Not the chemical kind, the market kind.
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Go Bush. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Go Bush. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 18, 2007
Notes from Al-Qaeda
"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Off the Cuff?
A review of recent Obama takes:
[My perspective that is; not taking as the GOP might.]
GO Biden.
Go* Obama
GO BUSH!(on US- we the people!)
(Suggestion to President Obama: Stay the Course and Congress Make it So! )
* Niger data See question** and investment R&D.
[Sequence of ideas, TED R&D funding presentation, question about Oil Spill Research Institute(where has it gone?), progress in the area of prevention and recovery lacking yet there is a global experiment and experience being wasted?]
a. there may be not enough money invested in R&D
b. what is may be being wasted on profits not preventions and recovery research
c. meanwhile there is plenty of evidence or an experiment that is being done on the globe
d. previous and current devastation is being buried by corporations and currents(geographical, political, social, economic and oceanographical)
** White House YouTube Press Conferece w/ Robert Gibbs On Oval Address
[My perspective that is; not taking as the GOP might.]
GO Biden.
Go* Obama
GO BUSH!(on US- we the people!)
(Suggestion to President Obama: Stay the Course and Congress Make it So! )
* Niger data See question** and investment R&D.
[Sequence of ideas, TED R&D funding presentation, question about Oil Spill Research Institute(where has it gone?), progress in the area of prevention and recovery lacking yet there is a global experiment and experience being wasted?]
a. there may be not enough money invested in R&D
b. what is may be being wasted on profits not preventions and recovery research
c. meanwhile there is plenty of evidence or an experiment that is being done on the globe
d. previous and current devastation is being buried by corporations and currents(geographical, political, social, economic and oceanographical)
** White House YouTube Press Conferece w/ Robert Gibbs On Oval Address
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Blame to go around?
Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!
Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*
Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.
That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.
And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."
[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]
* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]
NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.
** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]
Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*
Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.
That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.
And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."
[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]
* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]
NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.
** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Time for us to go
TO WORKThe new Un-Frame for Them?
Republicans would actually want to lose so that they can blame the Democrats so that they can return to fight at a later date? Now that is courage. NOT!
But this is the unspin. Would they really risk possible impeachment of Bush for the sake of their own power? Not that Democrats or the people would have the guts. Maybe they want the Dog to wag. But this puts a spin on politics that I have been trying to halt. My point is that governing is hard work, which Republicans do not believe in, and would rather let Democrats carry the load, while they run away to fight another day. How is that good for the country?
Is this just more to talk about, to keep us from the "hard work"? It also distracts from and should raise questions of which came first, the strategy or the words of regret (or coming to their senses) which some conservatives express. Another question: do they put themselves before facing the issues?
AND MORE: it will be TIME FOR US TO GO TO WORK.
Will they work with Democrats for those two years?
Will the Democrats be finished even reviewing let alone correcting the last six?
Will the Democrats even play "the game" that it has been for Republicans? If they play it as well, they would cut them out of it all. Demostrate that we can handle debate and division and bring issues to the fore for the coming two years not just for the next four, but for the people, our country and the world.
I must thank The Thom Hartmann Show for sending me on this tangent, or search: "Time for us to Go". We should agree, it is time for Republicans to go, and for any that survive, not to go back to the politics of either nine words or sixteen. Thanks to Garrison Keillor as well. But I would say (to Reagan's nine)
Let them not be in the government for they are there to help themselves.
And I must make reference to my earlier posts.
A Pre-emptive Comment 11-15-05
Politics 11-24-05
Speaking of Running 3-18-06
Hold of Course 3-17-06
[Tangents are the nature of how things connect,
when every point is in context of the whole.] Not incidentally, quantummatter.com
Republicans would actually want to lose so that they can blame the Democrats so that they can return to fight at a later date? Now that is courage. NOT!
But this is the unspin. Would they really risk possible impeachment of Bush for the sake of their own power? Not that Democrats or the people would have the guts. Maybe they want the Dog to wag. But this puts a spin on politics that I have been trying to halt. My point is that governing is hard work, which Republicans do not believe in, and would rather let Democrats carry the load, while they run away to fight another day. How is that good for the country?
Is this just more to talk about, to keep us from the "hard work"? It also distracts from and should raise questions of which came first, the strategy or the words of regret (or coming to their senses) which some conservatives express. Another question: do they put themselves before facing the issues?
