Is the Ball Rolling?

Blowing in the "B"s.
Bad things come in threes?

First Katrina blew the lid off the bureaucracy called FEMA.
Second, the Windy City team blew away the Astros.
Third, a prosecutor from the Windy City lands a blow at the administration’s staff.

Three more blows this week, may lead to a final three "B"s
The reversal and removal of Mier and Libby and the reinstating of the Davis-Bacon Act which was rescinded in the aftermath of Katrina are blows to the power of the administration.

Where will this end?
Maybe with Bush Blair and Berlusconi.

At least two points may have been made.
Things are not black and white, they are political.
It is more than just Bush who does not know what he is talking about, but much of his bureaucracy.

Note: In most cases what is blamed is usually what is being used, i.e. politics and bureaucracy. They simultaneously provide a barrier to being accountable, and hence Bush is right in blaming everyone below him down to the people.

Note: Andrew McBride CNN 10-28-05 13:30
I do not recollect any of this coming from the above source but it was on in the background and may warrant later referencing or linking.

MAY 2013 FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE

5-1-13 Happy May Day!: Bad Footnote Day. If you can scroll over while reading you MIGHT have a better shot at my gist [!] [Poetic Justice, Justice? (s.c. ), Technical Difficulties!, Pass the Trillion.]  [FP2]
Note: (s.c.) = scroll click flip-flop resulting from blog search algorithm(May B?)
Brook No Truck ?[!] : I think I have been clear enough but here are blog searched(b.s.) references under 'twain.[(A, B, c, d, E, f, G, H, I, J, K, L, M(m), N(n), O(o), P(p), Q (q).]

5-6-13: Having read the Non-Sense links, there seems intentional wiggle room. Ctrl F "telegraph+blows":  Rebublican Obstruction? / GOLEFT TV (sc), Rope a dope. (sc), BIG TENT v. MESS TENT, FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK.

5-7-13: (b.s.) Fear and Running, Out Foxed?, Who Are They Calling Elitist?, Is Tea Party Beck?
[(b.s.)  THE COUNCIL OF NICE(s.c.), DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)(s.c.), (c), Fearnauts(s.c.), The Mess Age is the Message!(s.c.).] [[(b.s. ) USE THE PROCESS OR LOSE IT*.( s.c. ), Try Lemmings , Kidding Goats ?]] *

5-8-13: David Sirota's piece is the focus of the caution or heading.

5-10-13 (Spoiler alert under Penzance here.). Spinning off on the ad-HOC Chair.  The Issa's committee hearings seem purely partisan politics and a mockery of checks and balances and any comparison to Watergate, except from a parodical hysterical perspective: the modern inquisitional.   [Not to Al Gore Rythm.]

5-15-13: Not too Mitt Flop [!].  Journalists fume over DOJ raid on AP, Stewart Slams Obama Again: You Can’t Keep Saying You Found Out About News At The Same Time As Us!,  Connecting the Cheese Heads. Hint: hyperlinks Too Fudgin' Ridiculous & (s.c.)(b.s.)

5-17-13: another a maizing field trip ?!

5-29-13: move from to read ( ?/10 [!]) [11?]

5-30-13:  (hard work)= Ambivalence on Syria? ,  (without going)= Transparent Reactionaries ,  (heading or mangling )  "Hotheads" and Frank on Banks :  Par don e moi ?

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]

GOLEFT TV

Finally: Real News Featuring video from progressive hosts. (Some from Air America Radio)
The choir grows. (The local affiliate)

[subtitled: STOP THE LOOPINESS! ]
But hold on to your seat, following these links can be challenging to your sense of peace.
Example: and this is a moderate one
Air America (select program)
The Randi Rhodes Show
Senate Democrats introduce Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
The vicious cycle completed
"as long as..."
NSPD51
But I don't have time for the ride.

An even worse ride:Plan Ready for Iran
On watch list for some time
Science Fiction or...

It might be one thing for Empire to win, but who will be the loser, even if it could? Not China or other powers, no matter what they choose. Failure is too scary to imagine, but progress is even scarier work. And with preemption on the table?
"Help me Obi-Wan///"
There is no secret message there or suggested solution, but it may not be just about "the force", but every player has a part and countries and corporations seem to play for keeps.
"As long as" who is the dictator?

"Failure is not on option..." is the most true oxymoron *. Failure is a result we must live or die with. In the case of the NSPD51, if failure is not preempted, or caused, it is at least incentivised and to some rewarded.

[apologies for a linky piece, all of which I have not read, and for any excessively creative wording *]

[It is funny how I seem to form a rather loopy cycle myself, as I had intended to insert somewhere a Huffington Post link. Not that particular one, but just the site in general. Speaking of Generals: Wesley Clark. Speaking of failures. Putin's eyes, which Bush looked into. (see paragraph before last "other powers") Our only hope.]

THANK YOU: Progressives Everywhere, in particular Huffington Post and Common Dreams
Speaking of forutituous links. The Telegraph and mine
with a search of "telegraph" and search "blows" it. Speaking of dreams. It is about the nightmare.

