I had only inklings of the efforts of the U.N. but their culmination seem to be parallel to my beliefs that can best be represented by an Escher world. First there is the impression that there is a reality that is represented in mainstream media, not just a perspective. Then there is the perspective that the writer takes, on Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations I don't know if his interpretation or my own of Huntington is wrong, but I prefer to have a different perspective than his take from it. I don't believe Huntington is saying only what Heitner sees him as saying, or I am choosing to pick only what I believe of it, and tweaking the rest.
No matter, maybe. Setting aside the reaction that some perspectives will have to Al Jazeera International having a perspective that is not theirs, the efforts and results that we have experienced deserve the approach that Spain, Italy and France are taking. It will have it's own reaction, which should not be part of the equation, if some persist in their own reality which does not recognize perspectives at all.
If some think this is just philosophical falderal, then they should be reminded what maybe they know, that the be all and end all has been, the Bush philosophy.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Huntington. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Huntington. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, November 17, 2006
Thursday, September 19, 2002
Flash Back
[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]
*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link
*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link
Fast Forward
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. […because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. http://www.msnbc.com/news/781783.asp
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/87582_will19.shtml
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. […because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. http://www.msnbc.com/news/781783.asp
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/87582_will19.shtml
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Regime Rhetoric Reply
[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:
Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Cultural Threads are Fine.
Something about string theory?
Or original^ intent?
The prism of ideology?**
O W
Oh Wow*.
^ the ad/on Colbert
*something about anamolic/anomalic,
probably Pythagorian to us all. knot [!]
Re / De!
BO/OB?
Barrack Obama/ Olive Branch
Sandel/Huntington
** ideology (and mess'n wit' the word)
[Punch Line ? ! Mmmm MOW, MOW ]
Still fishing 4 another root.(or source) by google^^ [c-3].
^^ i. e. Re reeding 'n De-quilting! I preemptively and post-humusly linkoln update.
[Manichean is knot but many key 'n is.]
[A sorting of some basic links, may further under standing ! ? or knot]
[Ruff!?] eph 'n ? ! The Cycle You can't run and gum! Medina ;-) ?
Johnny Cash / There is "fuzzy math", there is "fuzzy English" and there is ge oh metrics.
Or original
The prism of ideology?**
O W
Oh Wow*.
*something about anamolic/anomalic,
probably Pythagorian to us all. knot [!]
Re / De!
BO/OB?
Barrack Obama/ Olive Branch
Sandel/Huntington
** ideology (and mess'n wit' the word)
[Punch Line ? ! Mmmm MOW, MOW ]
Still fishing 4 another root.(or source) by google
[Manichean is knot but many key 'n is.]
[A sorting of some basic links, may further under standing ! ? or knot]
[Ruff!?] eph 'n ? ! The Cycle You can't run and gum! Medina ;-) ?
Johnny Cash / There is "fuzzy math", there is "fuzzy English" and there is ge oh metrics.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Give 'em a break!
New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
GOLEFT TV
Finally: Real News Featuring video from progressive hosts. (Some from Air America Radio)
The choir grows. (The local affiliate)
[subtitled: STOP THE LOOPINESS! ]
But hold on to your seat, following these links can be challenging to your sense of peace.
Example: and this is a moderate one
Air America (select program)
The Randi Rhodes Show
Senate Democrats introduce Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
The vicious cycle completed
"as long as..."
NSPD51
But I don't have time for the ride.
An even worse ride:Plan Ready for Iran
On watch list for some time
Science Fiction or...
It might be one thing for Empire to win, but who will be the loser, even if it could? Not China or other powers, no matter what they choose. Failure is too scary to imagine, but progress is even scarier work. And with preemption on the table?
"Help me Obi-Wan///"
There is no secret message there or suggested solution, but it may not be just about "the force", but every player has a part and countries and corporations seem to play for keeps.
"As long as" who is the dictator?
"Failure is not on option..." is the most true oxymoron *. Failure is a result we must live or die with. In the case of the NSPD51, if failure is not preempted, or caused, it is at least incentivised and to some rewarded.
[apologies for a linky piece, all of which I have not read, and for any excessively creative wording *]
[It is funny how I seem to form a rather loopy cycle myself, as I had intended to insert somewhere a Huffington Post link. Not that particular one, but just the site in general. Speaking of Generals: Wesley Clark. Speaking of failures. Putin's eyes, which Bush looked into. (see paragraph before last "other powers") Our only hope.]