AND MORE: it will be TIME FOR US TO GO TO WORK.
Will they work with Democrats for those two years?
Will the Democrats be finished even reviewing let alone correcting the last six?
Will the Democrats even play "the game" that it has been for Republicans? If they play it as well, they would cut them out of it all. Demostrate that we can handle debate and division and bring issues to the fore for the coming two years not just for the next four, but for the people, our country and the world.
I must thank The Thom Hartmann Show for sending me on this tangent, or search: "Time for us to Go". We should agree, it is time for Republicans to go, and for any that survive, not to go back to the politics of either nine words or sixteen. Thanks to Garrison Keillor as well. But I would say (to Reagan's nine)
Let them not be in the government for they are there to help themselves.
And I must make reference to my earlier posts.
A Pre-emptive Comment 11-15-05
Politics 11-24-05
Speaking of Running 3-18-06
Hold of Course 3-17-06
[Tangents are the nature of how things connect,
when every point is in context of the whole.] Not incidentally, quantummatter.com
Friday, April 07, 2006
More Heroes Needed.
Words I saved in file yesterday:
From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.
WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.
This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?
How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?
It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.
While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.
From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.
WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.
This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?
How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?
It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.
While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Science Fiction Writers
Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.
But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".
Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.
If you don't go there here is the segment.
Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.
[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]
[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:
... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]
But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".
Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.
Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.
If you don't go there here is the segment.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.
[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]
[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:
One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:
More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.
... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
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.]
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.]
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Phase II?
Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
THE COUNCIL OF NICE
versus THE COURSE OF TRICKLE DOWN:
What we need is a Council of Nice, and anyone who does not want to be, can go to a place of their own choosing or can choose who will tell them where to go, and see if that gets them there.
But seriously, it would be nice if we had a benevolent dictator, but would that really stop the blaming?
Talk about having a polarized choice...this should at least argue for more choice, but others think that even the argument is not needed. Where will that get us?
Apparently they think the ultimate place, and that is hard to argue.
[This was composed following the June 30th 20/20 and saved in draft after a few posts on their message board into July 1st and first emailed in present form on July 8th.]
THE LIAISON REPORT:
Between Common Sense and Kant
[Just a quick tangent on the topic of where this is coming from:]
My thinking is somewhere between what Bush thinks is common sense and just thinking that one is thinking. It may be all about me: a wannabe pundit, benevolent dictator and general do-gooder. But seriously, somewhere between what the press should have been wondering and where Bush wonders not.
But back from that tangent, a new book apparently has done much of the research on what I merely quipped about.[Hint: Not so far fetched, as the principle is that we would all love to be dictators.] But of course most people do not want to filter through what academics have worked on, but that is the point of his book, there are those that think they are free and those that don't know they are not. It may not be that simple, but it's title is: Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.
See Democracy in a Republic is not Black and White
Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness. for my comments about the problem of following no matter what.
For those who hate "hard work":
Some people will tell you where to go. Others will take you there.
What we need is a Council of Nice, and anyone who does not want to be, can go to a place of their own choosing or can choose who will tell them where to go, and see if that gets them there.
But seriously, it would be nice if we had a benevolent dictator, but would that really stop the blaming?
Talk about having a polarized choice...this should at least argue for more choice, but others think that even the argument is not needed. Where will that get us?
Apparently they think the ultimate place, and that is hard to argue.
[This was composed following the June 30th 20/20 and saved in draft after a few posts on their message board into July 1st and first emailed in present form on July 8th.]
THE LIAISON REPORT:
Between Common Sense and Kant
[Just a quick tangent on the topic of where this is coming from:]
My thinking is somewhere between what Bush thinks is common sense and just thinking that one is thinking. It may be all about me: a wannabe pundit, benevolent dictator and general do-gooder. But seriously, somewhere between what the press should have been wondering and where Bush wonders not.
But back from that tangent, a new book apparently has done much of the research on what I merely quipped about.[Hint: Not so far fetched, as the principle is that we would all love to be dictators.] But of course most people do not want to filter through what academics have worked on, but that is the point of his book, there are those that think they are free and those that don't know they are not. It may not be that simple, but it's title is: Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.
See Democracy in a Republic is not Black and White
Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness. for my comments about the problem of following no matter what.
