Nuclear power is one thing*, but Frackin' with our water?
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query SIX. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query SIX. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
11-30-11
Update 11-30-11
Adjusted Bottom Link to reflect previous day's post.
Also noting that November 2011 archive is not large enough to contain all the posts for November. As if Tin Foil Herman was not a big enough post... here are the preceding posts.
11-7-11 Sat-Ire[!]
11-6-11 Star Chamber Revisited
11-3-11 Two Points
11-2-11 Cain Un-Able
11-1-11 Hyper-Sorting
11-1-11 Six Sigma
11-17-11* It's not Rocket Science
My intent above was to list the earliest posts for November. Six Sigma is not Rocket Science, but navigating our nation, just may be, let alone this blog. Bottom Line? Anachronism is in play.
* anachronism explained: bottom link of each post is supposed to indicate the previous post. Six Sigma has 11-17-11 as that link. But apparently 10-31-11 may be more complex an anachronism-
If Only It Were Black and White
Axis of Fruit Loops
Update
Adjusted Bottom Link to reflect previous day's post.
Also noting that November 2011 archive is not large enough to contain all the posts for November. As if Tin Foil Herman was not a big enough post... here are the preceding posts.
11-7-11 Sat-Ire[!]
11-6-11 Star Chamber Revisited
11-3-11 Two Points
11-2-11 Cain Un-Able
11-1-11 Hyper-Sorting
11-1-11 Six Sigma
11-17-11* It's not Rocket Science
My intent above was to list the earliest posts for November. Six Sigma is not Rocket Science, but navigating our nation, just may be, let alone this blog. Bottom Line? Anachronism is in play.
* anachronism explained: bottom link of each post is supposed to indicate the previous post. Six Sigma has 11-17-11 as that link. But apparently 10-31-11 may be more complex an anachronism-
If Only It Were Black and White
Axis of Fruit Loops
Update
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Walking the Plank[!]
A caller to a talk show expressed well my sentiment on the death penalty.
Paraphrased: I will support the death penalty when the first corporation is executed in Texas. Well, being a Jolly Roger, (i.e. No Will Rogers) I might not go that far mattie.(ar R something privatization.)
[!]= sarcasm/irony punctuation (See lede 'r ship)
The real leadership is not in a party or a position but in ideas. My pun is purely about the platform over the process, not to mention parties. But in particular a few planks that Bernie Sanders has suggested in the form of: Six Demands to Make of Wall Street.
If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act, and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
[Speaking of R's Bruce Bartlett anyone? (or A B Sea?)
* The American Jobs Act.
Speaking of three R's.
Four P's.
Five Minutes.
Six Demands.
Seven Lies.(2.5 minutes)
Too Cubed.
Three Three Squared.
Paraphrased: I will support the death penalty when the first corporation is executed in Texas. Well, being a Jolly Roger, (i.e. No Will Rogers) I might not go that far mattie.(ar R something privatization.)
[!]= sarcasm/irony punctuation (See lede 'r ship)
The real leadership is not in a party or a position but in ideas. My pun is purely about the platform over the process, not to mention parties. But in particular a few planks that Bernie Sanders has suggested in the form of: Six Demands to Make of Wall Street.
If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act, and see who will be left on the ship of fools.
[Speaking of R's Bruce Bartlett anyone? (or A B Sea?)
* The American Jobs Act.
Speaking of three R's.
Four P's.
Five Minutes.
Six Demands.
Seven Lies.(2.5 minutes)
Too Cubed.
Three Three Squared.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Six-edged Rhetoric.
Not just to continue a theme,(a likely coincidence)
but it involves the dynamics of progress,
and I don't mean the apparently belated addition(see scrollover v. lede).
Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:
1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes [*] could address their impact on our economy.
Note: Said Relief and labels/associations Slash Segue...
criss-cross aside of more Williams
William Harvey
William of Occom
[*] This is not the link but Norman Goldman did refer to LEX of the FT about relative tax rates(or revenues/GDP)(nor is this it, but... )
but it involves the dynamics of progress,
and I don't mean the apparently belated addition(see scrollover v. lede).
Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:
1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes [*] could address their impact on our economy.
Note: Said Relief and labels/associations Slash Segue...
criss-cross aside of more Williams
William Harvey
William of Occom
[*] This is not the link but Norman Goldman did refer to LEX of the FT about relative tax rates(or revenues/GDP)(nor is this it, but... )
Monday, October 22, 2012
Romney Seal Team Six Sigma'd Himself.
In the third and final Presidential debate * , Romney flipped his Seal Team Six Sigma on his own Rhetorical Been Laden.
* (continued 10-23-12)
For some (retro) reason...
10-24-12
Lean Manage Mean't? [!]