THANK YOU: Progressives Everywhere, in particular Huffington Post and Common Dreams
Speaking of forutituous links. The Telegraph and mine
with a search of "telegraph" and search "blows" it. Speaking of dreams. It is about the nightmare.
Democrats are about the American dream, Republicans are about keeping it that. And even the dream is a nightmare for the world.
* there is probably a better word for it, but then look at what we are dealing with.
[11:08 AM - - As I have noted, I have not read or reread all of the above links, and there are even some that I had intended to, but I must add this one,{Illiberal Moderates: The Global Swing Vote} by Amitai Etzioni - - a piece which I did just read and suggest caution in reading and sorting it out, but I do agree with it's approach. I have been familiar with his work prior to 1995, and that may have been important in my seeing the "grand misconception" even before I knew who was promoting it. Re: the misconceptions of Huntington and Fukuyama.]
The choir grows. (The local affiliate)
[subtitled: STOP THE LOOPINESS! ]
But hold on to your seat, following these links can be challenging to your sense of peace.
Example: and this is a moderate one
Air America (select program)
The Randi Rhodes Show
Senate Democrats introduce Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
The vicious cycle completed
"as long as..."
NSPD51
But I don't have time for the ride.
An even worse ride:Plan Ready for Iran
On watch list for some time
Science Fiction or...
It might be one thing for Empire to win, but who will be the loser, even if it could? Not China or other powers, no matter what they choose. Failure is too scary to imagine, but progress is even scarier work. And with preemption on the table?
"Help me Obi-Wan///"
There is no secret message there or suggested solution, but it may not be just about "the force", but every player has a part and countries and corporations seem to play for keeps.
"As long as" who is the dictator?
"Failure is not on option..." is the most true oxymoron *. Failure is a result we must live or die with. In the case of the NSPD51, if failure is not preempted, or caused, it is at least incentivised and to some rewarded.
[apologies for a linky piece, all of which I have not read, and for any excessively creative wording *]
[It is funny how I seem to form a rather loopy cycle myself, as I had intended to insert somewhere a Huffington Post link. Not that particular one, but just the site in general. Speaking of Generals: Wesley Clark. Speaking of failures. Putin's eyes, which Bush looked into. (see paragraph before last "other powers") Our only hope.]
THANK YOU: Progressives Everywhere, in particular Huffington Post and Common Dreams
Speaking of forutituous links. The Telegraph and mine
with a search of "telegraph" and search "blows" it. Speaking of dreams. It is about the nightmare.
Democrats are about the American dream, Republicans are about keeping it that. And even the dream is a nightmare for the world.
* there is probably a better word for it, but then look at what we are dealing with.
[11:08 AM - - As I have noted, I have not read or reread all of the above links, and there are even some that I had intended to, but I must add this one,{Illiberal Moderates: The Global Swing Vote} by Amitai Etzioni - - a piece which I did just read and suggest caution in reading and sorting it out, but I do agree with it's approach. I have been familiar with his work prior to 1995, and that may have been important in my seeing the "grand misconception" even before I knew who was promoting it. Re: the misconceptions of Huntington and Fukuyama.]
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Mises...
in the corner ?
Caution: I have only read the last link, and this might seem a balancing* of fallacies**.
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they have nothing to offer, and of course your perspective might influence both. Ths seems more a selection of unfinishted reads, although I did read Huntington, and gave a good shot at Sandel, and found Hasnas, and Fukuyama is a big bugaboo, as we come around to Nietzsche and Rand.
*read juggling ?
** all thinking must be taken in the context of their times as well as the method of the format.
example: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine***, Aquinas and the web they weave sometimes in character or others. Not to mention More's the Pity.
a. A Shot in the Arm?
(b.)^ The Bully...
c. GOP-GAP
^ new notation for (sc)
*** Punderous Ponderings
[Speaking of the corner, is it MAR (mutually assured rhetoric?) The corollary, just because some have something to offer, does not mean they got it.]
(pocket ?)
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE)
Martin Bashir on Aid to Pakistan [To the President:]
But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.
* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]
[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]
[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]
Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future
*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.
So before he is tempted to cut all forms of funding, I would like to remind him of the wise words that he wrote back in 2006 in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Speaking about the circumstances in which terrorism can flourish, he highlighted failed states and poverty as the two most important factors.Not to raise any suspicions** but the mission has not been so clearly defined in original reports.
CIA Chief Leon Panetta, later Tuesday told NBC News, "The authorities(sic*) we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed."
But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.
