Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cooperation. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cooperation. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, June 08, 2007
In Principle
the proposed cooperation (joint missile defense system) between Putin and Bush is interesting. The last word is from Bush who finds the offer "interesting", the first two are from Hillary Clinton who does not oppose missile defense "in principle". But that does not mean it is likely to proceed or advisable to move forward with or without cooperation, for cause. Just like non-proliferation has not proceeded very well along side advances in weapons research and production, missile defense will be seen as offensive, especially with preemption as a policy. If cooperation cannot succeed in diplomatic pressure, it is not likely to work well under escalation.
Friday, October 18, 2002
Will France be a new leader or will laws?
Well I must consider now that the whole world is not following exactly. Though following as in paying attention is still valid. There is something disturbing about the label of follower or leader but not so much as there is with the statement "either you are with us or against us". Cooperation requires being able to play both positions, follower and leader. If we are nation or world of laws not men then those laws should be what are followed and cooperation is needed to write them.
Either you are for following laws or you are against them. The ONLY exception should be self-defense, which applies to the individuals and groups when engaged in otherwise legal actions. Violations of law by individuals or groups should not let governing bodies off the hook from following laws. Foreign policy must keep this in mind or risk leading to war. War should only result from a failure in foreign policy not as an extension of it. And one should not be a leader if unwilling to follow laws.
Well I must consider now that the whole world is not following exactly. Though following as in paying attention is still valid. There is something disturbing about the label of follower or leader but not so much as there is with the statement "either you are with us or against us". Cooperation requires being able to play both positions, follower and leader. If we are nation or world of laws not men then those laws should be what are followed and cooperation is needed to write them.
Either you are for following laws or you are against them. The ONLY exception should be self-defense, which applies to the individuals and groups when engaged in otherwise legal actions. Violations of law by individuals or groups should not let governing bodies off the hook from following laws. Foreign policy must keep this in mind or risk leading to war. War should only result from a failure in foreign policy not as an extension of it. And one should not be a leader if unwilling to follow laws.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Presidential SOTU
Huffington On Bipartisanship *.-Text-
PBS Annotated SOTU text/video
GOP Responds to SOTU
and promoteown solutions.
Oh, it's the economy(brainy)! -Newsweek**
My summary of SOTU: Heavy on hope, light on hype.
My reply to response: It was "fair and balanced" and with less rhetoric almost a Blue Dog, and with better facts almost a someone that could work across the aisle. Talk is cheap and hype costly. Hope is very economical, but progress takes investment.
* It seems that the following is very odd(my bold):
BTW: we don't have to worry about deficits anymore**, there is no looking back and it is the President's economy.
footnote:
asterisk * is post I am commenting on
asterisk ** refers back to preemptive crack and source(Newsweek/YouTube)
But seriously.
*** see comment 3 of more there re: change agent
[UPDATE: On Thom Hartmann, Congressman Blumenauer suggests Valentines for the Senate (Valentines are the broken parts of the bills that need passing. Progressively: ping pong, reconciliation, nuclear option, Valentines [*] . Seemingly how I put it[**] & within the mechanics of the process and politics.)]
[*] 1-29-10 link to Valentines for the Senate
[**] The Nature of Things (posted 1-20-10) also "up, down, or side ways" not to mention the Mass A Choose Its Dilemma. Make it so! May the force be with you.[Is there a Mass A Choose Its Lesson?]
PBS Annotated SOTU text/video
GOP Responds to SOTU
and promoteown solutions.
Oh, it's the economy(brainy)! -Newsweek**
My summary of SOTU: Heavy on hope, light on hype.
My reply to response: It was "fair and balanced" and with less rhetoric almost a Blue Dog, and with better facts almost a someone that could work across the aisle. Talk is cheap and hype costly. Hope is very economical, but progress takes investment.
* It seems that the following is very odd(my bold):
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second most powerful Republican in the Senate, was just as blunt and brutal. "It was a campaign speech," he said. "I thought it was a very partisan speech. He did not help himself with Republicans tonight. You do not bash the opposition and then encourage them to work with you."Especially as it continues:
How, specifically, did he bash?
"Every third paragraph was complaining about the mess that George Bush got him in. He didn't mention the words George Bush but he didn't have to," said Kyl. "After more than a year, take ownership of the problems you have. You campaigned for president to solve these problems so stop complaining about the mess that you inherited. That was okay for a few weeks or a few months, but after awhile it gets a little tiresome."
