Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Contempt of Congress

Contempt for Congress
ONLY FAIR?
Interpretation is difficult, but could it be that given the support of Democrats over Republicans, excellent 3 to 1, and the flip flop of only fair to poor, Dem (40/33) Rep (33/42) that it depends on what is actually being supported. Some Republicans may be against congress for not going their way, while some Democrats may not support congress for not going more their way. It is hard to separate out independents, but it would make sense that given the lack of support for the administration that there be more resistance to the administration.

Gee! I did not realize I would stumble upon an anomaly.
The bottom line is that there is surprising support for Congress, and there should be a line that rates the media and polling. The poll shows congress getting 58 to 38 support (only fair or better to poor with 4 unsure). On the media/poll question it might be interesting to note that Pelosi and Rice are have more support and more unsure, but which might play into the above political non-calculations.

Missing from the poll it seems is anything related to what their jobs are. Not to mention who should have contempt or be in contempt.

GO HERE! For Accountability!My Comment there:
Please do what is needed to prevent further crimes by the administration, and failing that, prevent any pardons. Impeachment may be the only way to prevent wholesale escape from justice, but please keep the pressure on.

NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.

The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.

[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.

Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.

Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.

FACTS CHANGE?
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.

Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?

Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.

With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.

Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.

The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???

Did congress know that and when did they know it?

Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.

Does it matter?

Which report do you believe?
Seymour Hersch
Foreign Policy
Or which committee is informed?
Budget, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Intelligence.
Officially war powers and the purse are in the hands of congress.
But the military and intelligence are not just in the hands of the president.
How these committees are informed, is the key to progress or more run around.
Compartmentalized information is the key to our defense being so offensive.
Apparently congress has done as good a job of insulating themselves from responsibility and the adminstration has of blaming them, and excusing themselves. There is evidence that even military commanders to not know what the right hand is doing.* But it is a sure bet that our enemies know more than we can say.

[Preemptive point: Should one need to read the latest? * Given the record of congress and the administration?]

[To put this in semi-clear terms, the president's job is commander in chief and is sworn to defend the constitution. There is a clear record that he has poorly done his job and been given ever more powers by a congress who has not held him accountable and done their's. The sharper point is that of course the president has the power to defend the country as long as he has the ability to defend his actions and is responsible for them. It is necessary to "trust but verify" at home as well as abroad. It is also necessary to make sure that preemption is no longer the policy without such review. And to do so, we must see when it started and when it leaked and which committee knows.]

* Fallon

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.

Check and stall.

on why they claim that the Oath is not necessary for administration officials, and possibly why Specter and others can "sound" like they are concerned about the constitution and call for a judicial review. A.) Could it be that if prosecutions for "lying" to congress are called for that they (Republicans) will be the ones that will need to initiate them. B.) Under "judicial" review of other violations by the administration, just who will form that panel? C.) This is all an effort to "DeLay" real progress and stay the course.

(i.e.: The only check to the president is congress (who are political and partisan*) and the only real investigation may require the process of impeachment to start.)

* not that either are bad, but are what it is all about. Or the congress will get away with what the people let them, and the president will get away with what congress lets him.

Filibuster Final Draft

FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.

What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.

As for the $87 Billion for post-war(?) Iraq...
there are questions from TrueMajority,

but how we got there and where we go now are not closed questions.

Regarding Misleading Intelligence... [culled from Inslee Iraq Forum]

*Whereas there has been Intelligence failure or a failure of intelligence.
*Whereas both big "I" and small "i" intelligence are important in declaring war and maintaining or discussing our position in the world.
*Whereas both are important in being successful on many issues as well as maintaining our nations position and credibility in the world.
*Whereas both Congress and the Intelligence community both depend on the credibility of information or it's providers to do their jobs.
*Whereas the public was asked to trust these representatives and agencies by the President himself.

Therefore be it resolved: that congress pass both House Resolutions as co-sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee.

H.R. 2625 to establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq.

H. Res. 307 to establish a select committee on Iraq intelligence.

(One HR involves the executive branch's collection, interpretation and presentation of intelligence as opposed to the latter's focus on the intelligence structure.)

FURTHER... important questions should be asked and answered.

