An Open Letter

Keeping with my intention to be on sabbatical/spring break/spring cleaning of the soul, I have kept with my policy of fully reading (or viewing) all new links which I post unless noted (nnr) - which are few, and usually retroactive links. (or like bottom Link - and Nader - index or blog )

Including this:
An Open Letter - from Ralph Nader

And see this YouTube:
Road Trip!!!

and note new label.(search this blog: "Nader" till I update labels)

[BARACK OBAMA and HILLARY CLINTON
(from Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow.org)
as seen by RALPH NADER]
[Best of the Left. from GoLeft.TV (3-30-08.) ]
[The Raw Roundup from GoLeft.TV and RawStory (3-29-08). ]
[And finally Updated 3-31-08
The Sunday Funnies, Not for the PC.
Headzup Cartoons on GoLeft.TV (3-30-08). ]

"the lesser of two evils" In Perspective.

It is disturbing, the exchange that is going on within the Democratic race. It is good that there is still a choice. And it is good that they are being testy in preparation for the general. But it must be remembered that the choice that is important will be in November. Of course the choice now is still important and it's a shame that there is still not more choice. But no matter the choice now, the November choice is the one that is really "the lesser of two evils".

I say this from an independent perspective in NOT that I call them both evil, but from a Democratic and American perspective, they are less good and more evil.[*] The Democrats get diluted by the independent vote, and the Republicans get deluded by their departure. While the Democrats have lost some of their good by the wayside, and it is now the lesser of two goods, the Republicans have lost the lesser of their evils if it remains McCain.

Now Huckabee may be the compassionate conservative that has no chance, but his rhetoric and revelations may be relevant. Unless a viable alternative is in the race, it is a choice between the major parties. Even an un-viable candidate, Nader, will be a vote that is not against the greater evil and for a lesser good. But a more balanced un-viable ticket, Nader / Paul might be the too good and the least evil, but at least represent the "hard work" of dialogue needed, and if these efforts are not attempts to broker the issues, would still be likely spoilers for the balance of good and evil.

It would be an interesting independent ticket if Bloomberg/Nader or Bloomberg/Paul or even Bloomberg/Huckabee could work on their issues. But that is a dream and what needs to be worked on is preventing the nightmare, and in that case a dangerous Republican ticket might be McCain/Huckabee.

[*] 6-3-08 UPDATE inserted NOT and it must be further clarified I am talking about the November choice.

Progressive Caucus Semantics

The political calculus:
Dennis Kucinich or Obama
or
Ralph Nader or Edwards
Nader / Bloomberg?
[Update or more of a sort: see comments in bottom brackets 1-3-07]
I was originally going to spin off on the first three words, but breaking commentary and news tweaked these lines.
More later. Maybe.

But these tangents are not really so wild, they revolve around the council one takes and that [**] one gives. Kucinich "the principled" or "the calculator". Nader "the idealist" or "the realist".
Standing up or compromising.
All are more than semantics.

Thanks to Brie Walker* and Thom Hartmann.

*Sitting in for Stephanie Miller.
[**] or which

[1-3-07: a straw poll was just distributed by the Democratic Party of Washington State so I will now add LOCAL to the LABELS for this post. I was going to make a comment but unfortunately I am making progress and asked a few preemptive questions which fine-tuned my course. They will do that. Questions that is. My original thought had to do with who the poll was distributed to, but it was broadly distributed and the best comment is on that site. "Congratulations to Kucinich supporters on their great organizing efforts." Not to take anything away from this comment, but Kucinich's comments in Iowa were the kernel of my original post and its Ramble and subsequent flip-flop. But strategy aside(or maybe I just can't or will not articulate it) I may stick my neck out for Edwards. I have too many theories but I will refrain from rationalizing this as one. But my alternate perspective given the latest input, is that Senators Dodd and Biden are pretty good guys or as the latter would say, "I really like" them, but the political calculus is not just from the base.

[UPDATE: 1-7-08 "strategy aside" link added ]

MEDIA MASSAGERS

Nader and Bush: What a contrast. Nader packed with issues. Bush packed with clarity. Both can serve a beneficial purpose. Clarity in a debate. Nader has too many to be clear. But I concur with three. The parties, the media and the money are too big a factor in our democracy.

Bush? Well, clarity. The one pol who hated polls as well as government starts his campaign by using both to wedge his way into the topic of marriage or gays. The one who talks about others rewriting history, now wages a battle for clarity or the dictionary. What about giving some clarity on states rights and/or religious freedom. The New York Times has to clarify. “Putting Bias in the Constitution.” http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022604C.shtml

The benefit of both these controversial figures is to bring issues to the forefront for debate. Now who will have the guts to face the issues with clarity in debates? That aside who needs the media?