Kyl went on to complain about "thinly veiled suggestions that all Republicans do is say 'no,' that we have to stop saying 'no' to everything. That's not the way to encourage productive cooperation with the other side."
Was he offended by the shot at skeptic(sic) of the science behind climate change?I thought that was pretty much what President Obama did, and it seems odd if not forced that this Republican take makes any sense. Of course they believe in an invisible force (Ctrl F hand) not to mention freedom as a force, which is even less accurate.(just speaking economics and physics). It seems that MassAChooseIts independents, moderates, democrats, and apparently the Senate's #2 Republican has given the president a mandate. Now congress, "may the force** be with you".
"Well, he probably meant it as such, but frankly I didn't receive it as such, since I'm one of the skeptics," he said.
Anything else?
"He started out talking about the constitutional requirement to report on the state of the union and in the very first part of the speech he did. And then he veered off of it and got into this big campaign mantra, which just isn't done. I know this is his first one, but still, it shouldn't be so much about him, and how he didn't come here to do this and he didn't come here to do that and he's going to fight on and so on. It's not about that. It's about the American people and how you're going to react to what they've been telling you -- or trying to tell you -- about what they'd like to see done."
BTW: we don't have to worry about deficits anymore**, there is no looking back and it is the President's economy.
footnote:
asterisk * is post I am commenting on
asterisk ** refers back to preemptive crack and source(Newsweek/YouTube)
But seriously.
*** see comment 3 of more there re: change agent
[UPDATE: On Thom Hartmann, Congressman Blumenauer suggests Valentines for the Senate (Valentines are the broken parts of the bills that need passing. Progressively: ping pong, reconciliation, nuclear option, Valentines [*] . Seemingly how I put it[**] & within the mechanics of the process and politics.)]
[*] 1-29-10 link to Valentines for the Senate
[**] The Nature of Things (posted 1-20-10) also "up, down, or side ways" not to mention the Mass A Choose Its Dilemma. Make it so! May the force be with you.[Is there a Mass A Choose Its Lesson?]
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
In honor of those who died for our cause.
Just what is our cause? Is it the body of political thought arising from John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? As Thom Hartmann summarizes the alternative, that man is either basically good and merits his freedoms or that man is basically evil and needs restraint. The latter (Hobbes) wrote of this in The Leviathan about the need for a powerful state to restrain what even religion failed to check. Thom's guest, Michael D. Tanner, author of Leviathan on the Right
It is my view that The New Leviathan is actually The Corporation ** (circa Globalization * ). But the bottom line is that the nature of man (and I leave the nature of women aside)is a duality. Now the nature of woman may be the countebalance or lacking component, for are we not talking the balance of good and evil and the scale of justice depending on the notion of competition and cooperation.
Now the above may be too metaphorical. But for more to sort:
The Logic of "Leviathan": Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes.
Natural Right and History
Note: Being Memorial Day, The Thom Hartmann Show was a "best of". But this post is realtime, yet closes an interesting loop. The Leviathan in my mind was not a monster, but just a creation of man called government, while the corporation is also a creation of man and not supernatural, nor/let alone an individual. What would more honor the dead, than to know what we are fighting for?
* [the corporation / globalization loop and the part we play or don't]
[** May 25th, 2009: Corporations are only the Leviathan in terms of the fear that is implied from something big as the state is to be feared when unchecked. But they are both necessary within limits.]
[10:39 AM The Rhetoric of Leviathan led me to further summarize (rhetorically), what is the connection? "Hard work" as in "War is"... and who does it and what is the nature of the state of economics?]
Just what is our cause? Is it the body of political thought arising from John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? As Thom Hartmann summarizes the alternative, that man is either basically good and merits his freedoms or that man is basically evil and needs restraint. The latter (Hobbes) wrote of this in The Leviathan about the need for a powerful state to restrain what even religion failed to check. Thom's guest, Michael D. Tanner, author of Leviathan on the Right
It is my view that The New Leviathan is actually The Corporation ** (circa Globalization * ). But the bottom line is that the nature of man (and I leave the nature of women aside)is a duality. Now the nature of woman may be the countebalance or lacking component, for are we not talking the balance of good and evil and the scale of justice depending on the notion of competition and cooperation.
Now the above may be too metaphorical. But for more to sort:
The Logic of "Leviathan": Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes.