For those who hate "hard work":
Some people will tell you where to go. Others will take you there.
Friday, November 08, 2002
NO JOKE
Last night, David Letterman made fun of the Democrats for not articulating a message or rather having lost to the Bush efforts of articulation. I won’t attempt to retell the joke, but it is sad, if the opinion prevails that the Democrats could not out-articulate Bush.
Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.
Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.
[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]
Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.
Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.
[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
More Gill Let?
More Flex-balls ?
Fertil~ized ?
More Cowbell?
M: Tale of Two Bullies!Tale of Two Bullies!, C:O/ Caging Godzillas , W/ On the level...
F: (*)Carry On Comment!, Perspectivism, The Other Debates, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie! , Whistle Blowing in the Dark?, Z: Neo-changian? , (*)Recycling Trash, Here We Go Again, D&R Tan ya?, ?: Too Random...
or: A? Anticipation Project ^, P? Politics Local and National
FB? The Guardian?
[image tbi ]
more cowbell
[image tbi ] ( )
[finally/gnot exactly]
[But a D'R win of some de men shun.]
i. Bury the lede?
e. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy
NFRY~(not fully rel8d yet)
Not 2 B con`fused ... w/o?
(FN^) The Other Debates, Perspectivism, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!
oar
o.w. / or Pen ta go(~)'N ?
Let Alone... D(R)N~A ?*
* Ctrl F~M-beds @ S. .C
C-O~W[tbK(o)?] nPS?
WTB ? [!] (. . .)
Fertil~ized ?
More Cowbell?
M: Tale of Two Bullies!Tale of Two Bullies!, C:O/ Caging Godzillas , W/ On the level...
F: (*)Carry On Comment!, Perspectivism, The Other Debates, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie! , Whistle Blowing in the Dark?, Z: Neo-changian? , (*)Recycling Trash, Here We Go Again, D&R Tan ya?, ?: Too Random...
or: A? Anticipation Project ^, P? Politics Local and National
FB? The Guardian?
[image tbi ]
[image tbi ] ( )
[But a D'R win of some de men shun.]
i. Bury the lede?
e. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy
NFRY~(not fully rel8d yet)
Not 2 B con`fused ... w/o?
(FN^) The Other Debates, Perspectivism, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!
oar
o.w. / or Pen ta go(~)'N ?
Let Alone... D(R)N~A ?*
* Ctrl F~M-beds @ S. .C
C-O~W[tbK(o)?] nPS?
WTB ? [!] (. . .)
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Go Purple!
Red and Blue America
Must Go Purple!
What about green?
Here is a useful (although marginally) group of charts for super delegates and the overall picture of hope for Democrats. The "original intent" for this post was to direct you to an Obama purple ad that had the red and blue states going purple, speaking of McAd. But here is another a bit more technical.
Speaking of colors and humor not getting in the way. Here is my original:(letter to the editor, May 26th 2002)
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
(This demonstrates how a careful read and one word can jinx or preempt a meaning or change. And again "it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other." and not torture meaning like the editor did to my piece by changing green to color, "not that there is anything wrong with that", but it does narrow the course and change the meaning.)
Must Go Purple!
What about green?
Here is a useful (although marginally) group of charts for super delegates and the overall picture of hope for Democrats. The "original intent" for this post was to direct you to an Obama purple ad that had the red and blue states going purple, speaking of McAd. But here is another a bit more technical.
Speaking of colors and humor not getting in the way. Here is my original:(letter to the editor, May 26th 2002)
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
(This demonstrates how a careful read and one word can jinx or preempt a meaning or change. And again "it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other." and not torture meaning like the editor did to my piece by changing green to color, "not that there is anything wrong with that", but it does narrow the course and change the meaning.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
DEAN EMOTIONS IN CONTROL:
( To Seatlle Times Editor about a piece by Tom Brown-see quotations in first paragraph).
Tom Brown is right. The results in Iowa can be good for the Democrats by having a more "vigorous primary season" rather than an "early runaway by Howard Dean". Also "Americans want someone in the White House who is in control, not someone who may go out of control". However, the horse is already out of the barn there.
Dean’s emotions are very appropriate and up front which is better than hidden agendas and wondering who is in control in the White House. The President’s handlers or "objective staff" who tell him the media is too filtered, should explain that if he had more press conferences that the press would at least have more to go on. Instead they control his exposure and his intelligence. Meanwhile the use of intelligence and leaks are out of control unless they want to control them.