*1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
*2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
*3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
*4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
*5. Was congress following at least this closely?

Regarding Billions for Iraq...
TrueMajority has a petition drive.

WAR? NO! DEBATE? YES!

[faxed and e-mailed before the Presidents Speech]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
[COWBOY MANIFESTO (NSS)? NO! ANSWERS TO RHETORIC? YES!]
Below is a short compendium of the argument.
It cuts through the scholarly to almost the common sense.
We need more than common sense,
but even it says... NO TO WAR!
NO TO THREATS!
YES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CO-OPERATION.

PLEASE READ!
Debate Iraq Resolution!
Debate Cowboy Manifesto!
Further debate must be held on the Iraq Resolution indeed on the Cowboy Manifesto (National Security Strategy of the United States).

I am very concerned about the new preemptive policy in defense of the nation. Congress must not lose the power to declare war. The president still has the duty to inform congress of his actions in defense of the nation. Congress should review authorization for the National Security Act of 1947 and be informed of all covert actions taken in the name of defense. Congress should make sure all treaties and international laws are complied with or amend their actions and consent on the basis of any violations.

In regards to Iraq, enforcement of UN resolutions should be made in cooperation with the UN Security Council or there is no authority but that of congresses to go to war. Since Iraq’s transgression was mainly the invasion of Kuwait, regime change other than for purposes of enforcing UN resolutions is an act of war. Inspections and disarmament must be done under clear guidelines that prevent war preparations prior to violations being found and corrected.

If the United States chooses to take this responsibility on their own, what will the U. N. or any other nations that disagree hold us responsible for? Indeed which of our actions will other nations or groups take as an example?

The rhetoric must be cut through. There is a fine line between a bluff and a lie. Both should be difficult to do in a democracy. Questions must be answered or we must insist actions remain rhetorical!

The General Theory of Karl Rove

And The Relative Specialty*  of President Obama!





A.  The General Theory: Attack what works!

B.  The Theory of Special Relativity: Congress makes the laws!





The General Theory of Karl Rove: *Attack what works*. The Theory of Special Relativity of Obama. "Congress makes the laws, and he can't rein(or reign o'r) cats or dogs.* (partial translation: laws are a product of committee think) It is not surprising that it is difficulty reading and two courts can read it different.
...
And congress can Bane or...
---
Focus/Highlight: 2nd Video w/ Chris Hayes 
BTW: don't count on my physics but who knows?


*[Rough draft in progress.]
Q ED
6th edgy?


7-30-14
PARDON MY SPACIOUSNESS: WINDOWS/EXPLORER COMPATABILITY ANOMALY


Maslow's[?] woah.

Speaking of "people who"...

...if you think that this is just tortured rhetoric, then please at least take it as an opportunity to investigate the tortured rhetoric of the administration, not to mention the GOP. Otherwise the constitution is just a don't ask, don't tell policy and congress can just go back to a closet.

[The text of my reply in the previous post preempted this action item from my inbox, to which I attached the above, and I withheld the following, but have now brushed up a bit.]

Not that there is anything wrong with closets. But just because congress has such a high "wrong direction" rating, does not mean that rating does not tell them which way to go. Of course some of the 80% may want more of the same *. But many of them will be there when you go the right direction which in this case is left or we will be left behind.

CONGRESS:
Please follow the tortured rhetoric and act.
See BUSH CONFESSION
[see comment section]
* elitist irony

Contempt for Courage

President Obama is taking Congress(**B) and* Romney on head-on. 

Republicans are all about the politics of opposition.  Democrats are all about the politics of getting things done.(*B)  But there are limits, and they are in the constitution and the three branches of government.  Now that is not a very satisfying thing.  Congress makes the laws, and the president must follow them, and they will not change until they are broken.  Republicans will take the country down while the president has all the tools at his disposal to make sure they don't succeed.  Of course it is under the guise of a disagreement, but is a disguise that the people must see through. 

A look back** is called for because that is where not keeping the change will take us.  Has there not been enough change?  Well just asking the question reminds me of the last administrations Secretary of Defense and his questioning and answering*** himself.   I really don't want to go there.

