So I've a typo. The bottom line(& link)
is that our mind is the ultimate weapon.
No special sauce, but a proper beef and grilling.
Cognitive Policy Works truthout.org
Building a Culure of Trust in Politics by Joe Brewer
The tool box is complicated and our closet can be full of hats. A tip of the cap to Steven Colbert and Michael Steele, not to mention the PC.
Should we all be inside out? [last 3 links updated 5-4-09]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Steven. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Steven. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Toll Keen, the Try-Logy?
[9-13-11 After Math? And Pre-Post or us?]
[The American Jobs Act]
the sequel or now we can deal?
The bottom line: If the Republicans now want to deal, then bring it on, Democrats! Actually I don't think the people are up for more compromise, just have an up or down vote!
[9-14-11 More about the 9/11 Anniversary. Paul Krugman.]
[Revisiting Economics]
[Al Gore: Breaks Character: "Steven Colbert" that is, and speaking of digging "reality" deeper..]
[MSNBC Debate: CNN Tea Party Debate(Caution)]
[The American Jobs Act]
the sequel or now we can deal?
The bottom line: If the Republicans now want to deal, then bring it on, Democrats! Actually I don't think the people are up for more compromise, just have an up or down vote!
[9-14-11 More about the 9/11 Anniversary. Paul Krugman.]
[Revisiting Economics]
[Al Gore: Breaks Character: "Steven Colbert" that is, and speaking of digging "reality" deeper..]
[MSNBC Debate: CNN Tea Party Debate(Caution)]
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Worst Person Crowded Senator Ben Nelson (D) Nebraska
The Senator should face the music and correct things right away. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine then? Just kidding. He should start with Steven Colbert. CORRECTION: The Ed Show (Apparently he handled Colbert well enough, and Ed Schultz is who he should fish or cut bait with.)
The Senator makes some very good points even though his list is not fair and balanced on the face of it.
[Senator Byron Dorgan (D) North Dakota: "no solace in being right"]
"Too many Americans...get their news from entertainers (who) tell them what to be angry about today." "...Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow." "Responding to the talking points of either extreme is not the way to enact good public policy." "There is a lot of inaccurate and incomplete information out there thanks to talk shows from either the left of the right." "Facts often get in the way of a good rant."
The Senator should face the music and correct things right away. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine then? Just kidding. He should start with Steven Colbert. CORRECTION: The Ed Show (Apparently he handled Colbert well enough, and Ed Schultz is who he should fish or cut bait with.)
The Senator makes some very good points even though his list is not fair and balanced on the face of it.
[Senator Byron Dorgan (D) North Dakota: "no solace in being right"]
Sunday, May 24, 2015
LeRoy's Lemma
Cube Root of Plato?**
1. Cube
2. Root [ow]
3. of ***
[ ! ] [!]
(~) p.27 $13 ii. *
* 5-26-15
(links inserted footnotes continued) NFRY
"This in fact is true of plane figures in geometry; but some spherical figures exhibit, notwithstanding a complete internal agreement, such a contrast in their external relation, that the one figure cannot possibly be put in the place of the other."
This segment is the tangent to the ying/yang/Jung of TOW.
** links inserted
*** associated/related words added.
Math pun of sorts: cube root of 27 is 3.
[ OW ] : Steven Clemons: On Olbermann [difficulties]
1. Cube
2. Root [ow]
3. of ***
[ ! ] [!]
(~) p.27 $13 ii. *
* 5-26-15
(links inserted footnotes continued) NFRY
"This in fact is true of plane figures in geometry; but some spherical figures exhibit, notwithstanding a complete internal agreement, such a contrast in their external relation, that the one figure cannot possibly be put in the place of the other."
This segment is the tangent to the ying/yang/Jung of TOW.
** links inserted
*** associated/related words added.
Math pun of sorts: cube root of 27 is 3.