Natural Right and History
Note: Being Memorial Day, The Thom Hartmann Show was a "best of". But this post is realtime, yet closes an interesting loop. The Leviathan in my mind was not a monster, but just a creation of man called government, while the corporation is also a creation of man and not supernatural, nor/let alone an individual. What would more honor the dead, than to know what we are fighting for?
* [the corporation / globalization loop and the part we play or don't]
[** May 25th, 2009: Corporations are only the Leviathan in terms of the fear that is implied from something big as the state is to be feared when unchecked. But they are both necessary within limits.]
[10:39 AM The Rhetoric of Leviathan led me to further summarize (rhetorically), what is the connection? "Hard work" as in "War is"... and who does it and what is the nature of the state of economics?]
Friday, June 20, 2008
Going out on a limb here.
And hoping other branches catch me.
It is all political.
The FISA deal is not as bad as it could be.
I have not dug into the roots too deep, but if there is FISA review for programs, it is a new leaf on a branch. But as far as the immunity go, the three branches of government, are all unprecedentedly political.
Immunity may be retroactive, but review and accountability are still unprecedented.
It is not the corporations that we need to worry about prosecuting in these cases, it is their cooperation. As the tree branches grow, things change, and retro-activity could be cut off or not matter unprecedentedly.
[6-30-08 Olbermann/Dean?]
It is all political.
The FISA deal is not as bad as it could be.
I have not dug into the roots too deep, but if there is FISA review for programs, it is a new leaf on a branch. But as far as the immunity go, the three branches of government, are all unprecedentedly political.
Immunity may be retroactive, but review and accountability are still unprecedented.
It is not the corporations that we need to worry about prosecuting in these cases, it is their cooperation. As the tree branches grow, things change, and retro-activity could be cut off or not matter unprecedentedly.
[6-30-08 Olbermann/Dean?]
Friday, October 12, 2012
The Other Debates
Substance over*** Style?
Here I go again,
preemptive over* reading**.
* preceding two links are top embeds in prior two links
** links all inserted before reading ** or any others(including last insert ***)
*** retro GPS of sorts(C-lede/heading)
[Ouch! Mid^ -PI solar^^ flare... ***]
^ scroll over(not exactly^^^)
^^ having read ***...
Inslee is no Biden or Obama, McKenna is no Romney or Ryan. ^^(Re...)
But on the issue of conflict of interest, the conflict is ironic.
^^^ F'n notes: Show me the money, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road ? !
^^(Re...) Don't call me..(Re...cycling^^)
...except for the Congressional connection(Biden/Inslee/Ryan and party differences). Note that it is quite different to be a Republican governor in a Democratic controlled state(Romney), than a bipartisan Democratic president in a more evenly controlled but partisanly divided congress. Republicans have been against what they might have been for if they had been in control(less so maybe locally given this context). The debt being the Toll Keen under the bridge. C-Mythmatic. Not to mention the road we hoe or Rove. The irony is even more dimentional in the local situation in that, Inslee as governor (re:legislative branch) would be more Obama(re:leg.br.) than McKenna as governor would be either Romney as executive.(re:either state or national leg.br.) See Romney touting his term in Massachusettes with an 86% Democratic legislature. (It doesn't take much to sit down and cooperate.) This is no excuse for thinking that divided government means more partisanship rather than cooperation and compromising as Democratic principles. (Further editing if NOT *,^'s may be needed[!]#$%)
[Re: Cycling notations (*,^,#'s) F'n Apologies Tour, not there yet. (quid pre**quo?) Stop that ? Ouch. ]
[ WeGotEd: Sherrod Brown / Uncle Joe/ Uncle Sam/ G.I. Joe / Gastro-Intestinal Joe! Roger Out! ]
[ Alter Net ... Substance/Style, Objective/Subjective, Reality/Matters(slash)dimentionalism what the heck is the point? ]
[Editors Note:(me that is)...the entirety of this post was finished before this. Bolded above from "The debt"...to..."Rove". They can't handle the Biden. The key crack @little troll friends. So...(I will have to review to see reference to Rove, but here is a rant or ramble(NOT) his nickname is "Turd Blossom"!]
[Randi Rhodes]
[Paul Ryan Told 24 Myths in 40 Minutes]
10-16-12 Biden/Ryan Debate added.
Here I go again,
preemptive over* reading**.