But the recent Fed mention of the loss of wealth in the last 20 years, parallels the dine and dash that has been a Republican solution that has not been removed from the table.  Democrats have fought wars and built the middle-class, while Republicans have cut checks and unbalanced the nation.

Is the President doing as much as some would like?  As it becomes more clear that Republicans will not, now is the time that he must.

[Hardball "Two Americas" Walsh / Feerey - Romney is not on the ballot?  The Act Act.]

* 6-16-12  link moved back one word(bold added)(Also [Hardball] links)
("Romney" to "and")
** Ctrl F "bite"
*** Ctrl F "Rumsfeld"
(*B) Go jump in the Lakoff(i.e. Ctrl F Lakoff)(oops)
(**B) two links added @"taking Congress"& @Romney reinsert new link
(***B) NFRY & vice verse us (or chicken or egg*c)

[UP w/ Chris Hayes(***B) Stand Your Ground and De-Policing.]
Hint: v.c.(not very crispy)
*c literally

All in?

I think David Letteman said: "Something is fishy."
And a caller to Rachel Maddow(hosted by David Bender) may have hit the dead fish on the head. McCain wants to avoid having Sarah Palin have a debate. That may be where the media may have taken the bait though. But the public probably won't bite.

The real so called lure in this strategy is that McCain wants to put the economy over his campaign. Well despite recent tugging at the Paulson Plunder, his plans only nibble at a solution, while the economy really is spinning his campaign out of control. OK, fishy metaphors aside, I can't get away from it stinking. The Dead On Arrival plan was a no brainer, not to pass, and the only way to spin this is that the administration has set him up to seem a hero, while congress will look bad for not biting. My suggestion: bite back. Let McCain retreat to work on his plan with the administration, while Democrats and Obama work on a plan with and for the American people.

There are only two choices: Congress doesn't act and the economy is in a fix. Or congress acts and McCain can take credit or cast blame for getting or not getting what he wants. It will be negotiated or not, with or without McCain.

In the end, McCain is the loser because it goes directly against his argument that government is not there to fix things. But in the end, he might be able to prove that they are not. That will make the people the loser, and not really change you can believe in.

Emergency (Iraq) Supplemental Passes Senate: 51-47

Others call it War Supplemental. NOT!

Library of Congress Records (Thomas) defines:

S.965
Title: An original bill making emergency supplemental appropriations...

The Knot for Naught Dance may be NOT as well.
Will the president veto? Will the president compromise?
To will or not to will? That is the question.
The choice to dance is in the president's hands, the congress may still have the last foot down.

The Senate delivered the amount that the president wanted and then some.

[at this moment(posting within seconds of original post): Sen. Robert Byrd Senate Appropriations Committee Chair is calling for working together on a "responsible plan" for Iraq and not demonizing "democracy". The latter was my word, he said "congress".]
More later: below unread. [See MyDD.]

[8:33 update: Actually the more later will likely be a separate post. But Sen. Bryd just concluded, in thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill.

"the hard work, the hard work"..."did you get that?"...

if not a third "the hard work" evoked (at his usual eloquent pace). I knew that this would be a memorable speech.]

FOOTNOTES PAGE AUGUST 2013

Up Date: That's the ticket. 

8-2-13 The blank's the thing. A. Proxymoron?, # That is the ticket!, #?.(FP5) x. Killing Fields of Dreams, (y) Tea Party Down Grade, z. Congress- - to boldly go... ? 
8-2-13 1., 2. a., b., c., d(a), e.(We are at the table. ), f.(Update), g.House of Cards, h.  3. a. b.Killer Ad from Killer Group c.Take On The Hill! d. e.Post-Pyth F. G. h.I'm not saying... i. j. k. l. m. n. o. Just Say O! 4.MessAge 5.(Dime) a. Mmmm MOW, MOW, b.Tin Foil Herman, c. R.S.V.P.

8-4-13 VC, Vinyl Café, Vicious Cycle Virtuous Correction? Pun on VC or Victimizer Congress.
Perception Correction President(shall) Congress(shun)all?
8-5-13 : CePR? math/baker? Perception $knot Reality!

8-9-13 WAR (belated insert) Presently listening to Norman Goldman opening re: Rance Priebus and the Middle East. (5)mess+I-uh(b.s.), (7) format change, (13){Paper U?}, (21) NO!, (37) ! 