[ OW ] : Steven Clemons: On Olbermann [difficulties]
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Star Chamber?
[Posted 10-24-11]
Working groups or GeO'MeTry*
Randi Rhodes
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rachell Maddow
Ed Schultz
Norman Goldman
Thom Hartmann
Martin Bashir
Dylan Ratigan
Joe Scarborough
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
The Fab** Five?
*see metrics
** uncertain Fab search find and/or F I V E ?
[ 10-26-11 Note: While I had this open...NOW I WILL ADD THE POINT: Thumbs up to Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC applying physics.]
Working groups or GeO'MeTry*
Randi Rhodes
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rachell Maddow
Ed Schultz
Norman Goldman
Thom Hartmann
Martin Bashir
Dylan Ratigan
Joe Scarborough
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
The Fab** Five?
*see metrics
** uncertain Fab search find and/or F I V E ?
[ 10-26-11 Note: While I had this open...NOW I WILL ADD THE POINT: Thumbs up to Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC applying physics.]
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
War On/Or Terrorism ?
[Anachronic Memorial to the victims of September 11th, 2001]
* * * * * *
CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.
[Petitions were presented to each U.S. Senator on August 28th, 2002 against the Iraq War Resolution.]
* * * * * *
[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
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:
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?
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?
* * * * * *
CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.
[Petitions were presented to each U.S. Senator on August 28th, 2002 against the Iraq War Resolution.]
* * * * * *
[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
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 ourTwo 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
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.
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?
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?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
BLANK NETWORK
Dot Tool* to be named later. This is just a list of the Wills and Bills.
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]
The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical
This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.
While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.
* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)
RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley
DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare
Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann
Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz
[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]
The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical
This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.
While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.
* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)
RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley
DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare
Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann
Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz
[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Much ado
about something? (1-12-2010)
Read[*] and Wrong?
Not that I am reviewing but, sometimes we can learn from mistakes. While others just run. There is a vast difference between the Reid and Lott phraMING, not to mention accountabilities. Well, actually read Mention, not to mention Read(later). [Steven Seagal anyone? Ouch**, just "noting".]
[Not to mention...Ouch! I quip, youReid!]
[*] 1-13-10: (1st 3 of 5 bolds added)
My original nuance(intuition) was that Game Change(the book) might be worth reading. While there are alternative opinions on that, I was also suggesting that Fire Dog Lake may have made tenuous leaps. My tenous links are(often) acknowledged leaps that might later be confirmed. My tweak of "framing" was a prophetic hint at the effect on history and The Republic, which sometimes(more so lately) even I have had to work at retrieving.
[**]To which rather than ribble, I will just add Newt Gingrich. My original Read was actually Wright in light of conspiracies and abilities.
[Even a stopped clock is right twice a day: the comment (24AheadDotCom)hits two valid points on logic and getting things done over some very questionable charges, not to question the article which I did read(no pun) but the Game Change has been long in coming.]
Read[*] and Wrong?
Not that I am reviewing but, sometimes we can learn from mistakes. While others just run. There is a vast difference between the Reid and Lott phraMING, not to mention accountabilities. Well, actually read Mention, not to mention Read(later). [Steven Seagal anyone? Ouch**, just "noting".]
[Not to mention...Ouch! I quip, youReid!]
[*] 1-13-10: (1st 3 of 5 bolds added)
My original nuance(intuition) was that Game Change(the book) might be worth reading. While there are alternative opinions on that, I was also suggesting that Fire Dog Lake may have made tenuous leaps. My tenous links are(often) acknowledged leaps that might later be confirmed. My tweak of "framing" was a prophetic hint at the effect on history and The Republic, which sometimes(more so lately) even I have had to work at retrieving.
[**]To which rather than ribble, I will just add Newt Gingrich. My original Read was actually Wright in light of conspiracies and abilities.
[Even a stopped clock is right twice a day: the comment (24AheadDotCom)hits two valid points on logic and getting things done over some very questionable charges, not to question the article which I did read(no pun) but the Game Change has been long in coming.]