Nader Stunned[While the selection of the President was what really cost Gore the election, Nader's voters and election violations were what allowed it turn on a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. My criticism of Clinton in the following piece may be harsh and unjust, I really did understand much of his moderation, but would only lament that more progress on many issues was not achieved. In addition my intention was to blame him for the fact that Bush is what follows and progress will become regression.]

Dear Ralph Nader: (01-31-01)

In a brief recap online, of a USAToday article, I read that you were stunned by the backlash regarding your blame for costing Gore the election. While I have much more to say, I would just like to say that I am surprised that you are stunned. I would have expected that an intelligent person would have expected it.
Surely many of those who voted for you may never have voted anyway, or came from other than the two parties. However, given the closeness and irregularities of the election, I wonder if you really think that a small percentage of those, would not have voted for Gore and turned the election results around. There may be other possible rational for being stunned, and maybe further information will set me straight.
I am trying to figure out whether it was worth having a moderate like Clinton win the White House or go back to supporting Liberals whether they can make it or not. Judging by the actions of the new administration, we may soon wish Clinton had never been in, since so many of the things are only an extension of what Clinton allowed to happen, if not started himself. While I will probably continue to support progressive candidates, I am deeply concerned about the future and will look closely at those who are moderating their rhetoric as well as those who inflame.
It has been a little over a week, so it is too early to add up the pros and cons of the new administration. But it is not too late to keep score. My optimism leads me to try to take people and what they say at face value, but other traits will lead me to find the flaws. I will try to remain balanced and not refrain from contributing to anyone for the general good.

With hopes for our enlightenment,

Roger Larson

Lemon or Orange?

Or Green*? Why vote?
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.

*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.

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 or any other color being a factor in making us see red.**
[Please note the bold "Green or any other" was struck by the editor, apparently not obvious enough that Nader was the Green party, (and green)the almighty buck and envy. And these days if you need a Tea Party pallet, just smear the colors and brown with hints of purple works nicely.]

** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]

Parsed (& Partied) Political Process

Debate!
(the rest I needed)
OK, I have some catching up to do,
but will probably not.
(rocking the boat ain't bad,
but not Gilligan's Island)
OK, I was out of touch for the weekend.

As far as the vote and third parties,
I feel that more competition will help the debate.
As long as people realize where their vote will lead.

Triangulation may be the change we can believe in * ,
but not the leader. My hope is that indepedents from the left or the right, (say Nader and Barr) will be included in the debate, where triangulation is a form of navigation based on principles, but also where practicality hits the road. Give the poor track record of the media, and the bifurcation -(Red and Blue America)- of the internet(unfiltered), expanded participation may better focus the dialogue, but don't forget the green.
[Nader, Barr, and Green?]
[I leave you and Green to search and speak for your selves.]

[*: under Geometry of Purpose: related efforts, links no longer appear, but my point was by contrast to Bill O'Reilly, and definitely not to agree with the parable nor what is still found at American Thinker.]

Hard Work? Sludge this!

Was it Buzzflash?
Was it a Bush speech?
Or this sludge* from The Drudge Report? Of course, it may not link, but it got the ball rolling. And Obama's reaction. Lost or not found yet, in this is where the story came from or rather how it came to the Drudge Report, apparently a Clinton volunteer.
The "volunteer":

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

The "manager":

Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

All I can say is, "Lame!" to both of them.

AND RESORTING TO THIS:
[moments after the "moments later": Is this better context "Obamba in Muslim Garb" or is this a redress "The Meaning of Obama's Robes.", as in the real addressing of the issue?. And to "the volunteer" from me: Apparently your question is as hard to address as the Health care issue, since it would be in so many places if HRC were to dress as a nomadic man, but not so many apparently as a "Muslim" woman? Again more hard work may be needed to flesh this out, but that is a horrid choice of words, yet not intended to be indelicate on my part. In this case more research as to whether there are apples and oranges being compared and whether reliable sources can tell a Muslim from a nomad.]
[moments later: Not read yet! Is Nader any better at the hard work that should be sorting the issues out? I will tackle Nader after the issues are settle about the Democratic candidate, I have before.]

* It just rhymes, but the muck is in the follow through, which if you look at the images which along with the difficulty in finding the Drudge that started this, were apparently added later, may have put better original context to the irony, and which I did not sort out in an even manner either.

"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.]

NADER WAS RIGHT!

Nader was right, speaking of the corporate bodies in the White House.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080504W.shtml
Kerry Denounces Special Corporate Favor

Kerry’s promise:
"My vice president of the United States will never meet secretly with polluters who want to rewrite the environmental laws," the presidential nominee told a cheering crowd packed into a hockey arena Tuesday.

Their rebuttal:
Responding to Kerry's remarks, the Bush-Cheney campaign said the comments on corporations was a personal attack on Cheney. "This is part of his bizarre, personal diatribe that he issued at the convention during his acceptance speech," said spokesman Terry Holt.

The only conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney campaign makes no distinction between corporations and their persons. And there was no report of any argument with the charge.

