his course. He can't exactly "Go Bush on us", but he intends to get it done, with our help.]

Hoof and Mouth.

I don’t know if it is just me, but I don’t blame people if they think it is. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I didn’t shoot the facts in the hoof. Back to the issue that seems to be me, but it may just be that you had to be there: The Cheney Fox interview and the Kenedy County Sheriff’s Incident Report seem to deviate on the matter of spin. Was the quail flushed to the right or was it flying counter clockwise? I guess I had to be there. Either way, the accident is not what is being beat but the hoofing that was done to get it out.

On that trail, my earlier commentary on the spin:[2-17-06]

David Brooks, in his column Cheney hunting accident enters the spin-everything zone, makes a few good points but mainly is just another player in the spin zone. He refers to stereotypes and roles that the media will use and play, but which are spinning for one reason alone, the preemptive deviations of Cheney, so common in the administration.

Deviation from the process, more than preempts, but cuts out the roles of questioners who resort to stereotypes when the questions are not answered until the facts stop changing. What does the Vice President not having his press people have to do with the investigation waiting till the next day? Too much may be made of the press being slighted, the better to overlook that even "Voldemort" can’t turn back time and undo the spin resulting from the fear or at least delay in facing the truth.

In Brooks criticizing his own field, "Ours is not to feel or think. Ours is but to spin or die.", that seems to be what the administration would like us to do, and many have. This time, hopefully not Cheney‘s "friend".

And on the horizon, still beating