Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

Pre-empting Crimes

Remember: Humor is a tool and so is the dictionary.
While Bill Clinton hinged his excuses on "what the definition of 'is' is". The current administration has pre-empted excuses by hinging humor and the dictionary on "what the definition of everything is".

Abuse of power is the issue. While Clinton was investigated and found to have hinged his evasion of his abuse of an intern, Nixon was investigated and found to have covered up his abuses on the national level, and Bush pre-empted abuses on the international level. But now what Bush has done to get us "over there" will congress investigate too much "over here"?

If the above is too hard to follow, then try this:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: S. 1959 Here is the TEXT

While the above is the senate bill by the same name here is the House version which passed: H.R. 1955

While I did read the latter, the former will be discussed on The Thom Hartmann Show. [See Update]
AM1090 Seattle 9 AM to noon

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`In this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

I hate to alert any potential terrorists but do not these definitions pertain to The Project for the New American Century ? It may be a section that united the vote for this bill, while an understanding of it, would certainly mean to change it.

[Earlier Posted Comment here:
Earlier radicals there:
Jefferson-

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.Goldwater-

[Same Day Update: After posting the above I found this on Slate Bad Ideas]

[Update The Thom Hartmann Show: 11/29/07 ]
[11-29-07: TruthOut]

Phase II?

Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.

My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.

The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.

Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.

Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.

Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**

On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"

And The Hidden Power or con-science.

I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.

*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06

Fact:
I hope people are looking up the word in a dictionary, but for Encarta the first three definitions have something to do with truth, the fourth is a term of law, so he certainly would not use that one. Anyway, this must mean truth can change or maybe we will wait for the dictionary to change.

What can change is that a fact can be trustworthy or not. That is apparently what has changed. Then not, again.

I do believe that the president claimed that critics were wrong and that he should be trusted with the decision. That seems not to have changed, while the facts have. Not. That seems to have changed or it never mattered.

You can have your cake and eat it too, but crow...

Decider Stays Course.

But I fail to see how The Decider's veto is not THE ACTION that WOULD HAVE denied funding while Democrats did send the president more than he requested. It is hard to see that this is not a win for the president and a loss for the country, but the funding is only through September and domestic aid was reinserted.

SPEAKING OF REINSERTED:
I will pull up this...

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

BACK TO THE PRESENT:

Bush was warned that war in Iraq would boost terrorism.

Bush twice admonished reporters that al-Qaida is "a threat to your children

Lastly I will reference a gut check.
Just before that one.
Between those.

War On/Or Terrorism ?

[Anachronic Memorial to the victims of September 11th, 2001]


* * * * * *
CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.
[Petitions were presented to each U.S. Senator on August 28th, 2002 against the Iraq War Resolution.]
* * * * * *

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

* RERUN *[Compiled and distributed 8-19-02 ]<

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[ Subject Category: Peace, Foreign Policy,
Justice, War and Terrorism]

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published
since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war".

How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism November 27, 2001

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William
Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The
trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither.
(Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an
attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism
then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism".

It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism.

But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current
policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear
goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or
require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for
the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all"
we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September
20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our
first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the
contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of
Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and
humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes.

In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of
Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of
Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to
heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in
some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson

FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK

=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)

Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991

Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.

=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================

*

This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.

===============================================================================

On Democracy and media coverage:

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?

It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.

What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?

Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.

UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html

This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.

Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.

Roger Larson Bellevue, WA

===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================

Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.

Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)

While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.

When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?

Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

Roger Larson




ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]

To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000

COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000

RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.

This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.

[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===

TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.

TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic

It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]

Also a version here.

[*] Update link 1-18-10

Lt. Watada: "Unbecoming" Mistrial

“Very interesting" Oops, wrong accent or show.

“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.

My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .

My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."

NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?

I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.

But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...

NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.

The %th EleFont

Not to jump in the Lakoff, but my original heading was The %th Element*.  Which was a type-oh or capital gain on taking the 5th. Well, not that far.(But maybe we will see.) The 5th Element was meant as reference to Roman numeral "v" for the sake of my table ofor con tents. But it is still to be determined what page this is. 

So with this lede or misspell, it may be prophetic GeOhMeTry. i.e. Seg  Way to my original intents.
(Speaking of See Sea D? An Ed segue Center on Communicable Downers re:caller who thought the court is a dictionary.)

