Today is the day for the tide to turn.
For Change!
The day before was a Super Bowl,
today is a Super Tuesday!
The Giants beat the Patriots. Hmmm.
Post Prophetic? Or just luck?
It was "hard work", but they play by rules,
a season ends and another begins.
But today we can take this ground swell for change,
for the underdog, and for hard work
and work the force for change.
Freedom is not a force.
History does not blaze a trail.
People and leaders do,
by passing laws and making sure they are followed.
I knew I was going somewhere, I hope you can see now.
Let impeachment process begin
RICHARD W. BEHAN GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle PI
The above link supports much of what I have noted in this blog in the last 7 years, and a few I missed. It follows a pattern of preemption that if leaked, actually caused a preemption cycle of its own. An important question is, how long has this been the policy of this ship of state, and how long has it been leaking. These are not mountains out of mole hills, but trickle down by passing the buck. Investigations must begin, while shoring up the process of accountability. It is not too early to begin the work of transition. But never too late to join a tide of change. And if this metophor seems to imply a washing away, or just another cycle... true. Things will wash a away, but people will still be the point, not the boats and the driftwood.
See link below, in particular.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query change noted. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query change noted. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Monday, August 13, 2007
Air of Inevitability?
I do not wish to imply that it SHOULD BE, Clinton versus Thompson.
Only that if it is, that it BE a rehash of Watergate.
They both have their baggage from that era.
Thompson just noted
Hillary here:
TimesOnLine
TheStar.com
[Posted at the listed time, but continued immediately with the noted pause below]
GuardianUnlimited
TheVastRightWingCon
I am just trying to be "fair and balanced", so I must note that I have not digested all of these sources, and should warn of the potential for food poisoning on the last item. But just [the teaser] of the just prior one is intriguing (paused to read that piece):
Hillary brought to book Watergate veteran Carl Bernstein talks to James Silver about the Clintons, George Bush, and the state of the American press
Having now read it, it is recommended highly.
Just what is the difference between the "vast right wing conspiracy" and the so-called "liberal press"? Only the label. Just what is the difference between trying to rewrite the rules of impeachment and the constitution? Apparently the party and getting away with it.
[Finally concluding approximately 1 hour from original post time: normally I do not note when a post is developed in this manner.(in a sitting) But I also now proceed and borrow from the top link that:
I would change that to SHOULD!]
[Updated Presidential Profile: 9:20 AM - Noting that I have not put much attention to the ratings of the candidates, I now update without comment, but with an aversion to inevitability.
Kucinich
Edwards
Obama
Clark
Richardson
Clinton, Dodd, Biden
Gravel]
Only that if it is, that it BE a rehash of Watergate.
They both have their baggage from that era.
Thompson just noted
Hillary here:
TimesOnLine
TheStar.com
[Posted at the listed time, but continued immediately with the noted pause below]
GuardianUnlimited
TheVastRightWingCon
I am just trying to be "fair and balanced", so I must note that I have not digested all of these sources, and should warn of the potential for food poisoning on the last item. But just [the teaser] of the just prior one is intriguing (paused to read that piece):
Hillary brought to book Watergate veteran Carl Bernstein talks to James Silver about the Clintons, George Bush, and the state of the American press
Having now read it, it is recommended highly.
Just what is the difference between the "vast right wing conspiracy" and the so-called "liberal press"? Only the label. Just what is the difference between trying to rewrite the rules of impeachment and the constitution? Apparently the party and getting away with it.
[Finally concluding approximately 1 hour from original post time: normally I do not note when a post is developed in this manner.(in a sitting) But I also now proceed and borrow from the top link that:
The 2008 Race could not only rehash accountability but the media's role
I would change that to SHOULD!]
[Updated Presidential Profile: 9:20 AM - Noting that I have not put much attention to the ratings of the candidates, I now update without comment, but with an aversion to inevitability.
Kucinich
Edwards
Obama
Clark
Richardson
Clinton, Dodd, Biden
Gravel]
Monday, October 03, 2011
Take Back the American Dream
The 99%?
Jobs not cuts!
Occupy K-Street etc.
Big Tent Technical Difficulties.**
[Are we ready for some football?] [!]***
[continued 10-4]I feel like I have broken something in recent days. Maybe my perspective. Maybe I need to change fields. The above lede is an example. Maybe I don't feel like occupying anything. I am encouraged by the generation of interest and a movement of the people. Maybe nailing down what that is is the problem. Someone from one of the groups at the conference expressed concern that they not be co-opted by unions or the Obama campaign. That seemed an interesting perspective, as if they are on the same page. And my* teaching to the test may be a root of the problem. Jon Stewart covers the "Occupy Wallstreet" scene, but after the break deals with the NRA and their "conspiracy" theories.
[Segue: I will break and post be4 I muck up more.]
Back from a tangent:
I will simply foot note.
(Thanks to the Thom Hartmann Chat)
* see the 10-3 Just to be clear... & its asterisk(1)
** This was originally the extent of my draft, normally I might insert some loose tangential links, but I am continuing on 10-4. Maybe I wanted to be point blank, or not follow things to a T. And maybe I have done just enough to change that course.
*** last insert
[Sorry for the anachronistic asterisks, but4 original-I-T[!] Not really...neither of these may the T-rigor for my thoughts. However under "these" lies a similar transmobrificationlation:
Jobs not cuts!
Occupy K-Street etc.
Big Tent Technical Difficulties.**
[Are we ready for some football?] [!]***
[continued 10-4]I feel like I have broken something in recent days. Maybe my perspective. Maybe I need to change fields. The above lede is an example. Maybe I don't feel like occupying anything. I am encouraged by the generation of interest and a movement of the people. Maybe nailing down what that is is the problem. Someone from one of the groups at the conference expressed concern that they not be co-opted by unions or the Obama campaign. That seemed an interesting perspective, as if they are on the same page. And my* teaching to the test may be a root of the problem. Jon Stewart covers the "Occupy Wallstreet" scene, but after the break deals with the NRA and their "conspiracy" theories.
[Segue: I will break and post be4 I muck up more.]
Back from a tangent:
I will simply foot note.
(Thanks to the Thom Hartmann Chat)
* see the 10-3 Just to be clear... & its asterisk(1)
** This was originally the extent of my draft, normally I might insert some loose tangential links, but I am continuing on 10-4. Maybe I wanted to be point blank, or not follow things to a T. And maybe I have done just enough to change that course.
*** last insert
[Sorry for the anachronistic asterisks, but4 original-I-T[!] Not really...neither of these may the T-rigor for my thoughts. However under "these" lies a similar transmobrificationlation:
Back in 1787 when the Constitution was being worked out, conservatives pointed out that what John Adams called "the rabble" couldn't be trusted to elect representatives or - even more dangerously - become elected officials. As the father of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), famously noted: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a tallowman [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honor to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."]
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
PHASE II: We need some movement!
Here is a look at the Middle East conflict through the filter of Bush,
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.
--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.
---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.
Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.
---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners
Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...
THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.
His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?
Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.
Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.
* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.
--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.
---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.
Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.
---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners
Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...
THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.
His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?
Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.
Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.
* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Borrowed Comment!
* * *
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *
* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *
Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.
On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?
Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.
Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.
* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.
Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!
[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *
* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *
Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.
On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?
Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.
Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.
* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.
Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!
[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Turning the page (On Humor)?
[For orginal post go here]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.
Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)
But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)
So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.
And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.
*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.
Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)
But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)
So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.
And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.
*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.
Friday, November 18, 2011
It is hard to say Herman means anything literally.
Or actually?
He did not say "I'm a leader not a reader",
nor did the Schwarzenegger.
It is about lede'er ship[!]
[11-21-11: As "A Wonder..." is held in draft, I am processing a Revolution. Speaking of Calm Cast, I didn't mean to forcast.]
[As for weather[!], recent Republican interference in presidential foreign policy* is dangerous** stuff, and further muddles the mess age and message. I don't know if anyone can ever be a Nixon to China after this administration, or a Cain to business.]
* recent event references not noted in link
** a,b
[note: [!] = (sic)or sarcasm/irony Also "A Wonder..." under construction.]
[Segue: good for?(sic?) NOT!]
[Just to be clear*** I am not opposed to six sigma or cuts, but there is a food chain, or some hierarchy which is bubble up. Incidentally, it is a lot like the cycle of life and climate change. The segue or root here is the cost effectiveness, not trickle down. Money is not the root of all evil, nor is any tool or process, necessarily.]
*** the NOT! is not fully read yet(NFRY)
[Speaking of not read yet, the point is in the lede, or prelede. It is easier to debunk, than bunker up. MORNING MESSAGE: America's Affluent and the New Bunker Down, literally(!?)]
He did not say "I'm a leader not a reader",
nor did the Schwarzenegger.
It is about lede'er ship[!]
[11-21-11: As "A Wonder..." is held in draft, I am processing a Revolution. Speaking of Calm Cast, I didn't mean to forcast.]
[As for weather[!], recent Republican interference in presidential foreign policy* is dangerous** stuff, and further muddles the mess age and message. I don't know if anyone can ever be a Nixon to China after this administration, or a Cain to business.]
* recent event references not noted in link
** a,b
[note: [!] = (sic)or sarcasm/irony Also "A Wonder..." under construction.]
[Segue: good for?(sic?) NOT!]
[Just to be clear*** I am not opposed to six sigma or cuts, but there is a food chain, or some hierarchy which is bubble up. Incidentally, it is a lot like the cycle of life and climate change. The segue or root here is the cost effectiveness, not trickle down. Money is not the root of all evil, nor is any tool or process, necessarily.]
*** the NOT! is not fully read yet(NFRY)
[Speaking of not read yet, the point is in the lede, or prelede. It is easier to debunk, than bunker up. MORNING MESSAGE: America's Affluent and the New Bunker Down, literally(!?)]
Monday, October 05, 2009
Hardball
Follow-up to the Tool Shed 10 AM (PST)today:
Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]
THIS AFTERNOON:
Maj. General Eaton: "healthy debate"[*]
White House Leaving Afghanistan not an option.
Not to mention:
the leak last month.
[*][6-24-10: McChrystal(Chain of Command) labels added]
Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]
THIS AFTERNOON:
Maj. General Eaton: "healthy debate"[*]
White House Leaving Afghanistan not an option.
Not to mention:
the leak last month.
[*][6-24-10: McChrystal(Chain of Command) labels added]
Monday, April 23, 2007
Mitt "Action" Romney
Mitt Romney on priorities.
FAMILY
GOD
COUNTRY
[in that order]
Recent fund raising successes
have reminded him that he must
now put FRIEND$ up there.
Unable to find that clip, here is some "talk and dithering"
Not one action is noted in this message, unless it is to "free American people" to face it’s problems. Seems like the same old "talk and dithering".
Here I will update my Running List:
Obama
Richardson
Edwards
Dodd
Kucinich
Clark
Clinton
Biden
[4-24-07: sprucing up this post here and there,
with no subsantial change in content, I will note
that the "Running List" is in a particular order,
but unlike in the past I will not note the particulars,
except to say that past positions and current impressions
will play a part but with less explanation.]
FAMILY
GOD
COUNTRY
[in that order]
Recent fund raising successes
have reminded him that he must
now put FRIEND$ up there.
Unable to find that clip, here is some "talk and dithering"
Not one action is noted in this message, unless it is to "free American people" to face it’s problems. Seems like the same old "talk and dithering".
Here I will update my Running List:
Obama
Richardson
Edwards
Dodd
Kucinich
Clark
Clinton
Biden
[4-24-07: sprucing up this post here and there,
with no subsantial change in content, I will note
that the "Running List" is in a particular order,
but unlike in the past I will not note the particulars,
except to say that past positions and current impressions
will play a part but with less explanation.]
Friday, October 02, 2009
Tool Shed
[held in draft posted 10 AM: 10-5-09 ]
[Banana Republic] Open Salon
Me: If John Perry was a involved in the Carter administration, it is no wonder it suffered.
Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]
[Banana Republic] Open Salon
Me: If John Perry was a involved in the Carter administration, it is no wonder it suffered.
Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]
Monday, August 08, 2011
Tea Party Down Grade
and the Undo- Everything House of Reprehensibles
(Note the counter-linkage or weaving of sources.)
Reading of the Day and relevant fn.
Simpson-Bowles and S&P Re: Revenue.
The fn. above discusses a narrative that is lacking in Obama's rhetoric. The actual recalcitrance of the Republican party, the lack of a filibuster proof congress, not to mention the media as we know it(Koch Brothers), argues more balanced narrative than Blame Obama. The Obama Inaugural was our calling.
(NFRY)
Candidate Obama was nuanced and President Obama is pragmatic and incremental, the message is clear.
[Hoist on our own Picard.]
[More Meet the Press.]
Green Span on Degree of Certainty: the only thing certain is change, and that the Right won't.
I mean Greenspan: "this deficit problem that is out there is a lot larger than we calculated. the actual numbers employed by those calculating the deficits are based on a level of economic activity, which we are not acheiving." Rather than translate IMHO the Greenspan quote, there is FIXING NEWS(as opposed to breaking) as the President addresses the downgrade now. (Remarks by the President: and previous remarks)
(Note the counter-linkage or weaving of sources.)
Reading of the Day and relevant fn.
One great thing about Obama's primary victory is now we know that's not true. This is the modern Republican Party. It turns out they were the ones who adopted Malcolm X's slogan, "By any means necessary." As disgusted as I am with S&P's decision to downgrade U.S. debt, the ratings agency took the unusual step of calling out the GOP in its press release, predicting future fiscal peril "because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues," Sen. John Kerry was right to call it the "Tea Party downgrade" on "Meet the Press" Sunday. They have now made clear they'll wreck the economy as long as they can wreck Obama's presidency. And we have no way to know that Clinton's history with right-wing saboteurs would have enabled her to fight more effectively.
Simpson-Bowles and S&P Re: Revenue.
Hennessey’s assessment of Simpson-Bowles is even more puzzling. As I’ve noted before, Simpson-Bowles raised about $2 trillion in new revenues and cut defense spending by about $800 billion. The plan Obama proposed to Boehner raises half as much revenue and, from what I’m told, includes about half as much in defense cuts. It’s hard to see how that qualifies as "to the left" of Simpson-Bowles.
The fn. above discusses a narrative that is lacking in Obama's rhetoric. The actual recalcitrance of the Republican party, the lack of a filibuster proof congress, not to mention the media as we know it(Koch Brothers), argues more balanced narrative than Blame Obama. The Obama Inaugural was our calling.
(NFRY)
Candidate Obama was nuanced and President Obama is pragmatic and incremental, the message is clear.
[Hoist on our own Picard.]
[More Meet the Press.]
Green Span on Degree of Certainty: the only thing certain is change, and that the Right won't.
I mean Greenspan: "this deficit problem that is out there is a lot larger than we calculated. the actual numbers employed by those calculating the deficits are based on a level of economic activity, which we are not acheiving." Rather than translate IMHO the Greenspan quote, there is FIXING NEWS(as opposed to breaking) as the President addresses the downgrade now. (Remarks by the President: and previous remarks)
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Let them eat cake!
And have it too. OK, I am mixing metaphors or idioms. But apparently the Republicans deserve congratulations for taking the House and the Democrats have just escaped losing the Senate. A question was asked; why did this happen? The above was a bit of a spin on my first thought. My later thought was that people had not had enough. The(y)[*] had not gotten enough change, and hopefully they will not get more of the same. I would say this falls under the category of two previous comments. The Economy Stupid and Foreign Legions.
[* speaking of timing, typo corrections are not always noted, but in this case the (y) seemmed appropriate to note, as I am crafting a post at the moment.]
[update under construction here: dot-dot-dot]
[* speaking of timing, typo corrections are not always noted, but in this case the (y) seemmed appropriate to note, as I am crafting a post at the moment.]
[update under construction here: dot-dot-dot]
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama, a liberal cause?
Is that an attempt to slur the candidate? By posting this myself, I fall into some reinforcement of the frame that either are bad. They are not. But I will concur with some of the kudos that Chris Cillizza in Fix Pick: Obama, the New Gary Hart? gives to Matt Bai in A Candidate Not a Cause. Of the two articles the latter's comment "For Obama, this might argue, going forward, for replacing some of the rallies and rhetoric with more substantive speeches and interactive town halls." is on the mark. The former's title like my title reinforces a link to pieces of "liberal" history, Gary Hart, and in the article Bill Bradley. I was a supporter of both, as well as Howard Dean, another name thrown in.
Barack Obama is the only candidate I have seen in person, so I can relate to the experience of hearing his inspiration, and seeing it in others. But it probably is the demographics that those who have had experience with these earlier campaigns and may be more active in the process, do have more questions and expect more.
Meanwhile those independents and the media who may have been expecting more all along without having or appreciating the work it takes, see something new. As for Hillary, it has been noted elsewhere that she did change her tune and began taking more questions, while Edwards has been all along. As they point out Obama did in Iowa, but less so in New Hampshire.
I might also note that I have seen Joe Lieberman give a mildly rousing speech and look how he turned out. There could be a more experienced and jaded demographics than in the past.
[Speaking of the past and raising questions, my email OpEdNews brought me a piece I relate to this demographic remark. Andrew Bard Schmookler's "No Man is an Island" not to mention other voices from the past: The Politics of MLK in the Democratic Primary by David Domke and Kevin Coe.] [Also Early research, early comment.]
Barack Obama is the only candidate I have seen in person, so I can relate to the experience of hearing his inspiration, and seeing it in others. But it probably is the demographics that those who have had experience with these earlier campaigns and may be more active in the process, do have more questions and expect more.
Meanwhile those independents and the media who may have been expecting more all along without having or appreciating the work it takes, see something new. As for Hillary, it has been noted elsewhere that she did change her tune and began taking more questions, while Edwards has been all along. As they point out Obama did in Iowa, but less so in New Hampshire.
I might also note that I have seen Joe Lieberman give a mildly rousing speech and look how he turned out. There could be a more experienced and jaded demographics than in the past.
[Speaking of the past and raising questions, my email OpEdNews brought me a piece I relate to this demographic remark. Andrew Bard Schmookler's "No Man is an Island" not to mention other voices from the past: The Politics of MLK in the Democratic Primary by David Domke and Kevin Coe.] [Also Early research, early comment.]
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES (Janurary 2013) PAGE ONE
THIS IS THE FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE !!!
...FOR JANUARY 2013!
Begun 1-3-13(appropriately)
[!] punctuation = irony/sarcasm/pun
(now to scroll up or down...that is the question) (fn2)
(fn3) anachronistic (b.s.) blog search 1-3-13 "me me"(sc)
"but seriously" Killer Ad from Killer Group(sc)
Out Foxed? ...knot!(fn4)
--- --- ---
1-3-13 [^] Clog Alert! For later parsing the (b.s.) of Clog and Clogs, but now for the "Rodney".
Stay the Comity of Course (sc*) , P.M. , Spare the Rodney! , #1 Discipline - Philosophy , Give an inch, Take a mile.
*ouch : Stay the Comity of Course / Ctrl F (SC) (spare me: fn2)
1-4-13: [p.s. on (fn) (b.s.)] Pop Yogurt[!], Now this is the ticket., A Revolution?, A wonder..., Where everyone needs to read...
1-4-13 (fn) date noted Pre-Capitalization i.e. posted Friday for Sat.
1-5-13 Try-Mentionalism ?[!] Normal post/time stamp.
" You know ": by Stiob?!?, I'm not saying..., Flip-Flop, Nuance, Mitt-Flop, The Other Debates, FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012, Dimentionalism(sic)(sc), Frackin' Trickle Down(sc), Bridging the English Channel(sc)?
(sc) scroll click anomoly (swift creak?)
I Ron Knee (Iron ne) of Progress.
1-7-13 Punchline? Level Three. Last Resorts?
1-8-13 (1) Change of Tune? See this heading! (fn)HAPPY NEW YEAR[!]
RE:TITLED THIS PAGE
(1) Fearnauts , Pre-Capitalization , December FOOTNOTES 2.0 , December 3G FOOTNOTES, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger" , Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. , Turning the Page (2.0) , Turning the page (On Humor)? , THE COUNCIL OF NICE , ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)]
1-11-13 CapTenseLog (English+only)? Not found under Ctrl F "as is", i.e. interesting Al Gore Rhythm
1-14-13 UnTense? (*) before I go all footnutty... [2] {un in ten did undid but 90 =uncap brackets (qwerty CAP'd or De-bubba upped?}
1-16-13 Ouch. Grid Irony and Tour de'F(LA)? Or should I say Off Law?[1]
= = =
1-18-13 SoDo Amalgam /Post-PAGES: FC, TBA/\ (bs): The Real B. S. of the F. C., FC "Hammer", In "F"n able?, QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL (may he ... live strong and prosper)
...FOR JANUARY 2013!
Begun 1-3-13(appropriately)
[!] punctuation = irony/sarcasm/pun
(now to scroll up or down...that is the question) (fn2)
(fn3) anachronistic (b.s.) blog search 1-3-13 "me me"(sc)
"but seriously" Killer Ad from Killer Group(sc)
Out Foxed? ...knot!(fn4)
--- --- ---
1-3-13 [^] Clog Alert! For later parsing the (b.s.) of Clog and Clogs, but now for the "Rodney".
Stay the Comity of Course (sc*) , P.M. , Spare the Rodney! , #1 Discipline - Philosophy , Give an inch, Take a mile.
*ouch : Stay the Comity of Course / Ctrl F (SC) (spare me: fn2)
1-4-13: [p.s. on (fn) (b.s.)] Pop Yogurt[!], Now this is the ticket., A Revolution?, A wonder..., Where everyone needs to read...
1-4-13 (fn) date noted Pre-Capitalization i.e. posted Friday for Sat.
1-5-13 Try-Mentionalism ?[!] Normal post/time stamp.
" You know ": by Stiob?!?, I'm not saying..., Flip-Flop, Nuance, Mitt-Flop, The Other Debates, FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012, Dimentionalism(sic)(sc), Frackin' Trickle Down(sc), Bridging the English Channel(sc)?
(sc) scroll click anomoly (swift creak?)
I Ron Knee (Iron ne) of Progress.
1-7-13 Punchline? Level Three. Last Resorts?
1-8-13 (1) Change of Tune? See this heading! (fn)HAPPY NEW YEAR[!]