Truth Tellers

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

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

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

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

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

Closest Call

10 years ago?


Best tangent.




[Perot gave us Clinton/Nader gave us Bush 43?]
[Who gave us Obama? /Tea Party? ]
Not necessarily the rest of the story.

Third Times A Charm?

Or one too many mulligans?
(the rough, the fairway or the green)

David Horsey: "without green being a factor in making us see red."

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.

[Personal Note:  See bold and italics bold. For apparently the italicized irony, "green" was replaced by "colors" by the editors.]  Not to condi send but, Nader was a factor along with chads.


More on Boehner and jobs later. i.e. the success and pop(ularity) of congress

Update

More Vetting and More Investigations? Monster?Gate?
...when first we practice... The Real Scoop?
NOT UPDATED but...
Still needs revisiting.
Flip-Flopping of McCain
Krafting
Hit and Runor the run around?

[Update: 3-11-08 GRAVEL KUCINICH PAUL NADER Is it worse than who thought? + Found Embedded in links somewhere above: CIA & UN Security Council Terrorist Groups? Or Market of Intelligence Forces ]

Re: Leads

Cat 'o 9 Tales V. Who let the dogs out!
This is a perfect follow up to the Mis Leeds.[*] Stop.
[I will begin at the end, which is very hard for a work in progress...or should I start at the top? Not? Leadership or Bottom Lines for the People? As for timing, Mis Leeds preceded Re: Leads. I will skip a story[*] in getting to the Leadership issue, many[*] actually[*], but I have covered now the Re: Leads and will now MoveOn to the Top Line(secondary leed) which was noted* on a page of a resolution as it was debated in its proper 4M. Speaking of Cap Locks, I wasn't, but my fingers do the talking and so does $M(**) sometimes. This could be a flip of the free press, or the Buck in media? Remembering this is a work in progress, and also anachronistic, or is nothing contemporary? Just what was the Resolution? To give Obama courage! There were touching speeches. So(now) I get to the top from the bottom. Go Tatupu!!!!!! Now that is current. Waterbirds(brackets/italics) aside...(The Seahawks just took the lead.) And by Jiminy they are playing the Panthers. Who knew? But back to the issue of cats. They are hard to hurd.. Democrats are a big tent, but there are at least two kinds of dawgs.[yellow and blue(**)] We may need to whip up our courage and yet the(whoo trip)the big picture(touchdown) takes a brush of the artists pallet[e]. Woof, woof!]
* literally sitting in the reorg meeting, before the resolution was passed and a suspension of the rules failed to amend it, I noted a rough form of these words, actually exactly but for the o'.[close enough for journalist work?]
{typo edit ed: who knows jack}
[** capitalization effect 4M= 4'em but $M= buck media and not 4us.]
Postgame W(R)ap: Tale of Two Haves?(PI) From down 0-14 to finishing 31-14 the Nader has been passed ***.
*** A Resolution Calling for Courage and Leadership now from President Obama and Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.
[updates 12-9-10]
[*] link added and other editing [1-17-12 embedded in his 12-9-10 update C-(sic) "ledes" is correct spelling sometimes punned as Mis-leads.]
[(**)] in editing I have added a few hints and corrected some grammar/punctuation, but I will note that I was blogging with the Seahawks game on, and should note speaking of color, the passing of Don Meredith, quarter back & color commentator. As a personal aside it feels kind of funny to have been in a class with Tatupu's dad.
{note 3rd [*] Tails Aside already updated note Presidential Cheer Leaders and the pun on Tails and Tales.}

TIT FOR TAT

BUSH McCAIN MAKE BAD LAW: (see Link)

It seems that Bush is truly uncoordinated. The charge being bandied about it that there is some coordination between 527s and the presidential campaigns.

While he used to put down lawyers and harp on their undeserved fees, now he sees value in them by needing them to take his own laws (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Finance Act) to court. In particular to avoid having to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth he prefers to blame the process McCain sponsored and Bush signed into law. This is after two Bush campaign workers (one a lawyer) are connected to the SBVT and the Kerry campaign has sought legal action themselves.

If the media did their job there would be no call for groups having to spend money to get issues out and straighten out the truth. Meanwhile if restrictions can be made on advertising for political speech, it will likely have to apply to corporations; they have rights and responsibilities too.

Speaking of the corporate being that Bush and Nader have trouble distinguishing there is a further tie, the media may need to fit into this concern for rights and responsibility. Free speech is one thing, but unfortunately money is often needed to get out the message. If control or limits are warranted as to the money that can flow to lawyers and media it would be only right to include the corporate spending (only free speech) as well as earnings (limiting fees) if that is their concern.

And lastly for those who support the death penalty, just where does that fit in? There may be a sense of flip-flop in this flow, but don't count on a new law to be the last flop.

Bumper sticker not seen yet:

FLIP/FLOP
or FLOP PERIOD.