8-20-13 Back from Sekiu fishing trip, with dad, cousins, nephew and friends.
8-20-13 (a) [Aeschylus] & how buried

8-21-13 1 wiki(Miranda Warning), 2 (WSJ), 3 Trans Parent Seas, 4 Miranda Warning!, 5 The Guardian, 6 The Telegraph, 7 The Guardian(check redundancy)   Re: Oldsmobile (b.s.)

8-22-13:  That old hope and changey thing [!] (order of insert)  6 2 3 4 1 5 [7]
    (changey old hope and thing That [!]) Ribble this ? (FP2) 
8-23-13 bold added: not to Farce the Wor(l)d or parse SS oar well.
8-26-13: The (b.s.) of lemon ship is already inserted, with later untwist of mangled mixed meta for ... ?(FP2)
8-27-13 Not to pun on Too Bolds or W lines. (1 NOW, 2 The Cycle)
8-28-13 Hecuva post. (wMd?) Crtl F "spectrum" (a, b, g, i) See notes on original post and placement /timing of asterisks and links.  There is an M-bed within this FP.  But to cut the dimentionalism, there is more work. (d, w)

Where does this fit?

Two Congresses less than one "do nothing"? RMS*
-/-
Congress sues the president for not implementing a law they wanted to dismantle. 
They didn't want the mandate, but they wanted it now. 
Proof of the Rove strategy, it's political. 
They don't want to impeach because Democrats would want to run against that.
They want him to not follow due process for the border crises that is a result of a law they passed.
But proof that it is not political, that's the ticket. 
It is not political because they are sticking up for the process exactly on a law that they don't want to process.  Which is exactly why the congress is so popular and the president only relatively so. 
It's political, and it's not political, but the people need to decide which political non-political game they want congress to play. 


DEVO?*


Where does what fit?


*also V insert 7-31-14

Make it so.

No Captain Picard.

Some think President Obama has done too much already. Others think he has not done enough. The problem, is they are on both sides of the partisan divide. Some don't even understand the divide. Tea Party goers are a good example. Spurred by Libertarians and encouraged by the further right (or wrong) "just say no" crowd. Another good example is the stimulus package. "It was too much." [* update correction] Yet only a portion has gotten out yet. Which some confuse with the bailout, and others the budget or fiscal responsibility. Even bankruptcy is not recognized as a process rather than an end.

But I think that one of the main ideas in the slow rate of change for some social and legal issues is the balance of powers. Congress makes laws and the executive should follow them. Sometimes by not following them, the laws are changed, and sometimes by following them. It would not really be non-partisan or even good for a party, if the Justice Department did not do its job with the laws it has or the executive get too involved in changing them beyond his actual power to execute them.

The other is that the president has an agenda. To fix the economy, by focusing on education, energy and health care reform, and to be a leader in the world that the world can follow. He is not the bringer or breaker of laws, but he is burdened with alot on the table including a congress that is not of one mind, even if it has a partisan majority.

[The above commentary was completed before I found this on top of my inbox. Along with the complications of checks and balances designed into our constitution and the partisan and corporate aspects not so specially mentioned, it is ironic that a free press is mentioned. Yet such must be especially carefully balanced in times of crisis and change, in particular when it comes to national security, diplomacy and markets. Congress shall make no laws, in regards to certain freedoms, yet the executive is not free to give rights or free all information.]

[6-19-09: No Buddha either.]

[* 6-14-11: update correction: quotation marks added, not that it is a quote.]

Impeach!

Karl Rove was forced to resign.*
Alberto Gonzales was forced to move on.
But force is still in the Cbeney/Bush playbook.
[I forgot one: Rumsfeld]
More important than forcing Cheney or Bush out,
is that the policies be forced to change.
Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Can more failures be prevented without the removal of their contributors.
Can congress change the policies? Can congress prevent more mistakes?
Accountability could come later, but will the road be longer then?

Impeachment starts as an investigation. Is there not enough?
Have we had enough? Will congress allow more?
Will a movement be enough? Could any change be trusted?

* edit 6-12-14 Carl Read Karl

Notes from Al-Qaeda

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

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

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

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

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

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

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

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

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

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

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