Kudos to in-eff-able!
It takes three points to make a plane.
Three dimentions to make a field[!].
* (continued 10-23-12)
For some (retro) reason...
10-24-12
Lean Manage Mean't? [!]
Kudos to in-eff-able!
It takes three points to make a plane.
Three dimentions to make a field[!].
Friday, March 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES MARCH 2013
3-14-13 : interesting digs Six Links
(b.s.) "S.E.(vi)" A. (fn)FOR D... , B. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy , C. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)].
(b.s.) "Six Sigma" A. No Frackin' Way (sc) ... E. Rocket Man?[!] ... I. Over Helming. (sc).
un M bed Ed (sc) ?[!] {?}
3-18-13: Not to leave it, or pun on SNL: nor love it. R we LOL in the same boat? As for Heading
*: dimentionalism(sic) -
lede : (b.s.)tetra+heed+run - A.,B.,C.,D.,G.,H.,I.
or : (b.s.) lede+or+ship - A., ... . N. Walking the Plank[!] (s.c.)
ship : (b.s.) share+n+angle -
? : (b.s.) tetrahedron of will -
focus : (b.s.) Hume A. Third Times a Charm. B. He said *a fowl*!
on : (b.s.) Hume+or+us / Humorism
Pythagorean : Pythagorean - A Place to Ponder
Socratic : Socratics. - (b.s.)Kant+Hegel
published today 3-18-13
3-20-13 Curve Balls? (b.s.)Curve+Balls: A., B., C., D. / Original Intent and Spin.
3-22-13 Scroll over, and only "Physics" had been read at time of post. Post Physics? / Un Try
Angles?
3-28-13 Absolut(ist)ly - "clothing" (b.s.)robin+hood: RawMoney Runnin', Genre Clash (sc), Fair and Balanced... (sc) / divide**: At what point is (pun and rap on justice/scales and founding docs) / "absolutist"(b.s.)absolutism : At what point is , Primary Boogeyman. / win or lose (b.s.)former(pop+culture): A.(sc), B., C., D., E., F., G., Slash Segue(sc), The Billy Club...(sc), A generous dia-Gnosis.(sc)., FAUX CULTIAN? (sc), Close Enough for(sc), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, M(m)., N(n), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, P., Q.(q). latter (b.s.)boogeyman: Primary Boogeyman, B., C., Bottom Line Update(sc), Juxta-Boogey (sc)
VFW:Virtue Freedom War? Rhetoric, Logic, Grammar ? [!]
(b.s.) "S.E.(vi)" A. (fn)FOR D... , B. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy , C. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)].
(b.s.) "Six Sigma" A. No Frackin' Way (sc) ... E. Rocket Man?[!] ... I. Over Helming. (sc).
un M bed Ed (sc) ?[!] {?}
3-18-13: Not to leave it, or pun on SNL: nor love it. R we LOL in the same boat? As for Heading
*: dimentionalism(sic) -
lede : (b.s.)tetra+heed+run - A.,B.,C.,D.,G.,H.,I.
or : (b.s.) lede+or+ship - A., ... . N. Walking the Plank[!] (s.c.)
ship : (b.s.) share+n+angle -
? : (b.s.) tetrahedron of will -
focus : (b.s.) Hume A. Third Times a Charm. B. He said *a fowl*!
on : (b.s.) Hume+or+us / Humorism
Pythagorean : Pythagorean - A Place to Ponder
Socratic : Socratics. - (b.s.)Kant+Hegel
published today 3-18-13
3-20-13 Curve Balls? (b.s.)Curve+Balls: A., B., C., D. / Original Intent and Spin.
3-22-13 Scroll over, and only "Physics" had been read at time of post. Post Physics? / Un Try
Angles?
3-28-13 Absolut(ist)ly - "clothing" (b.s.)robin+hood: RawMoney Runnin', Genre Clash (sc), Fair and Balanced... (sc) / divide**: At what point is (pun and rap on justice/scales and founding docs) / "absolutist"(b.s.)absolutism : At what point is , Primary Boogeyman. / win or lose (b.s.)former(pop+culture): A.(sc), B., C., D., E., F., G., Slash Segue(sc), The Billy Club...(sc), A generous dia-Gnosis.(sc)., FAUX CULTIAN? (sc), Close Enough for(sc), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, M(m)., N(n), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, P., Q.(q). latter (b.s.)boogeyman: Primary Boogeyman, B., C., Bottom Line Update(sc), Juxta-Boogey (sc)
VFW:Virtue Freedom War? Rhetoric, Logic, Grammar ? [!]
