Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

To Be Arranged

(Re-modeling) Right Column:*
postings and other sources**
Navigation 1st use
Navigation II 1st use
Navigation 3.0 1st use
See those labels below, as they may evolve.
Labels 1st use

IMAGE INSERTED (see bottom line)

[Post-image insert, note ledes under leeds must be edited.
i.e. typo sometimes let go, sometimes intended, but who knows, or vise verse us[!]]


For the time being I will leave item 2 "as is."
But to note ledes:
Primary Boogeyman
Pay Dirt / Tax Mud
Calm Pend E Um
Table of Contents
Churned Media
Navigation 3.0
Making New Rounds
Right To Life
Leaking Intelligence
Odyssey Dawn
There was nothing...
Think Blue
I Told You So
The Tetrahedron
The one thing?
Segue/Sabbatical
2-20-11 Under Construction
The Maze of Mace
The Answering Machine
Bridging the English Channel
Note: this is the content at the link Navigation II(see label) as of 1-17-12

*this will be item 1
** see comment (1 below) regarding template upgrade
[template upgrade has evolved my need for change]

IT MAY HAVE NOW BECOME UNNECESSARY FOR ME TO INSERT PREVIOUS POST.***
THE BLOG ARCHIVE IS NOW WHERE I WAS GOING TO LOCATE ITEMS 1, 2 etc.
[This condition may evolve as I play with formats/templates.]
Labels label added.

*** apologies for anachronistic asterisks (No TrippleA [I. e!])
NFRY = not fully read yet: AKA not necessarily to be read soon.
Also not necessarily a valuable label, as it applies so frequently.
Today's Alex Wagner and Andrea Mitchell, especially the latter with Chris Matthews review a lot of the haggling of the Republican Race(slash debate), context and hyperbole.(see 1-17-12 scroll down here) Speaking of LBO[!] See AM and Leveraged Buy Outs and links lost(I thought I had embedded it somewhere today).(not to mention up tight[a,b,c] or out of sight asides.)(see lost here and found there, under fanciful economics, but not nfry.)[Meet the Press/FOXnews]
[Not pun/link TrippleA a D'Ribble: A ribble is a ribbing and a riddle. Not always labeled. First uses: Ribble, further parsing of first uses may be problematic. But here is a shot at D'Ribble and G'Ribble. A D'Ribble is a De-Ribble with few permutations, while a Grand Ribble may be close to an Obama Ribble which was probably an accident.]
[Not to go on and on, but related to the pre-bracketed regarding NFRY and AM(slash)race "the nation"...]
[Speaking of anachronisms (See Image/inserts)]

Think Blue

Click Green. That's right or at least it is wiki.

Duh...Trinity. I use the above for segue...


[3-1-11 View of Airport Vortex(foreground right slope) to Bell Rock Vortex(distant smallest peak just right of center)]


[GPS: Closeup of Bell Rock, Looking back from Bell Rock.]

As I listened to Thom Hartmann, there is an appropriate* tangent to investigate later. As a caller pointed out it, is not about the rich and the poor, it is about people and capital. Would that be Cap I Toll ism?

*or maybe just interesting; not only in the nature of the trinity** of vortexes, but the wearing of the green or the red.

** self/others/balance
[Missing link : of google journey.[Not really even chaos.]

Who needs Republicans

with fungible Democrats who don't even know they are at the table. Well, consider that they may have pushed themselves from the table and no scraps for the blue dogs.[*] But if and when they vote for the bill or not, they can be considered bi-partisan. I mean that is the fungible logic that has come from Republicans**.

[7-24-09 * asterisk and link added(and bold to first link) of this saved in draft QCON which I now post with the addition of two perspectives: Obama at Shaker Heights / Spinning Health Care: A Bad Case of Vertigo Norman Soloman - Truthout Perspective
** I need a better link to the logic of previous Republican claims of their bipartisanship, but I think fungible applies to their logic almost across the board. And I am not suggesting we remove the Blue Dog scraps and Republican amendments, but you might better see the link I make depending on how they vote.]

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?]

The Real Deal

Someone said that about Obama at one time. But more recently I think this is the deal, Fine Man aside. I was actually going to leed this with a bit of anachronism* and I hadn't even found that link yet. But here are two reflections of reality that preceded the Re:Lead and the Fineman.
* and yet to read,
but De:characterization of McFly
or a new approach to the future?
[The above anachronistically is posted 7:47 AM Monday December 6th. Links not fully read yet, but The Real Deal refers to the stand president Obama is taking, putting his foot down. Maybe both feet down. As leader of the Democrats, he will be a compromisor in chief and executive for the people, extending unemployment, and getting the tax cut for the income under $250 K, as well as the Start Treaty, or failing that will have done all he could (and Democrats as well) in the face of Republican resistance to helping the people and fighting for peace. The point is that independents want him to stand up for them, he will, and we will find out who aren't and who aren't for compromise. Standing for something like holding a vote will be appreciated win or lose, and we will know where each party stands. That is the meaning of Cat 'o Nine Tales v. Who let the dogs out? Yellow, Green or Blue Dogs, and whipping cats together with their tails aside.]

Speaking of Strategy

and this time I was.
Often times my colloquial tangents are "out of the Blue" so to speak.

But Daily KOS suggests a strategy that demonstrates to me the pitfalls of primaries if not the complexity of correcting the political process. Well not the strategy per se, but the fact that there is one and it can happen regardless of other circumstances. Meaning I do not know if the history noted involves the same problem that Michigan has created for itself in trying to be an earlier primary, resulting in the dropping out of several Democrats. I think not.

I would not like to see Democrats participate in the same underhanded tactics that Republicans use, but if independents wish to play that game I would hope that they would pick the candidate that they would prefer to actually vote for in the General Election. Not that it is a game and not that it has not been complicated by problems Democrats initiated. Having said that as a Democrat who believes in pushing and pulling to the left, I would respect voters who would push and pull to the right, and that should mean Ron Paul, rather than play the game that Unity '08 tried.

[1-16-08: belated labels and link (below)]

Courage to be...

taking a test.

Is it the right test? Who is tested?
Who makes the test?...Actually?

"Is there courage there? Is there boldness there? Is there ability to think outside of the box?" - Wilson Goode, Sr., Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Not exactly the questions for the test, but already demonstrated, by the way.

"They have to demonstrate the courage to be lonely. The courage to understand that they may be making a decision that no one will understand, no one will like, and few will respect." - Andrew Card, Former Chief of Staff of Pres. George W. Bush
Not exactly even questions, but nonetheless demonstrated, by the way.

Could the media pass the test? Or are they passing the buck? Will we pick it up?

McCain: "would rather lose a campaign than lose a war"

Obama: "not interested in a false choice"

The parsing the test problem?
What about* the blue book approach?

* I have yet to filter all these tests, but it seems that McCain is taking Andrew Card's advice. And I come now to the final line that ties this up:
"But, the article may have done more for the campaign without being published than it ever could have if it was." That seems to be the McCain strategy, perform poorly and blame the coverage. While it is mistakes that often get more coverage, whining is not winning, but it plays the refs. The irony in the rejection of McCain's piece may be balanced by the error in his parsing by CBS.

[And my own parsing is tested: "It is what it is". Just an update.]

Speaking of "global" ** and one for the books, who writes this stuff. (And I was going to note anachronism)

** Having read the speech Obama took it to the wall [... see bumped up material to next post]

Bush the United

Bush the Unitary*

The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.

A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).

It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.

* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.

(i) = intentionally construed.

** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.

*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.