It is hard to control your emotions when the President doesn’t know the difference between WMD and intentions, and has control of both but is not up front about either. As an "unnamed Democrat" now leads Bush, just wait till Dean or any Democrat faces Bush to see who has and will control.
( To Seatlle Times Editor about a piece by Tom Brown-see quotations in first paragraph).
Tom Brown is right. The results in Iowa can be good for the Democrats by having a more "vigorous primary season" rather than an "early runaway by Howard Dean". Also "Americans want someone in the White House who is in control, not someone who may go out of control". However, the horse is already out of the barn there.
Dean’s emotions are very appropriate and up front which is better than hidden agendas and wondering who is in control in the White House. The President’s handlers or "objective staff" who tell him the media is too filtered, should explain that if he had more press conferences that the press would at least have more to go on. Instead they control his exposure and his intelligence. Meanwhile the use of intelligence and leaks are out of control unless they want to control them.
It is hard to control your emotions when the President doesn’t know the difference between WMD and intentions, and has control of both but is not up front about either. As an "unnamed Democrat" now leads Bush, just wait till Dean or any Democrat faces Bush to see who has and will control.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
If you investigate...
they will go.
Recent impeachment polls indicate that XX%(30 to 40 something) of the people support impeachment. That is actually down from earlier polls indicating more specific support for impeachment on wiretapping and lies about Iraq. So called "liberal media" MSNBC poll (not scientific) shows a surprising 88%. My surprise is at the total response, and that people who use that source still are. But then I looked.
MY POINT: A well* framed question about the charges should indicate stronger support for impeachment, and if investigations are started voters will come and the guilty will go.
Point two: GO PELOSI TWO!- I support the idea of supporting [ correction suing] Bush over signing statements, but why has it not been done for the 700 or 800 earlier statements, and I cannot believe that standing is required to be established to hold him accountable, if it is the case that it is political, that is the reason for the above push.
If you build a field of facts, the people will come. That is politics as it should be and the media as it hasn't been. It can work that way on any cause and those most important are changing course and holding all the administration accountable.
* well = including charges that have been admitted to, phrased as "if/then", explaining that the process is an investigation.
Recent impeachment polls indicate that XX%(30 to 40 something) of the people support impeachment. That is actually down from earlier polls indicating more specific support for impeachment on wiretapping and lies about Iraq. So called "liberal media" MSNBC poll (not scientific) shows a surprising 88%. My surprise is at the total response, and that people who use that source still are. But then I looked.
MY POINT: A well* framed question about the charges should indicate stronger support for impeachment, and if investigations are started voters will come and the guilty will go.
Point two: GO PELOSI TWO!- I support the idea of supporting [ correction suing] Bush over signing statements, but why has it not been done for the 700 or 800 earlier statements, and I cannot believe that standing is required to be established to hold him accountable, if it is the case that it is political, that is the reason for the above push.
If you build a field of facts, the people will come. That is politics as it should be and the media as it hasn't been. It can work that way on any cause and those most important are changing course and holding all the administration accountable.
* well = including charges that have been admitted to, phrased as "if/then", explaining that the process is an investigation.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
SHOCK and Awe!
Shock to hear the anouncement by President Obama
that Osama bin Laden has been killed.
Awe at the amount[*] of celebrations[***] that have sprung up.
UPDATES AS DATED:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
President Obama Announcement
Rachel Maddow , National Outpouring
Temporal Importance
[Daily KOS
The Telegraph McCain and Bush Too.]
Slate: How White House kept a secret.
MSNBC Pakistan "Double Game"
Today Show Yesterday Bin Laden is Dead!
Ed Schultz Fired Up!
the operation
Politics of death.
Executing the operation
Remembering the fallen.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ground Zero
Pakistan
Bi-Partisan Dinner
Rhetorical Coolness. Just Desserts.
The Rewrite.
Monday, May 02, 2011
President Obama, No Osama.
MSNBC
CNN
FOX
CBC
Let's MoveOn!