* preceding two links are top embeds in prior two links
** links all inserted before reading ** or any others(including last insert ***)
*** retro GPS of sorts(C-lede/heading)
[Ouch! Mid^ -PI solar^^ flare... ***]
^ scroll over(not exactly^^^)
^^ having read ***...
Inslee is no Biden or Obama, McKenna is no Romney or Ryan. ^^(Re...)
But on the issue of conflict of interest, the conflict is ironic.
^^^ F'n notes: Show me the money, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road ? !
^^(Re...) Don't call me..(Re...cycling^^)
...except for the Congressional connection(Biden/Inslee/Ryan and party differences). Note that it is quite different to be a Republican governor in a Democratic controlled state(Romney), than a bipartisan Democratic president in a more evenly controlled but partisanly divided congress. Republicans have been against what they might have been for if they had been in control(less so maybe locally given this context). The debt being the Toll Keen under the bridge. C-Mythmatic. Not to mention the road we hoe or Rove. The irony is even more dimentional in the local situation in that, Inslee as governor (re:legislative branch) would be more Obama(re:leg.br.) than McKenna as governor would be either Romney as executive.(re:either state or national leg.br.) See Romney touting his term in Massachusettes with an 86% Democratic legislature. (It doesn't take much to sit down and cooperate.) This is no excuse for thinking that divided government means more partisanship rather than cooperation and compromising as Democratic principles. (Further editing if NOT *,^'s may be needed[!]#$%)
[Re: Cycling notations (*,^,#'s) F'n Apologies Tour, not there yet. (quid pre**quo?) Stop that ? Ouch. ]
[ WeGotEd: Sherrod Brown / Uncle Joe/ Uncle Sam/ G.I. Joe / Gastro-Intestinal Joe! Roger Out! ]
[ Alter Net ... Substance/Style, Objective/Subjective, Reality/Matters(slash)dimentionalism what the heck is the point? ]
[Editors Note:(me that is)...the entirety of this post was finished before this. Bolded above from "The debt"...to..."Rove". They can't handle the Biden. The key crack @little troll friends. So...(I will have to review to see reference to Rove, but here is a rant or ramble(NOT) his nickname is "Turd Blossom"!]
[Randi Rhodes]
[Paul Ryan Told 24 Myths in 40 Minutes]
10-16-12 Biden/Ryan Debate added.
Monday, December 05, 2011
It must mean...
Mitt Romney is a moderate, because Republicans know that Obama is a moderate* and they try to take on strength** with strength.
Newt Gingrich is a Conservative*, because he is trying to out value or nuance Romney.
Is the Republican race the old circular firing squad of the Hamilton/Burr conflict?
*see five minutes
** Ctrl F "Rove".
[Against Romney Obama can move left. Against Gingrich, he can stay moderate. The checks and balances are between the branches, we need cooperation, compromise and more progressives in the legislature to get anywhere. Failing that, gridlock is a failsafe.
Newt Gingrich is a Conservative*, because he is trying to out value or nuance Romney.
Is the Republican race the old circular firing squad of the Hamilton/Burr conflict?
*see five minutes
** Ctrl F "Rove".
[Against Romney Obama can move left. Against Gingrich, he can stay moderate. The checks and balances are between the branches, we need cooperation, compromise and more progressives in the legislature to get anywhere. Failing that, gridlock is a failsafe.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em
On Competition, Cooperation, and Coordination, in Context.*
* the thread here is not PC, but Progressive Culture or Pop('in) Culture
Rootnote: Conservative Theme?
* the thread here is not PC, but Progressive Culture or Pop('in) Culture
Rootnote: Conservative Theme?
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
The other ground game...
<*>
I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.
I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12
* Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality? OUCH. I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least. And while I might read more, I might not have more to say. It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics. BTW: Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.
OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.***
** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
*** To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.) Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious. Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing. Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*
I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.
I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12
* Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality? OUCH. I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least. And while I might read more, I might not have more to say. It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics. BTW: Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.
OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.***
** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
*** To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.) Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious. Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing. Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*
Monday, October 29, 2007
Law of the Sea?
This is progress.
De-Piratization?
Global Solutions? a start.
How's the law of the land going?
And international law and cooperation?
De-Piratization?
Global Solutions? a start.
How's the law of the land going?
And international law and cooperation?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Senator Dodd is defending the constitution
Contact progressive patriots to support that effort.