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Para-model
I will begin at the end, or rather the present.
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?
Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.
* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?
[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]
[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]
[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]
Still going? QED?]
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?
Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.
* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?
[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]
[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]
[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]
Still going? QED?]
Monday, April 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR APRIL 2013
4-1-13: KNOT! No Labels / Know Tangent. Or Smith(rather) Know Labels No Tangent.[!]
4-2-13: The Real M-bed [!] ? [Follow up**?] [Now this is the ticket! See Book Ends?]
4-3-13: See youtubes knot 4 naught ! [] (sc)
4-4-13 Knaught too Farce: (b.s.) A. Way, Too Point Oh?, B. Big Bagel Theory, C. D-Day, D. Freedom is not a tool., E. Lib...Ya[!] is not Free! [ :/ /: Nor mock.]
4-22-13 Not to (too) Hume or Mill ?
Happy 43rd Earthday!
(Ctrl F "Q"+"T" = ? n)
Our Story
( Connecting the Dots )
Curve Balls?
Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.
Connecting the Dots
4-24-13 Ctrl F within P.C.? Rocket Man?[!] , Technical Difficulties (sc)[!](bazinga?)
Note on format: There are six lines under Marathon Investigations(2) and I will forgo more than four Footnote Pages, but my last 4 inserted links were under gore, PC, -, & PG. The reader may scroll or click but under bazinga here, un-intended links were woven or unwoven. Not just a scroll click(sc) or LOL or EVEN Steven. (Caution: Not PG ! ? under bold link)
4-30-13 : AI[!] or A to I? (b, C(c), D, E ( e ), F, G (g), h, i ) B-AM [!] BTW: there are nearly twice as many people unaware that Obamacare has begun than the extremes of intensity on gun safety legislation polling.
4-2-13: The Real M-bed [!] ? [Follow up**?] [Now this is the ticket! See Book Ends?]
4-3-13: See youtubes knot 4 naught ! [] (sc)
4-4-13 Knaught too Farce: (b.s.) A. Way, Too Point Oh?, B. Big Bagel Theory, C. D-Day, D. Freedom is not a tool., E. Lib...Ya[!] is not Free! [ :/ /: Nor mock.]
4-22-13 Not to (too) Hume or Mill ?
Happy 43rd Earthday!
(Ctrl F "Q"+"T" = ? n)
Our Story
( Connecting the Dots )
Curve Balls?
Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.
Connecting the Dots
4-24-13 Ctrl F within P.C.? Rocket Man?[!] , Technical Difficulties (sc)[!](bazinga?)
Note on format: There are six lines under Marathon Investigations(2) and I will forgo more than four Footnote Pages, but my last 4 inserted links were under gore, PC, -, & PG. The reader may scroll or click but under bazinga here, un-intended links were woven or unwoven. Not just a scroll click(sc) or LOL or EVEN Steven. (Caution: Not PG ! ? under bold link)
4-30-13 : AI[!] or A to I? (b, C(c), D, E ( e ), F, G (g), h, i ) B-AM [!] BTW: there are nearly twice as many people unaware that Obamacare has begun than the extremes of intensity on gun safety legislation polling.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.
you google*
Caution...The Goose for the Gander.(6-13-12)
[Kant We All Get Along Without Going To Hegel?]
Credit Olbermann, Clemons and Dick Cheney, not to mention Charles Dickens; the tales aside. It seems that we are broaching the American Dream from the nightmare of history.
footnote: Hegel Can't
Not to mention, D'Cart before Newton.[***]
[*] e for go figure; i.e. oops, ironically coined a word - NOT - how's 'bout realmystication? (Perhaps Realmythication?) But the question is, by the goose or the gander? More disambiguated, google may have adjusted as it no longer pops up "ramifications", but it could be my lack of foundation between the geek and the street. You might ask, what about google? Maybe a ribble, search me.