Mean While
Thanks to some friends of Facebook for some of these, and some I thankfully don't use.**
Huffington Post
You Tube
C-Span
Salon
[Think Progress]
[Center for American Progress]
[Center for America's Future]
In defense of FOX News, a caller to the Stephanie Miller Show, claimed that there was absolutely no mention of President Obama on their home page. That is not correct. He is noted 4 times. And the video and transcript of his announcement about bin Laden are one of those, the second is a generic label for "In The News", the third an All-Star Panel on his emergency response, and the last an expose on "the one" letter difference between Obama and Osama. (Now Six*)
Navigational hint: go to bold links for Presidential material.
Speaking of live blogging: FOX Ups the Anti.
KARL ROVE: After Bin Laden's Death, President Obama's Next ...
[*] appropriately inserted last
[**] or rather last... noting the FOX Terrorist Threat, I am reminded of some inconvenient unfinished sentences or unintended sends of my own(De NO RAH O'Donnell tweet), but I mean reAlly?
FYI:
The news broke to me in just the right manner, straight from President Obama on the late night news. But if I had been online... Or a tweeter?
[***] celebrations
[Parting Shot?: Thom Hartmann has Gareth Porter on for some history. The point(Porter's) is that President Bush had no plan or intent to get bin Laden, not necessarily embedded in these links. My point is that Osama bin Laden could have been old news in 2001 but for the grace of Bush. If we had had different Pre-9-11 thinking, we could have had more justice and less tragedy and cost.]
[Updates: Ledes, Links and Labels added]
that Osama bin Laden has been killed.
Awe at the amount[*] of celebrations[***] that have sprung up.
UPDATES AS DATED:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
President Obama Announcement
Rachel Maddow , National Outpouring
Temporal Importance
[Daily KOS
The Telegraph McCain and Bush Too.]
Slate: How White House kept a secret.
MSNBC Pakistan "Double Game"
Today Show Yesterday Bin Laden is Dead!
Ed Schultz Fired Up!
the operation
Politics of death.
Executing the operation
Remembering the fallen.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ground Zero
Pakistan
Bi-Partisan Dinner
Rhetorical Coolness. Just Desserts.
The Rewrite.
Monday, May 02, 2011
President Obama, No Osama.
MSNBC
CNN
FOX
CBC
Let's MoveOn!
Mean While
Thanks to some friends of Facebook for some of these, and some I thankfully don't use.**
Huffington Post
You Tube
C-Span
Salon
[Think Progress]
[Center for American Progress]
[Center for America's Future]
In defense of FOX News, a caller to the Stephanie Miller Show, claimed that there was absolutely no mention of President Obama on their home page. That is not correct. He is noted 4 times. And the video and transcript of his announcement about bin Laden are one of those, the second is a generic label for "In The News", the third an All-Star Panel on his emergency response, and the last an expose on "the one" letter difference between Obama and Osama. (Now Six*)
Navigational hint: go to bold links for Presidential material.
Speaking of live blogging: FOX Ups the Anti.
KARL ROVE: After Bin Laden's Death, President Obama's Next ...
[*] appropriately inserted last
[**] or rather last... noting the FOX Terrorist Threat, I am reminded of some inconvenient unfinished sentences or unintended sends of my own(De NO RAH O'Donnell tweet), but I mean reAlly?
FYI:
The news broke to me in just the right manner, straight from President Obama on the late night news. But if I had been online... Or a tweeter?
[***] celebrations
[Parting Shot?: Thom Hartmann has Gareth Porter on for some history. The point(Porter's) is that President Bush had no plan or intent to get bin Laden, not necessarily embedded in these links. My point is that Osama bin Laden could have been old news in 2001 but for the grace of Bush. If we had had different Pre-9-11 thinking, we could have had more justice and less tragedy and cost.]
[Updates: Ledes, Links and Labels added]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Speaking of "people who"...
...if you think that this is just tortured rhetoric, then please at least take it as an opportunity to investigate the tortured rhetoric of the administration, not to mention the GOP. Otherwise the constitution is just a don't ask, don't tell policy and congress can just go back to a closet.
[The text of my reply in the previous post preempted this action item from my inbox, to which I attached the above, and I withheld the following, but have now brushed up a bit.]
Not that there is anything wrong with closets. But just because congress has such a high "wrong direction" rating, does not mean that rating does not tell them which way to go. Of course some of the 80% may want more of the same *. But many of them will be there when you go the right direction which in this case is left or we will be left behind.