The only caveat I have on immunity for corporations is an exception for complete cooperation in the investigations of what Senator Dodd calls "the most heinous Presidential crimes in American history."
The only caveat I have on immunity for corporations is an exception for complete cooperation in the investigations of what Senator Dodd calls "the most heinous Presidential crimes in American history."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Just a little step back.
Re: My last three posts.
Law of the Sea?
Impeach!
Can we Talk?
They involve a balance of people
and the people in the balance.
Cooperation and competition,
of ideas and principles.
A missing segue may come back to me,
but Fear* is also in the balance.
Oh yes, it did return.
A bumper sticker?
Democrats: Stronger on Defense!
Republicans: Just Offensive!
[OK, multi-track]
[Democrats: Stronger and Just on Defense!
Republicans:Unjust and Just Offensive!]
So I return to my course: ALTERMAN is a must read, belated for me. but of/by/for The Nation or US?
* And Fearing Fear Itself a must read as well
UNLESS YOU FEAR Paul Krugman, or The New York Times
Law of the Sea?
Impeach!
Can we Talk?
They involve a balance of people
and the people in the balance.
Cooperation and competition,
of ideas and principles.
A missing segue may come back to me,
but Fear* is also in the balance.
Oh yes, it did return.
A bumper sticker?
Democrats: Stronger on Defense!
Republicans: Just Offensive!
[OK, multi-track]
[Democrats: Stronger and Just on Defense!
Republicans:Unjust and Just Offensive!]
So I return to my course: ALTERMAN is a must read, belated for me. but of/by/for The Nation or US?
* And Fearing Fear Itself a must read as well
UNLESS YOU FEAR Paul Krugman, or The New York Times
Thursday, June 28, 2012
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 !]
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 !]
Friday, September 19, 2008
Palin Flip-Flop
Where is the change?
Rachell Maddow reports on the "troopergate" cover-up [*].
Sarah Palin is being investigated for abuse of power in her office as Governor of Alaska. A bi-partisan charged committee to which she first promised full cooperation, now faces the McCain CYA forces. (You know what that stands for.)
This is a case where the cover-up is worse than the offense. After all, there may have been no laws broken, but ethics apparently are relative. Ouch! Actually abuse of power is no small matter, but it seems that this could be tricky, as hypocrisy does not seem to raise many concerns. After all, would not most people, wish they could just make it so.
[*] Not to mention Palin popularity being hinged upon energy (another reference to a panel covered-up, think Cheney) but on the irony of the fiscal conservative in regard to the Alaska state budget growth, based on oil prices.
Rachell Maddow reports on the "troopergate" cover-up [*].
Sarah Palin is being investigated for abuse of power in her office as Governor of Alaska. A bi-partisan charged committee to which she first promised full cooperation, now faces the McCain CYA forces. (You know what that stands for.)
This is a case where the cover-up is worse than the offense. After all, there may have been no laws broken, but ethics apparently are relative. Ouch! Actually abuse of power is no small matter, but it seems that this could be tricky, as hypocrisy does not seem to raise many concerns. After all, would not most people, wish they could just make it so.
[*] Not to mention Palin popularity being hinged upon energy (another reference to a panel covered-up, think Cheney) but on the irony of the fiscal conservative in regard to the Alaska state budget growth, based on oil prices.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Benoit Mandelbrot
May he RIP! Here's to nature. What about sythesis of competition and cooperation? Do we now have the 4 C's?
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Stay the Comity of Course
I think the president’s address could be summarized by a comparison I made the day before, but which Senator McCain reminded me of in his call for comity after the speech and which he spelled out so as not to be confused with comedy. The Senator made a reference to bygone days of cooperation across the aisle, and a plea almost of why can’t we just get along. The day before a thought had crossed my mind, that Bush is probably a cross between Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield, but you just take out the first names. Senator McCain expects that we should just get along, while Bush just gets no respect. That will be very difficult if Bush thinks he is King and we are expected to stay the course through the Dangerfield.
Monday, May 23, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
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.
He or his attorney general 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. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and 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 cultural 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.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
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.
He or his attorney general 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. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and 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 cultural 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.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
(from an email of 9-25-03)
Move On and Look Back.
Dear Honorable Leaders:
Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.
My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.
After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.
Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!
I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."
If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.
The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.
On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?
Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?
The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.
Move On and Look Back.
Dear Honorable Leaders:
Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.
My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.
After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.
Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!
I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."
If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.
The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.
On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?
Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?
The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)