Thursday, December 19, 2002
George F. Will piece or peace? (6-2-08)
The topic of Empire has surfaced. [George F Will and a waste of history let alone 9/11]
(Sent but not printed by Seattle PI, Sept. 10th, 2002)
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
(6-2-08: only the title has been added with some editing of the quotations marks)
(Sent but not printed by Seattle PI, Sept. 10th, 2002)
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
(6-2-08: only the title has been added with some editing of the quotations marks)
Thursday, September 19, 2002
FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK
=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)
Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991
Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.
=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================
*
This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04
Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.
[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]
With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Sincerely, Roger Larson
Post script. (4-25-02)
If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".
However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.
I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?
Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.
===============================================================================
On Democracy and media coverage:
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.
What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?
Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.
UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html
This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.
Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.
Roger Larson Bellevue, WA
===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================
Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.
Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)
While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.
When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?
Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
Roger Larson
ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]
To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000
COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000
RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.
This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI
[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===
TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.
TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)
Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991
Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.
=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================
*
This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04
Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.
[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]
With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Sincerely, Roger Larson
Post script. (4-25-02)
If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".
However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.
I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?
Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.
===============================================================================
On Democracy and media coverage:
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.
What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?
Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.
UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html
This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.
Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.
Roger Larson Bellevue, WA
===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================
Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.
Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)
While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.
When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?
Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
Roger Larson
ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]
To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000
COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000
RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.
This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.
[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===
TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.
TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic
It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Oh, what a web...
we weave when first we misattribute. "sic"*
But here(see footnotes) is the tangle thanks to Thom Hartmann.**
*not to mention misquote or evolve
** more tangle (thanks to embedded hyperlinks)
[footnotes: Michael Hudson, Six Minutes, Democracy Now]
[More run off or tangle courtesy of "google"(and Ctrl Find)and Thom Hartmann caller.]
[Speaking timing*** and that was another thread, but spins off of Cato and Henry George, or is it Tucker "George Will" Carlson.]
*** apologies for deep or rather unexpressed and anachronistic footnotes and 4A.
[subset of sovereignty or tangle]
But here(see footnotes) is the tangle thanks to Thom Hartmann.**
*not to mention misquote or evolve
** more tangle (thanks to embedded hyperlinks)
[footnotes: Michael Hudson, Six Minutes, Democracy Now]
[More run off or tangle courtesy of "google"(and Ctrl Find)and Thom Hartmann caller.]
[Speaking timing*** and that was another thread, but spins off of Cato and Henry George, or is it Tucker "George Will" Carlson.]
*** apologies for deep or rather unexpressed and anachronistic footnotes and 4A.
[subset of sovereignty or tangle]
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
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?]
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?]
Sunday, January 08, 2012
A Shot in the Arm?
A collegue recently commented on the difficulty or the desire to be objective. This nails perspectivism on the head, or is it the cross? From neo-perspectivism through neo-nuanced and neo-platonic we do have a dynamic*** of global balance. More sorting later*. Thus spoke Niche?
* 1-9-12 correction (not two Chinas: two perspectives.)
BTW: Thus spoke Adam Smith.
D'Ribble[!] Which came first the crossroad or the chicken?**
Henwood/More? More's the Pity?
[On the other arm, a nemesis may have stubbed a tow(sic) on the plank the nail sticks out of.]
[Speaking of Ice, Thom Hartmann is in Iceland and provides some of the neo-perspectivism.]
** 1-10-12 link added (plural)
*** also maybe plural(see Hartmann/neo-relativism?) dynamics?
[edit notes: Ctrl F "the cart"]
[Also Ctrl F "Descartes" and the four horsemen?]
[Note: I have been lax in my boldness of links as an aid to navigation or sense of the thread. In that regard I finally bolded two.< now 3(!) > Also my asterisks and [brackets] are time relative or sensitive. i.e. to flow of the read. Now I will also note the relative flow of neo-platonic, neo-perspectivism, neo-liberal, neo-con, neo-nuanced and neo-relativism, not to end with six, name names or Ctrl F. BTW: Excuse me if I don't go to the trouble of flip-flopping the tetrahedron, that is the point.(Ctrl F "the people" and "the constitution".)]
[Speaking of a4 or timing, my 4a brought me another F, if not CF.(Note grammar, numbers, shapes, timing, etc.) F is TBA. Not to mention ? Nor Kidding. In closing (?)(!) Or too close to the 4close or Bane?]
[Third Bane's a charm? i.e. convention, congress, cain ? ]
[Speaking of Bane and Try Angles or Flip Romney and flopping it.
BTW: Under the Flip link there is an accounting or statistical trick that is not unknown to the debate. I won't play upon it, but it involves the "average tax cut" versus "the middle-income American." It is mathematical hyperbole as well as reasonable, where reality is even more confusing. It is more accurate to say that the richest are paying a lesser per cent of their gross (actual tax rate) than any other income category after the standard deductions and other taxes are accounted for.]