CONGRESS:
Please follow the tortured rhetoric and act.
See BUSH CONFESSION
[see comment section]
* elitist irony
[The text of my reply in the previous post preempted this action item from my inbox, to which I attached the above, and I withheld the following, but have now brushed up a bit.]
Not that there is anything wrong with closets. But just because congress has such a high "wrong direction" rating, does not mean that rating does not tell them which way to go. Of course some of the 80% may want more of the same *. But many of them will be there when you go the right direction which in this case is left or we will be left behind.
CONGRESS:
Please follow the tortured rhetoric and act.
See BUSH CONFESSION
[see comment section]
* elitist irony
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
I wouldn't go that far.
On the verge of declaring that the CNBC motto should be Lean BackWords, (I did use the term Fauxword), it is interesting how the words(** )play out.
[AM OC "DNC Uses Dressage Horse to Hit Romney on Tax Returns." Hiding behind the skirt of the issues. Jeb Bush continues the Lyin' Eyesin'.]
But how far should one go? Not* that I was starting from there.**
*the Jansing&Co links aren't there yet
** Oops maybe I was.
(Note anachronism of asterisks-adjusted.)
[Here is where it started and how far will it go? See AM above.]
[This post needs some serious footnoting***. Re: Labels.]
*** V-8? [under RNP (viii) links are being sourced re: labels and oops, I have a heckuva lot under construction.]
[Post Roman numerals is The Cycle & "It Takes a Village", and understanding(Bane) more than exceptionalism. Mean while... speaking of Hoover. (para-phrasing meta-ramble)The former president on Fame & Power, a puppet in the headlights or swamp gas? Blast from the past, MED or Axis of Awesome, Reign on Parade of Rove 'n Nordquist. Hal-C-on days?]
[Re:NorMan GoldMan Show (my)comment below, oops, maybe it is hyper-bully? Speaking of shows, a technical glitch makes his first hour a veil able. (Featuring Third Party candidate and Morman on Romney. Speaking of dissin'genius.]
[AM OC "DNC Uses Dressage Horse to Hit Romney on Tax Returns." Hiding behind the skirt of the issues. Jeb Bush continues the Lyin' Eyesin'.]
But how far should one go? Not* that I was starting from there.**
*the Jansing&Co links aren't there yet
** Oops maybe I was.
(Note anachronism of asterisks-adjusted.)
[Here is where it started and how far will it go? See AM above.]
[This post needs some serious footnoting***. Re: Labels.]
*** V-8? [under RNP (viii) links are being sourced re: labels and oops, I have a heckuva lot under construction.]
[Post Roman numerals is The Cycle & "It Takes a Village", and understanding(Bane) more than exceptionalism. Mean while... speaking of Hoover. (para-phrasing meta-ramble)The former president on Fame & Power, a puppet in the headlights or swamp gas? Blast from the past, MED or Axis of Awesome, Reign on Parade of Rove 'n Nordquist. Hal-C-on days?]
[Re:NorMan GoldMan Show (my)comment below, oops, maybe it is hyper-bully? Speaking of shows, a technical glitch makes his first hour a veil able. (Featuring Third Party candidate and Morman on Romney. Speaking of dissin'genius.]
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bush never says he will not follow unconstitutional laws.
[THIS POST WAS LOST OR RATHER SAVED IN A DRAFT FILE FROM July 25th, 2006 and Published October 11th, 2007: COMMENTS MAY FOLLOW BELOW]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Hope Floats.
There may be some hope, on the water. President Bush has awoken to his responsibilities:
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.
But it is already taking on water:
As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."
I wonder if he will be attacking the process "going in" then. As far as the "people saving lives", are they really federal anyway and who is really attacking them?
Regardless, it is like thanking people for their "hard work" after you have made their work harder.
Not defending the process is just short of blaming it anyway, and not blaming the people that were not there still needs looking at. It seems like there is no shortage of fingers to go around.
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.
But it is already taking on water:
As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."
I wonder if he will be attacking the process "going in" then. As far as the "people saving lives", are they really federal anyway and who is really attacking them?
Regardless, it is like thanking people for their "hard work" after you have made their work harder.
Not defending the process is just short of blaming it anyway, and not blaming the people that were not there still needs looking at. It seems like there is no shortage of fingers to go around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)