[** 12:08 PST 12-6-09: OK, I am not going to rhyme or jiggle but should I be glad I've maybe been read or mad I my might have been borrowed. Now that I have read the body of the work, the pop quiz it concludes with is rhetorical or at least left open, but least it had 4 options plus all of above; while a Republican Survey misdirected to me, was a push poll of yes, no and no opinion, which does not have as much wiggle room as their questions.] Along these lines, giving the "locked in" a "what for", as in not exactly any contradictions there.]
[Also 12-6-09 note that I was trying to determine if there is such a thing as Rubric's Cube, it was not a mispell as my previous post did refer to Rubic's cube.]
[12-16-09 Update made "go figure"(also 12-14 Realmythication apparently coined.]
[*** 12-23-09 link inserted ]
1-9-14 Kant we all ... ? Roots / Branches / axe knot*? Is it not that some are so lost from their roots they cut off branches? No. Or create limbs that leap? Ask if there are more primary fields than four mats: Physics, Psychology, Philosoply, Politics? Aphorism or fact: Truth is a determinant. Math is next to godliness, and religion parting from Platonics. Speaking of fields they are more than planes, knot too categorical lee. (G'Ribble Label?)
Caution...The Goose for the Gander.(6-13-12)
[Kant We All Get Along Without Going To Hegel?]
It was the worst of times, it was the best of times. [**]
Steven Clemons: On Olbermann
Palin and the Pashtun and the Dickens it is.
Lawrence Wilkerson: on ibid. [6-22-12 Link Corrected]
A Christmas Carol meets A Wonderful Life.
Credit Olbermann, Clemons and Dick Cheney, not to mention Charles Dickens; the tales aside. It seems that we are broaching the American Dream from the nightmare of history.
footnote: Hegel Can't
Not to mention, D'Cart before Newton.[***]
[*] e for go figure; i.e. oops, ironically coined a word - NOT - how's 'bout realmystication? (Perhaps Realmythication?) But the question is, by the goose or the gander? More disambiguated, google may have adjusted as it no longer pops up "ramifications", but it could be my lack of foundation between the geek and the street. You might ask, what about google? Maybe a ribble, search me.
[** 12:08 PST 12-6-09: OK, I am not going to rhyme or jiggle but should I be glad I've maybe been read or mad I my might have been borrowed. Now that I have read the body of the work, the pop quiz it concludes with is rhetorical or at least left open, but least it had 4 options plus all of above; while a Republican Survey misdirected to me, was a push poll of yes, no and no opinion, which does not have as much wiggle room as their questions.] Along these lines, giving the "locked in" a "what for", as in not exactly any contradictions there.]
[Also 12-6-09 note that I was trying to determine if there is such a thing as Rubric's Cube, it was not a mispell as my previous post did refer to Rubic's cube.]
[12-16-09 Update made "go figure"(also 12-14 Realmythication apparently coined.]
[*** 12-23-09 link inserted ]
1-9-14 Kant we all ... ? Roots / Branches / axe knot*? Is it not that some are so lost from their roots they cut off branches? No. Or create limbs that leap? Ask if there are more primary fields than four mats: Physics, Psychology, Philosoply, Politics? Aphorism or fact: Truth is a determinant. Math is next to godliness, and religion parting from Platonics. Speaking of fields they are more than planes, knot too categorical lee. (G'Ribble Label?)
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Reality Comedy vs. Faux news.
Maybe MSNBC is checking my blog:
Joe Scarborough covers the controversy between Comedy Central and Fox News.
My opinion is that there is more news in the entertainment of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert than either in whatever it is that Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are going for. As for Joe Scarborough, he at least may have more balance of news and comedy even if his views are not balanced. Here he at least has two guests that are not "yes men" or women, even if he does not exactly get it.
