Fearnauts

There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.

So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.

Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.

Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.

Dedicated to the Praxis Peace Institute

This poem was crafted just before the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The victims to which I also dedicate this)but it did not feel right to submit at the time, with the seeming implication of the first line, however there is no good and evil, but man's nature. (This is culturally precise(CP) given the view of women's nature)

I also dedicate this to the Great White line-up at the Republican debate last night. Not that there is anything wrong with power, but force is not the only power. If any of them are even half the Roosevelt who launched the Great White Fleet, they are the half that carried the "big stick" and only half understand the other Roosevelt and "the only thing we have to fear". They are no Roosevelt, not even half of either.

[5-10-07 reference back to link Council of Nice and a new link on Kant(as in The Liaison Report Between Common Sense and Kant
but reading it is hard work, so I will add- - what is wrong with faith
in reason and criticism and a process for progress ?]

Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.

Slightly Too Late

THIS HEADING [Waverly Place]* was never posted.
Saved in draft [Waverly Place] 8-7-12 sometime.
Posted post CP or pie cutter, will anyone ask or
Shift Trek, on WD or
Gramm Rudeman BP (no squat).

* 8-10-12 THIS LEDE (THIS HEADING) has been moved down.
i.e. actually posted 8-10-12
"Waverly Place" replaced by "Slightly Too Late" (or L-ate)
Watch where you trek or dressage:

Any calculations of Romney's so called economic plans must take into consideration two things under the rubric of politics. Captain Mitt Picard and the three step outlined under the first three bullets below. (Not to aim at his wife's Dressage Horse or rubber/glue the horse shoe.) My points actually being, that under executive privilege, his plans are simply to "Make it so." And the Cheney principle, fire arms aside, debt doesn't matter. So (all due respect to economic analysis) any analysis that projects what his plans mean must consider him cherry picking or indeed etch-a-sketching his campaign Cherry (picked) Tree. BTW: George Washington and his cherry tree was one of the nations first etch-a-sketch moments. Ax not what you can etch-a-sketch... or was it hatchet jobs.

Pep to Biz Mall ?  Any one!

[Not*** Quite.**]

** Aug. 9, 2012

Catch The Thom Hartmann Program LIVE 3-6pm Eastern!
In for Thom today, please welcome attorney Mike Papantonio, Host-Ring of Fire Radio
Hour One: News of the day - Cliff Schecter, Libertas LLC / Plus, how JP Morgan's energy program scams consumers - Tyson Slocumb, Public Citizen
Hour Two: GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party - Mike Lofgren, "The Party Is Over" / Plus, the GOP's war on welfare - Bryce Covert, The Roosevelt Institute
Hour Three: Pradaxa...wonder drug or worst nightmare? Attorneys, Ned McWilliams & Roger Denton / Plus, latest on the GOP's war on women - Nancy L. Cohen, "Delerium: The Politics of Sex in America"

*** not that these are related to Slightly Too or Wavering on Waivers.
[And how!]
**B  update for Regional Bonds and Tracks caller(?) on Mike Papantonio today(8/10).

Oh! Bomb a Nation?

A sense of humor?
What about the memo?

[8-18-08: No Bully Pulpit nor Teddy Roosevelt.] - [Accountability here and abroad.]

Calvin...

and Hobbes or
Pee Wee Pulpit?
[Infinity in Retrospect] i. e. "and back again"

Re: Ribble to Read? See Obsolescence.

[To the heart of the matter... see "also"@who knows!]
My direct meaning is that if they read the full context there is nothing to fear but fear itself, but that brings back Roosevelt too clearly for some. Even if they don't like either Teddy or Franklin speaking of Red.

Spreading Irony and Con Text

President Bush will become know as the Irony President. I believe I have noted that before.

But the previous post was in haste, and the context intentionally left open.

It was brought to mind by the ironic use of President Roosevelt's words by the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration.