[THIS POST WAS LOST OR RATHER SAVED IN A DRAFT FILE FROM July 25th, 2006 and Published October 11th, 2007: COMMENTS MAY FOLLOW BELOW]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query close enough for. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query close enough for. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2012
Frackin', Fudgin', Freakin', In-"F"-able[!]
Frackin'
Fudgin'
Freakin'
In-F-Able! -
Mitt,
Newt,
Ron,
Rick.
Not exactly a cross word, ribble or ineffable...
But by George, close enough for G work.
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=close+enough+for
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/24/93492/steve-king-repeal-uncertainty/
[Speaking of ineffable...($F=G works) see previous post, Re:mouse and image/edit problems, not to 4close the word or scroll, over.]
[Please note that an anamoly has been cured. Which I hope to mention later...or knot[!]]
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/02/saint-or-um.html
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=311251275598904&id=100000176362685#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=371162076234764&id=100000176362685
Fudgin'
Freakin'
In-F-Able! -
Mitt,
Newt,
Ron,
Rick.
Not exactly a cross word, ribble or ineffable...
But by George, close enough for G work.
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=close+enough+for
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/24/93492/steve-king-repeal-uncertainty/
[Speaking of ineffable...($F=G works) see previous post, Re:mouse and image/edit problems, not to 4close the word or scroll, over.]
[Please note that an anamoly has been cured. Which I hope to mention later...or knot[!]]
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/02/saint-or-um.html
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=311251275598904&id=100000176362685#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=371162076234764&id=100000176362685
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Safire Proved Urban Legend Monger
and Scandalous Hypocrite
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]
There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.
He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.
After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.
* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.
** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]
There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.
He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.
After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.
* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.
** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Re: Leads
Cat 'o 9 Tales V. Who let the dogs out!
This is a perfect follow up to the Mis Leeds.[*] Stop.
[I will begin at the end, which is very hard for a work in progress...or should I start at the top? Not? Leadership or Bottom Lines for the People? As for timing, Mis Leeds preceded Re: Leads. I will skip a story[*] in getting to the Leadership issue, many[*] actually[*], but I have covered now the Re: Leads and will now MoveOn to the Top Line(secondary leed) which was noted* on a page of a resolution as it was debated in its proper 4M. Speaking of Cap Locks, I wasn't, but my fingers do the talking and so does $M(**) sometimes. This could be a flip of the free press, or the Buck in media? Remembering this is a work in progress, and also anachronistic, or is nothing contemporary? Just what was the Resolution? To give Obama courage! There were touching speeches. So(now) I get to the top from the bottom. Go Tatupu!!!!!! Now that is current. Waterbirds(brackets/italics) aside...(The Seahawks just took the lead.) And by Jiminy they are playing the Panthers. Who knew? But back to the issue of cats. They are hard to hurd.. Democrats are a big tent, but there are at least two kinds of dawgs.[yellow and blue(**)] We may need to whip up our courage and yet the(whoo trip)the big picture(touchdown) takes a brush of the artists pallet[e]. Woof, woof!]
* literally sitting in the reorg meeting, before the resolution was passed and a suspension of the rules failed to amend it, I noted a rough form of these words, actually exactly but for the o'.[close enough for journalist work?]
{typo edit ed: who knows jack}
[** capitalization effect 4M= 4'em but $M= buck media and not 4us.]
Postgame W(R)ap: Tale of Two Haves?(PI) From down 0-14 to finishing 31-14 the Nader has been passed ***.
*** A Resolution Calling for Courage and Leadership now from President Obama and Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.
[updates 12-9-10]
[*] link added and other editing [1-17-12 embedded in his 12-9-10 update C-(sic) "ledes" is correct spelling sometimes punned as Mis-leads.]
[(**)] in editing I have added a few hints and corrected some grammar/punctuation, but I will note that I was blogging with the Seahawks game on, and should note speaking of color, the passing of Don Meredith, quarter back & color commentator. As a personal aside it feels kind of funny to have been in a class with Tatupu's dad.
{note 3rd [*] Tails Aside already updated note Presidential Cheer Leaders and the pun on Tails and Tales.}
This is a perfect follow up to the Mis Leeds.[*] Stop.
[I will begin at the end, which is very hard for a work in progress...or should I start at the top? Not? Leadership or Bottom Lines for the People? As for timing, Mis Leeds preceded Re: Leads. I will skip a story[*] in getting to the Leadership issue, many[*] actually[*], but I have covered now the Re: Leads and will now MoveOn to the Top Line(secondary leed) which was noted* on a page of a resolution as it was debated in its proper 4M. Speaking of Cap Locks, I wasn't, but my fingers do the talking and so does $M(**) sometimes. This could be a flip of the free press, or the Buck in media? Remembering this is a work in progress, and also anachronistic, or is nothing contemporary? Just what was the Resolution? To give Obama courage! There were touching speeches. So(now) I get to the top from the bottom. Go Tatupu!!!!!! Now that is current. Waterbirds(brackets/italics) aside...(The Seahawks just took the lead.) And by Jiminy they are playing the Panthers. Who knew? But back to the issue of cats. They are hard to hurd.. Democrats are a big tent, but there are at least two kinds of dawgs.[yellow and blue(**)] We may need to whip up our courage and yet the(whoo trip)the big picture(touchdown) takes a brush of the artists pallet[e]. Woof, woof!]
* literally sitting in the reorg meeting, before the resolution was passed and a suspension of the rules failed to amend it, I noted a rough form of these words, actually exactly but for the o'.[close enough for journalist work?]
{typo edit ed: who knows jack}
[** capitalization effect 4M= 4'em but $M= buck media and not 4us.]
Postgame W(R)ap: Tale of Two Haves?(PI) From down 0-14 to finishing 31-14 the Nader has been passed ***.
*** A Resolution Calling for Courage and Leadership now from President Obama and Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.
[updates 12-9-10]
[*] link added and other editing [1-17-12 embedded in his 12-9-10 update C-(sic) "ledes" is correct spelling sometimes punned as Mis-leads.]
[(**)] in editing I have added a few hints and corrected some grammar/punctuation, but I will note that I was blogging with the Seahawks game on, and should note speaking of color, the passing of Don Meredith, quarter back & color commentator. As a personal aside it feels kind of funny to have been in a class with Tatupu's dad.
{note 3rd [*] Tails Aside already updated note Presidential Cheer Leaders and the pun on Tails and Tales.}
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Fear and Running
in the Republican Party.
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Random Points
[POST 2-8-11]
Running from Labels?
Who knows what whom didn't?
Belly Up to the Table.
Trust(HBO) but verify.
Redistribution of Wealth
Redistribution of Yikes
Redistribution of Genre
Less than random thought: What is Sarah Palin running for?
November 2011: The New Adventures of Regis and the Old Larry King? Queen of Truth and Balance. A cornerstone: "We should not stand for that, or with that or by that." FYIS: For Your Information Sarah - here are for whom knows started it.
BTW: My language is the victim to the hood of refudiation here. i.e. close enough for government work?
[Note: bottom link will always indicate previous post]
Running from Labels?
Who knows what whom didn't?
Belly Up to the Table.
Trust(HBO) but verify.
Redistribution of Wealth
Redistribution of Yikes
Redistribution of Genre
Less than random thought: What is Sarah Palin running for?
November 2011: The New Adventures of Regis and the Old Larry King? Queen of Truth and Balance. A cornerstone: "We should not stand for that, or with that or by that." FYIS: For Your Information Sarah - here are for whom knows started it.
BTW: My language is the victim to the hood of refudiation here. i.e. close enough for government work?
[Note: bottom link will always indicate previous post]
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
On the Other Plan(s)
[Originally I was amending or running on the last link.]
...on the other hand: while I am not advocating Independents or Single Payer, they just might be the way things need to go. As the Reverend Al Sharpton said this morning, it would be unseemly for the President to be an advocate for any separate interests, as I paraphrase him, and as others would call it leadership in reference to the parade. This was linked anachronistically. Note the tetra of DRIP, (now that was manipulated: Democratic Republican Independent Progress), not to mention the Bloomin' ** Fringe. And an earlier thought about this field, Creationist Recreation Applied Properly, no CRAP. Speaking of anachronism, if someone turned water into wine, who turned whine*** into trickle down? Answer? Just a Laffer. No disrespect to the good nature and good deeds of Reagan and Nixon or vice verse us, but they have certainly been proved to be relative.]
** EPA = Expletive Properly Applied.
*** Needlessly(sic)
Underlying this thinking is a reaction to those that think we think we know better, and those that think they are we. I directly refer to the rhetoric of the Right and the fact that they are the minority for a reason, continually evidenced by their behavior as well as the fact that polls change and they had better.* Wow, I think that was anti-sic or at least freely punctuated, but who the Fringe knows or is it the Shadow or Charlie McCarthy(**)ism?
* Bold summary and link(correction: reference) to other asterisk not to mention runonwordplay.
[belated ** talk about prophetic gathering of moss I am not sure I know yet.]
[Well...not exactly, but close enough for Hurts work or Wads-worth.]
...on the other hand: while I am not advocating Independents or Single Payer, they just might be the way things need to go. As the Reverend Al Sharpton said this morning, it would be unseemly for the President to be an advocate for any separate interests, as I paraphrase him, and as others would call it leadership in reference to the parade. This was linked anachronistically. Note the tetra of DRIP, (now that was manipulated: Democratic Republican Independent Progress), not to mention the Bloomin' ** Fringe. And an earlier thought about this field, Creationist Recreation Applied Properly, no CRAP. Speaking of anachronism, if someone turned water into wine, who turned whine*** into trickle down? Answer? Just a Laffer. No disrespect to the good nature and good deeds of Reagan and Nixon or vice verse us, but they have certainly been proved to be relative.]
** EPA = Expletive Properly Applied.
*** Needlessly(sic)
Underlying this thinking is a reaction to those that think we think we know better, and those that think they are we. I directly refer to the rhetoric of the Right and the fact that they are the minority for a reason, continually evidenced by their behavior as well as the fact that polls change and they had better.* Wow, I think that was anti-sic or at least freely punctuated, but who the Fringe knows or is it the Shadow or Charlie McCarthy(**)ism?
* Bold summary and link(correction: reference) to other asterisk not to mention runonwordplay.
[belated ** talk about prophetic gathering of moss I am not sure I know yet.]
[Well...not exactly, but close enough for Hurts work or Wads-worth.]
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
High8US
[7-6-11 links added]
(continued)
In ConText:
Over Helming.
Underwhelmed?
HiAteUS
Humpty Dumpty...
Ideology
Connecting the Dots
Way, Too Point Oh?
Way[!]
No Frackin' Way
Image Processing
Re:Verb
'nuff said
Ledership[!]
Antithesis of Nuance
Related sites:
Finance and Mandelbrot
Reader Supported News
Instutute for New Economic Thinking (Flip-flop and Obliquity)
The New Yorker*
The Economist
YouTube
Calm Pend I um? (or E'em)
*Footnote: Thank Finance and Mandelbrot for The New Yorker and The Economist links [also: errors(not fully read yet) and thank the Democrats for the YouTube.]
BTW: The above image and photo, did not turn out(inserted) as intended, not that there is anything wrong with that. (Sign Feld Pun )["Close enough for government work".[!] ]
[Writer's Almanac: KUOW, Natural Gas, Regenerating, Life After, Burning: Inslee and much More.]
(continued)
In ConText:
Over Helming.
Underwhelmed?
HiAteUS
Humpty Dumpty...
Ideology
Connecting the Dots
Way, Too Point Oh?
Way[!]
No Frackin' Way
Image Processing
Re:Verb
'nuff said
Ledership[!]
Antithesis of Nuance
Related sites:
Finance and Mandelbrot
Reader Supported News
Instutute for New Economic Thinking (Flip-flop and Obliquity)
The New Yorker*
The Economist
YouTube
Calm Pend I um? (or E'em)
*Footnote: Thank Finance and Mandelbrot for The New Yorker and The Economist links [also: errors(not fully read yet) and thank the Democrats for the YouTube.]
BTW: The above image and photo, did not turn out(inserted) as intended, not that there is anything wrong with that. (Sign Feld Pun )["Close enough for government work".[!] ]
[Writer's Almanac: KUOW, Natural Gas, Regenerating, Life After, Burning: Inslee and much More.]
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Mission Accomplished
(AP photo see link)
A case of colors.
The Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the first source for Obama flag waving, but the lede is this: Obama Lauds Troops as Iraq War Winds Up. But under my ledership*, I must note that "Mr. Obama was careful not to declare victory." But Colonel Wilkerson and Rachel Maddow rally** my reasons for the lede here. "Hooah!"
* yes "ledership"(sic)
[link is leadership]
** link yet to be embedded (here)
[Speaking of battles and drafts, yet to be. (Ground Troops***)]
*** i.e. foot noted
[PEA CE OUT]
12-15-11 [*] "Hooha!" Not Exactly,
but close enough[!] (for gov'meant work)
[Nor black and white, but here are four perspectives. This is a deeply embedded line. It is about working together and leadership, not without ledership. The gist of it is in regards to the process of crafting good documents(let alone with imperfect people). As in what the heck is Obama doing, let alone Ron Wyden, or Rand Paul.(or Keynes/Hayek) The most important ingredient in these threads is the people, their understanding, and elections that matter. Issues bring the people to the table, and the ballot box.]
[No Horsing around.]
[*]Well maybe a little horsing around. But with respect to follow-up to Awkward Segue, and "four perspectives"(text today) I note that Norman Goldman addresses the NDAA, and was looking forward to Randy Rhodes giving her perspective, but David Sirota was sitting in.]
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Debt and Tax Cuts,
debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.
Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.
And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.
Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.
And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800
Friday, March 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES MARCH 2013
3-14-13 : interesting digs Six Links
(b.s.) "S.E.(vi)" A. (fn)FOR D... , B. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy , C. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)].
(b.s.) "Six Sigma" A. No Frackin' Way (sc) ... E. Rocket Man?[!] ... I. Over Helming. (sc).
un M bed Ed (sc) ?[!] {?}
3-18-13: Not to leave it, or pun on SNL: nor love it. R we LOL in the same boat? As for Heading
*: dimentionalism(sic) -
lede : (b.s.)tetra+heed+run - A.,B.,C.,D.,G.,H.,I.
or : (b.s.) lede+or+ship - A., ... . N. Walking the Plank[!] (s.c.)
ship : (b.s.) share+n+angle -
? : (b.s.) tetrahedron of will -
focus : (b.s.) Hume A. Third Times a Charm. B. He said *a fowl*!
on : (b.s.) Hume+or+us / Humorism
Pythagorean : Pythagorean - A Place to Ponder
Socratic : Socratics. - (b.s.)Kant+Hegel
published today 3-18-13
3-20-13 Curve Balls? (b.s.)Curve+Balls: A., B., C., D. / Original Intent and Spin.
3-22-13 Scroll over, and only "Physics" had been read at time of post. Post Physics? / Un Try
Angles?
3-28-13 Absolut(ist)ly - "clothing" (b.s.)robin+hood: RawMoney Runnin', Genre Clash (sc), Fair and Balanced... (sc) / divide**: At what point is (pun and rap on justice/scales and founding docs) / "absolutist"(b.s.)absolutism : At what point is , Primary Boogeyman. / win or lose (b.s.)former(pop+culture): A.(sc), B., C., D., E., F., G., Slash Segue(sc), The Billy Club...(sc), A generous dia-Gnosis.(sc)., FAUX CULTIAN? (sc), Close Enough for(sc), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, M(m)., N(n), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, P., Q.(q). latter (b.s.)boogeyman: Primary Boogeyman, B., C., Bottom Line Update(sc), Juxta-Boogey (sc)
VFW:Virtue Freedom War? Rhetoric, Logic, Grammar ? [!]
(b.s.) "S.E.(vi)" A. (fn)FOR D... , B. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy , C. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)].
(b.s.) "Six Sigma" A. No Frackin' Way (sc) ... E. Rocket Man?[!] ... I. Over Helming. (sc).
un M bed Ed (sc) ?[!] {?}
3-18-13: Not to leave it, or pun on SNL: nor love it. R we LOL in the same boat? As for Heading
*: dimentionalism(sic) -
lede : (b.s.)tetra+heed+run - A.,B.,C.,D.,G.,H.,I.
or : (b.s.) lede+or+ship - A., ... . N. Walking the Plank[!] (s.c.)
ship : (b.s.) share+n+angle -
? : (b.s.) tetrahedron of will -
focus : (b.s.) Hume A. Third Times a Charm. B. He said *a fowl*!
on : (b.s.) Hume+or+us / Humorism
Pythagorean : Pythagorean - A Place to Ponder
Socratic : Socratics. - (b.s.)Kant+Hegel
published today 3-18-13
3-20-13 Curve Balls? (b.s.)Curve+Balls: A., B., C., D. / Original Intent and Spin.
3-22-13 Scroll over, and only "Physics" had been read at time of post. Post Physics? / Un Try
Angles?
3-28-13 Absolut(ist)ly - "clothing" (b.s.)robin+hood: RawMoney Runnin', Genre Clash (sc), Fair and Balanced... (sc) / divide**: At what point is (pun and rap on justice/scales and founding docs) / "absolutist"(b.s.)absolutism : At what point is , Primary Boogeyman. / win or lose (b.s.)former(pop+culture): A.(sc), B., C., D., E., F., G., Slash Segue(sc), The Billy Club...(sc), A generous dia-Gnosis.(sc)., FAUX CULTIAN? (sc), Close Enough for(sc), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, M(m)., N(n), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, P., Q.(q). latter (b.s.)boogeyman: Primary Boogeyman, B., C., Bottom Line Update(sc), Juxta-Boogey (sc)
VFW:Virtue Freedom War? Rhetoric, Logic, Grammar ? [!]
Thursday, September 19, 2002
FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK
=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)
Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991
Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.
=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================
*
This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04
Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.
[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]
With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Sincerely, Roger Larson
Post script. (4-25-02)
If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".
However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.
I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?
Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.
===============================================================================
On Democracy and media coverage:
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.
What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?
Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.
UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html
This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.
Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.
Roger Larson Bellevue, WA
===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================
Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.
Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)
While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.
When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?
Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
Roger Larson
ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]
To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000
COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000
RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.
This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI
[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===
TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.
TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)
Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991
Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.
=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================
*
This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04
Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.
[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]
With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Sincerely, Roger Larson
Post script. (4-25-02)
If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".
However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.
I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?
Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.
===============================================================================
On Democracy and media coverage:
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.
What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?
Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.
UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html
This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.
Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.
Roger Larson Bellevue, WA
===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================
Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.
Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)
While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.
When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?
Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
Roger Larson
ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]
To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000
COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000
RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.
This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.
[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===
TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.
TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic
It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
Thursday, February 10, 2011
BLANK NETWORK
Dot Tool* to be named later. This is just a list of the Wills and Bills.
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]
The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical
This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.
While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.
* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)
RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley
DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare
Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann
Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz
[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]
The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical
This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.
While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.
* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)
RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley
DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare
Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann
Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz
[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Lives
(or jobs) in the balance.
[Amy Goodman found earlier]
Meanwhile on the jobs front(or tax cuts/stimulus) Republicans claim no data[**] on millionaire target. Close enough for government* work.
(hardball breaking: fight or switch)
*context for chart
[further breaking: and pesky fact (not included) Bush appointee]
[Matt Laur?]
** on the other hand
[Amy Goodman found earlier]
Meanwhile on the jobs front(or tax cuts/stimulus) Republicans claim no data[**] on millionaire target. Close enough for government* work.
(hardball breaking: fight or switch)*context for chart
[further breaking: and pesky fact (not included) Bush appointee]
[Matt Laur?]
** on the other hand
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.
“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!
One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.
Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.
In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.
[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]
One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.
Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.
In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.
[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Retro-Gate
Iran-Contra, WMD, October No-Surprise.
Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.
Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate
Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]
[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?
[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)
*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.
Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle
[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes
Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.
Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate
Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]
[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?
[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)
*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.
Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle
[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)