Using stringent language, a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States."This is clearly a nuanced not "stringent language". But if,(and I mean A BIG IF) Osama bin Laden has been hiding in this compound for six years, it is difficult for the Bush administration to take much credit for the success of this mission, (let alone waterboarding). And while President Obama has been clear on the issues of failed states and poverty being part of the security equation, it is hard to expect Pakistan to be totally free of corruption or political and intelligence intrigue, let alone competence***. It is much easier to speculate and develop tin foil conspiracies that may actually be based on some evidence, and to use them to destabilize, than it is to change things at home let alone for another country. As the right seems to paint themselves into the corner of hypocrisy, the President has the responsibility of being the cherry picker and decider-in-chief. And in connecting the dots of the likes of the latest Right, (remember A BIG IF) then there must be some logic that the Bush administration must be further scrutinized for their part in a $1.4 trillion escapade of terror. How can we hold other countries responsible for competentencies when ours (and often rightly so) are so political?
* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]
[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]
[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]
Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future
*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
★Re-initialism★
Major Fail or ... Hume or ? ... *
* Too Random...
(Pre-post-or-us ?)
{Note # labels. Not to frac' or fudge.}
The point is that I finally read this piece(see bold Hume) which is very Hegelian.
~~~
I have also yet to insert ma hat pa mamby. ~~~ **
~~~
[ MF'4 ] 4-30-14
[5-1-14 Incidentalism? Who started it {?}]
~~~ Sandel/Huntington Revisited ~~~
** photos still on tablet
* Too Random...
(Pre-post-or-us ?)
{Note # labels. Not to frac' or fudge.}
The point is that I finally read this piece(see bold Hume) which is very Hegelian.
~~~
I have also yet to insert ma hat pa mamby. ~~~ **
~~~
[ MF'4 ] 4-30-14
[5-1-14 Incidentalism? Who started it {?}]
~~~ Sandel/Huntington Revisited ~~~
** photos still on tablet
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Open Threads
Open Sesame
Close Sesame
If only it was as simple as "enter" or hit any key,
but nevertheless the pages turn *. I have left open the past-or-gate**, and not closed many threads before, but for the time being, I will link to a comment that is rather fanciful or touching on a few ideas that weave through the myth of history.
[I started out this thread not knowing where I was going, but feeling that we had been there before. We had and Will be, still? (as noted here)]
* speaking of the afterlife, some links are dead (Red Labeling - Obama Baiting -)[valid reference- lost truthout link] yet we are about to move on [Hillary?].
** Obama has left one church, Lieberman may be considering affiliating with another
[lastly from below link - and to above few ideas:
Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep.]
Close Sesame
If only it was as simple as "enter" or hit any key,
but nevertheless the pages turn *. I have left open the past-or-gate**, and not closed many threads before, but for the time being, I will link to a comment that is rather fanciful or touching on a few ideas that weave through the myth of history.
[I started out this thread not knowing where I was going, but feeling that we had been there before. We had and Will be, still? (as noted here)]
* speaking of the afterlife, some links are dead (Red Labeling - Obama Baiting -)[valid reference- lost truthout link] yet we are about to move on [Hillary?].
** Obama has left one church, Lieberman may be considering affiliating with another
[lastly from below link - and to above few ideas:
Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep.]
Sunday, February 03, 2008
"if I were dictator"
Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."
As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."
Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?
Is there another kind of politics or reality?
I'll have to check and get back to you.
[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."
As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."
Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?
Is there another kind of politics or reality?
I'll have to check and get back to you.
[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Sanders / Huntington Para~Dig'em
Or Graham Hunter?
Amalgam in the Middle?
Salon Pre`Foot #$@... Lib~tard Brooks?
(Still under construction) yet...
Amalgam in the Middle?
Salon Pre`Foot #$@... Lib~tard Brooks?
(Still under construction) yet...
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Technical Difficulties
Anomalies or Synchronicities? By definition they are hard to explain. But there was first the missing link that I referenced here and then the Eli Pariser "bubble" context. Then there is the Wrap(5***) problem* and follow up **.
* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]
Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).
Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.
Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:
Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.
*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)
[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]
* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]
Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).
Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.
Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:
Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Government
Also see prior ** not fully read yet but gives context right off the bat***
Lance Taylor: Maynard's Revenge
Reforming the Macroeconomic Framework: Sushil Wadhwani
IMF Calls for New Economic Thinking: Or Does It?
Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.
*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)
[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]
Friday, January 14, 2005
Neo-Context
SUGGESTED READING:
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)