RE:TITLED THIS PAGE
(1) Fearnauts , Pre-Capitalization , December FOOTNOTES 2.0 , December 3G FOOTNOTES, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger" , Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. , Turning the Page (2.0) , Turning the page (On Humor)? , THE COUNCIL OF NICE , ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)]
1-11-13 CapTenseLog (English+only)? Not found under Ctrl F "as is", i.e. interesting Al Gore Rhythm
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2003/02/exercise-lie-or-confusion-original-of.html
, UPDATE
ONLY? ,
Democracy
Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)** , Comprehensive
English or Reform Immigration? , Axe
not what you can ,
FOOTNOTES:
SEPTEMBER 2012 ***INTENIONS SNAP , Fear
and Running , V
for Victim , Parallel
(Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels , QCON
and Flip-Flop: AN IRAN OUT , Flip-Flopper-Crafting
1-14-13 UnTense? (*) before I go all footnutty... [2] {un in ten did undid but 90 =uncap brackets (qwerty CAP'd or De-bubba upped?}
1-16-13 Ouch. Grid Irony and Tour de'F(LA)? Or should I say Off Law?[1]
= = =
1-18-13 SoDo Amalgam /Post-PAGES: FC, TBA/\ (bs): The Real B. S. of the F. C., FC "Hammer", In "F"n able?, QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL (may he ... live strong and prosper)
Monday, March 02, 2009
More Executive Powers to the Team
BACK TO THE FUTURE RETRO UPDATE 8-7-09 *
What was referred to as a Black Hole of executive experience has some more stars in the constellation.
Governor Locke Secretary of Commerce (previously noted)
Governor Sebilius Secretary of Health and Human Services
Meanwhile the Battlestar Gallactica has powered up. (thanks TruthOut.org)
Original sources:
Obama's War with the Right (& Media) by Robert Parry Consortiumnews.com
Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts by Lori Montgomery Washington Post
[* 8-7-9 I insert a segment of an email exchange dated 2-28-09]
SUBJECT LINE: Greenspan is an MF'r:
Milton Friedman that is. At least Greenspan said "policy makers did not anticipate"
But someone did:(Peter Schiff)
That is the problem. (That someone predicted it, but that he does not necessarily have the answer either.)
Not that anyone has the answer but people can profit from any system.
That alone does not make them bad, but it does not make the system good.
Now the question is who will suffer and who will pay, and how much will change or stay the same.
[now back to the future and I might suggest that Dylan Ratigan invent a game ala GO or Chess with this Peter Shiff. But this retroactive exchange was between the right(Laffer)and the righter(Schiff) who are mostly wrong and wronger.]
What was referred to as a Black Hole of executive experience has some more stars in the constellation.
Governor Locke Secretary of Commerce (previously noted)
Governor Sebilius Secretary of Health and Human Services
Meanwhile the Battlestar Gallactica has powered up. (thanks TruthOut.org)
Original sources:
Obama's War with the Right (& Media) by Robert Parry Consortiumnews.com
Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts by Lori Montgomery Washington Post
[* 8-7-9 I insert a segment of an email exchange dated 2-28-09]
SUBJECT LINE: Greenspan is an MF'r:
Milton Friedman that is. At least Greenspan said "policy makers did not anticipate"
But someone did:(Peter Schiff)
That is the problem. (That someone predicted it, but that he does not necessarily have the answer either.)
Not that anyone has the answer but people can profit from any system.
That alone does not make them bad, but it does not make the system good.
Now the question is who will suffer and who will pay, and how much will change or stay the same.
[now back to the future and I might suggest that Dylan Ratigan invent a game ala GO or Chess with this Peter Shiff. But this retroactive exchange was between the right(Laffer)and the righter(Schiff) who are mostly wrong and wronger.]
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Phase II?
Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
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
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
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
They started it.
See same link... I say they started it. Two realities? Rumsfeld himself said facts change as noted here before I started providing links. You can check the archives around the time you think he may have said that. Reason enough for flip-flop. But a second reason as Cheney hit it, is mutual, sort of. Since they don't do nuance everything they can't understand has flip-flop potential. They do do French as in "pardon my French" as Cheney has been caught on a podium and the senate floor referring to a journalist and later a Senator.
Well if nuance is French, then pardon my Cheney. You would think that English is Greek to them but I won't go there. No I am not being vulgar just over my head academically.
Well if nuance is French, then pardon my Cheney. You would think that English is Greek to them but I won't go there. No I am not being vulgar just over my head academically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)