> previous post <
* 1-9-12 correction (not two Chinas: two perspectives.)
BTW: Thus spoke Adam Smith.
D'Ribble[!] Which came first the crossroad or the chicken?**
Henwood/More? More's the Pity?
[On the other arm, a nemesis may have stubbed a tow(sic) on the plank the nail sticks out of.]
[Speaking of Ice, Thom Hartmann is in Iceland and provides some of the neo-perspectivism.]
** 1-10-12 link added (plural)
*** also maybe plural(see Hartmann/neo-relativism?) dynamics?
[edit notes: Ctrl F "the cart"]
[Also Ctrl F "Descartes" and the four horsemen?]
[Speaking of a4 or timing, my 4a brought me another F, if not CF.(Note grammar, numbers, shapes, timing, etc.) F is TBA. Not to mention ? Nor Kidding. In closing (?)(!) Or too close to the 4close or Bane?]
[Third Bane's a charm? i.e. convention, congress, cain ? ]
[Speaking of Bane and Try Angles or Flip Romney and flopping it.
BTW: Under the Flip link there is an accounting or statistical trick that is not unknown to the debate. I won't play upon it, but it involves the "average tax cut" versus "the middle-income American." It is mathematical hyperbole as well as reasonable, where reality is even more confusing. It is more accurate to say that the richest are paying a lesser per cent of their gross (actual tax rate) than any other income category after the standard deductions and other taxes are accounted for.]
> previous post <
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]
Monday, October 01, 2012
Rocket Man?[!]
...OFF ?
The launch pad is another matter but it takes 3 points to make a plane, and this is a blank 'f 'n odd footnote. But stinking to the story or retro-jets, this is the 4th post-note or footnote*.
* anachronism may be moved/adjusted later
[The point for now is that I am behind on the follow-up in the area of the first three posts for this month. And then after the last bulky post and plan to asterisk or footnote, found that those original 3 had many of the images I had just 4-matted un-a-knew[!] Now that is the ticket. Almost.
g. 4A? FOOTNOTES:
SEPTEMBER 2012
h. Catch-22?
j. (anomoly^ of al gore rhythm and heading?)
k.
l.
m.
n.
Oh and the reality is that things change, not that they are right in the first or next place, but for now I think I have logged the links correctly if not as planned.
2-point-oh... and "lables"la not LGF for now.
^ (b.s.)= blog search 4 (sic)+pun and at this time includes "a." thru "n." which will off** course change with time if not also algorithms of BlogSpot beyond my understanding. But one anomoly of that sort appears just as I switched 4mat between "i." and "j.", not that I did not trigger something I just don't know why I chose to save some time and effort if not meaning and the "headings" switched from being self-linked to prior linked, upon scrolling over them. In
the Mean Time... ... SIX
SIGMA . And I better stop now before who knows what.
Stardate: 10.18.12.9.53pdt
Sunday, March 01, 2015
F~N~8~ing
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Everything is on the Table!
That's right! Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.
Robert Reich counts
8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*
ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.
Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.
Robert Reich counts
8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*
ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.
TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.
THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.
FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.
SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.
SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.
EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.
* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.
[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far. Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C. this is the kernel of the matter:
Especially the bold below:
I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)
[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far. Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C. this is the kernel of the matter:
Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.
Especially the bold below:
Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’
I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)
Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’It could not be that bad.]
Monday, February 25, 2013
Bricks and stones
no bones about it?
Too many threads.*Still in the process of reading the links embedded and woven aknew[!]***
*2-24-13
[a different Handy**]
[not to get a degree in Bacon but sometimes shelves are handy]
** found on one of my shelves.
*** Rhee-Marshall-Handy
In Charles Handy's The Age of Paradox,(**) there are two chapters I navigated to, but first I would say that every age is a paradox, as that is the nature of nature. Anyway, they are The Federal Idea p. 109) under Practicing the Preaching, which referenced back to the Sigmoid Curve(p. 49) under Finding the Balance. I would like to weave in the Paradox of Choice by Bob Schwartz to determine if management of information and business is what education should be based on.
Forbes Thought Of The Day
“Money never starts an idea; it is the idea that starts the money.”
— William J. Cameron
[See under degree / on, (b.s.)finds "tetra+heed+run" / "Platonic+plank" = Education/Business/Government loopiness. Not to suggest nonsense or SixSigma, but a Six Edged 4Mat of dynamics and what matters and is the point, balancing change and individual freedoms. (Platonic Platforming and Planks Constant?)]
Not to suggest a tipping of the tetrahedron, or BEG the work of N-title meants but which comes first? Business/Education/Government slash results or causes and affects of design?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)