Democrats are about the American dream, Republicans are about keeping it that. And even the dream is a nightmare for the world.

* there is probably a better word for it, but then look at what we are dealing with.

[11:08 AM - - As I have noted, I have not read or reread all of the above links, and there are even some that I had intended to, but I must add this one,{Illiberal Moderates: The Global Swing Vote} by Amitai Etzioni - - a piece which I did just read and suggest caution in reading and sorting it out, but I do agree with it's approach. I have been familiar with his work prior to 1995, and that may have been important in my seeing the "grand misconception" even before I knew who was promoting it. Re: the misconceptions of Huntington and Fukuyama.]

Happy President's Day

Speaking of Shout Out:
Just where did George Washington say:
"Government is brute force." ?
Really! Not to mention where does the question mark go?
So even though it is neither president's actual birthday
and not our first president's till next Sunday,
I do him the reference here:Better context

At his inauguration, Washington stated, "This Constitution is really in its formation a government of the people . . . in which all power is derived from and, at stated periods, reverts to them. . . . It is purely a government of laws, made and executed by the fair substitutes of the people alone. . . [The American form of government is] a new phenomenon in the political and moral world, and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brute force."

[UPDATE:ARARA not... ]
In this regard for wondering:
From LewRockwell.com
and Where thin air meets hot air,
there is More Scrutiny Needed.

And more on Thrasymachus:
Or the Mealymouth Debates.*

The Nature of Justice. The question which opens this immense dialogue is: what is justice? Several inadequate definitions are put forward, but the most emphatically presented definition is given by a young Sophist, Thrasymachus. He defines justice as whatever the strongest decide it is, and that the strong decide that whatever is in their best interest is just (review again the Athenian position in Melian Debate). Socrates dismisses this argument by proving that the strong rarely figure out what is in their best interest, and this can't be just since justice is a good thing.

*No disrespect for the Athenian position but a play on the media or maybe the right. (Actually I did just review it, and then the history that Athenians were defeated by the Spartans or Typhoid. ) Story aside I wish to note my leap based on the words that preceded and how one leaps. To this: Some expect their thinking or success to not be based on others. While they may be right in parts, together they cannot stand without facing the wrong. Freedom in particular does not stand or fall alone. And in view of some wrongs, must not. Yet arguments on economics and the environment are a case of not even being able to survive without some outside force. Or a case of the case for a free market, not being able to survive without the workings of the market as it actually exists, while anachronism and stories run through it. [Bumper stickers and name calling aside, there is a tendency to oversimplify, but here goes. It may be a case of the bubbleheaded elite and who blows it for whom.]But I guess that is just disrespect for the Athenian position and respect for the review.

Myths for review:
Ruin your health with the Obama Stimulus...
Thin air meets hot air...

Rope a dope.

With all the fighting metaphors,
McCain stepped right into his own words,
swung from "that one".[*]
I came in sometime in the late rounds,
but I thought that the "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" jab was on target.
Precious notes: no Palin or Governor referenced in the debate.

Demeaner question: Senator Obama should not worry about being condescending, Senator McCain is a Descending Con.

And Senator McCain should resist using the term telegraph or blows ,
especially since he is the inventor of the Rasberry.
Now those are quips you can depend on.

[Interactive Debate Video/Transcripts]

[*] link added showing him getting tickled again "Oh Please"

Rehash or Just Hash.

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

Or Sour Mash?
Washington Post: Democrats Including Pelosi Told of Waterboarding in 2002
jonathanturley.org

The implications are that there could be something wrong with the pressure that Democrats are under, either from the actual facts of the situation or the interpretation from some perspectives. But it better be cleared up before the lid blows off the principles of this nation or the party, let alone our hopes for progress. This is my take on this, the implications also being that this may not be breaking news but a matter that I have already filtered and others are just getting to the party. I think the simplest explanation is that full disclosure was not done and then even more disclosure was not allowed, but the use of that information in leadership roles is going to be eventually explained if not utilized for the common good. But that is just what is so hard to count on, and meanwhile the "hard work" of our troops and our grassroots, let alone any base is being squandered, or should I say, about to go down the drain.

I must note that I had heard Jonathan Turley speak on this issue on the Randi Rhodes show yesterday, but I have yet to more than barely start to read either of these articles.

[Correction: I did read four paragraphs of Jonathan Turley's piece and just thought there was more, and I must give a lot of credit to his fourth paragraph:

This also explains the failure of the Democrats to block votes that seemed to legitimate waterboarding and unlawful surveillance. If true, the knowledge of Democratic leaders shows a deep disconnect and possible dishonesty between our representatives and the voters. In many ways, this will be the test of our political system. If the public returns to its prior slumber after this story, there is little hope for a system that seems to replicate this type of conduct.

I don't really know what the public can do, but the Democrats better do more than wonder and not wander through any course that does not correct their staggering work.

BIG TENT v. MESS TENT

Do I need to explain the frame?

BUSH'S WAR

THE FRAME

REGIME CHANGE

I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.

To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)

The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.

The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.

If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.

(Below Sent to Local Papers)

It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic 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 September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.

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.

Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact 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.

Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA

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

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