[Reviewing my posts, the closest I came to what I recalled as a comment comparing the news of Comedy Central to the comedy of Fox news was a suggestion for a real news network with Jon Stewart as number one anchor. My campaign to tranfer duties of Comedy Central to news and Fox News to comedy, may have went out in an actual email to interested parties.]
Joe Scarborough covers the controversy between Comedy Central and Fox News.
My opinion is that there is more news in the entertainment of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert than either in whatever it is that Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are going for. As for Joe Scarborough, he at least may have more balance of news and comedy even if his views are not balanced. Here he at least has two guests that are not "yes men" or women, even if he does not exactly get it.
[Reviewing my posts, the closest I came to what I recalled as a comment comparing the news of Comedy Central to the comedy of Fox news was a suggestion for a real news network with Jon Stewart as number one anchor. My campaign to tranfer duties of Comedy Central to news and Fox News to comedy, may have went out in an actual email to interested parties.]
Friday, April 16, 2004
United Nations- Repeat of my April 5th Post.
United Nations
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM
SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times
My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.
Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."
This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops
Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM
SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times
My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.
Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."
This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops
Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
* RERUN *[Compiled and distributed 8-19-02 ]<
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 Category: Peace, Foreign Policy,
Justice, War and Terrorism]
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
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Deserting our troops, evading our principles.(10-3-03)
"Deserting Our Troops" by Steven Rosenfeld(tompaine.com) raises a very interesting question.
Would the hesitance to keep baseline medical records for our troops have anything to do with the possibility that DU (depleted uranium) if shown to cause cancer would then be considered a WMD of similar nature to a dirty bomb? Would not a cancer causing agent be a chemical or biological weapon (if not even nuclear), hence prohibited if not at least hypocritical? (Sweeping aside the vast difference between DU and actual fissionable material, the administration at least sweeps the slate of information or any basis for knowledge, discussion or debate.)
This, combined with the treatment of terrorist suspects, would make a mockery of why we went to war. If any weapons we can conceive of are OK for our own use and violating any rights crucial to a war on terrorism are justified, then what baseline do we even have to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?
A hypocritical if not cynical attitude is their weapon of first report, going back to the candidate Bush saying he "trusted the people not the government" and was a "uniter not a divider", then blaming critics for not supporting our troops while not even protecting them.
Recent retreat to programs, potential and intent to acquire as an excuse for preemption rather than "eminent threat" are not new excuses but missed by the media or buried by the outright incompetence or intention of the original run-up to war.
Still today Cheney is defending preemption as a choice between the threat of dictators and terrorist or doing nothing. No wonder they see no choice when they can't see the alternatives nor the similarities.
"Deserting Our Troops" by Steven Rosenfeld(tompaine.com) raises a very interesting question.
Would the hesitance to keep baseline medical records for our troops have anything to do with the possibility that DU (depleted uranium) if shown to cause cancer would then be considered a WMD of similar nature to a dirty bomb? Would not a cancer causing agent be a chemical or biological weapon (if not even nuclear), hence prohibited if not at least hypocritical? (Sweeping aside the vast difference between DU and actual fissionable material, the administration at least sweeps the slate of information or any basis for knowledge, discussion or debate.)
This, combined with the treatment of terrorist suspects, would make a mockery of why we went to war. If any weapons we can conceive of are OK for our own use and violating any rights crucial to a war on terrorism are justified, then what baseline do we even have to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?
A hypocritical if not cynical attitude is their weapon of first report, going back to the candidate Bush saying he "trusted the people not the government" and was a "uniter not a divider", then blaming critics for not supporting our troops while not even protecting them.
Recent retreat to programs, potential and intent to acquire as an excuse for preemption rather than "eminent threat" are not new excuses but missed by the media or buried by the outright incompetence or intention of the original run-up to war.
Still today Cheney is defending preemption as a choice between the threat of dictators and terrorist or doing nothing. No wonder they see no choice when they can't see the alternatives nor the similarities.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)