Speaking of Attacks Dogs and hold-ups...or holders?
[This was a heckuva sojourn.]

The original trigger:
Stephanie Miller ;-) Referencing Sarah Palin on the need to decimate the filter.  How who "chose their one" and "ushered him" into office.  Palin loses the God Particle.

Translation from the wings:  Sarah Palin wants to kill the medium.   

pc? speaking of wave NOT! Zed?
[but who knows]

* All of the above was here** before I finished there.  And well B4 Martin Bashir similarly rants.  Speaking of house of cards or Dawn Key Lake Offs!  Not to mention Vast Wind Mills.
** except first three(4) links (re:there)

The Most Dangerous Game

Maybe We Should Take the North Koreans at Their Word Tikkun.org
Yet Republicans?

(Bring the moral ground back to earth, Senator Graham)
(Quibbling over meanings: Making over interpreting law and policy. *
The issue is the use of words and the foundation of our nation on the constitution for the purpose of justice for the people. After that it takes a village idiot and a dictionary. There are only three branches of government. None supreme, but they have their separations in the constitution after that "it is not a location" but it is out there. There is no department of interpretation, but the courts do decide and the rest must interpret. That all three branches make law is a valid charge in their following it or not and the process keeping up.)

* punctuation neutral but bold links have been fully read and recommended if not bluntly. It must be remembered that any justice, executive or legislator can say anything, but it is the court that answers the question of law whether it is 5-4 or 8-1 and understood or followed or not.

[ 6-2-09: Not what I meant, exactly. ]
[ 6-9-09: No. Newt ]

HELP NAVIGATION

[update 2-5-09 LABELS Under Construction ]

[5-15-08: (nfry)= not fully read yet * and I have not followed through with * yet.]

This page is for those who may be new (or just old) to the world of blogging or in particular my train of dialog. Politics is about help navigation of our course. This page invites you to join that world and this. Have fun, following the links, and trains of thought, otherwise known as threads. TO THE RIGHT (I have not navigated the instructions enough to see if I can move it all to the left) is a column under the heading not beating around the bush? which was suppose to mean links to other sites, but now includes links like this. HELP NAVIGATION, then LOCAL POLITICS? which has a question mark added as that is not all it is about. Not to mention that it is definitely not original. (OK, there were two tangents, otherwise considered footnotes)

SEARCH BLOG: Top left corner of every blogspot page see SEARCH BLOG to insert a word or phrase to find all posts which contain it on this blog.
[Ctrl F] to search individual post pages use your CONTROL [Ctrl key] [type "F" key] to pop up a word search on your own computer, it should probably usually work.
LABELS: like Local that categorize post subjects(content is not completely labeled, but it will be a work in progress) note: italics sometimes used to hint at double entendre or sometimes emphasis in bold. Quotation marks may reference something that is just out there unattributed or used by me somewhere else, unless noted or linked.
Links: an option below the bottom line of every post that may be there if I choose to insert a link[*]. [12-17-07 Example: In this case the link provided at the bottom is also embedded at the GoLeft.TV and I take this opportunity to note the inconvenience if you do not have high speed internet to view the video, either way you get there. ALSO there, In particular if you scroll over you will see google search and if you click will get you the list of links to one of the runners-ups. ]

[12-14-07: See THE GAME to take the trip and follow the loop.

[ Bottom Line:
There and Here and around Now.
EMBEDDED QCON Quicke Comment on News ]
[Hint: another little clue to playing the game is that by scrolling over a link with your cursor (that is the little thing your mouse moves) you can see it on your bottom line before going there.]

12-17-07: our course [link added] Earlier: Local Politics? is now Local Content.

12-18-07: Note Right Column Content
Media Filter: Media Matters etc.
The Word: A Dictionary
The Law: The Constitution
The News: GoLeft.TV
Thought Crimes Act: Stop the Preemption
Find Senate Bill: example S. 1959
Find House Resolution: example H. 1955

[*] [4-9-08: henceforth referenced as "bonus link"]

Follow...up or Down.

Follow-Up or down?
The voodoo that some do do.
Including 9-11 and a horse of course, about the rule* of law?

DR-Deficit Reduction
NOW-"It's Complicated."

* not to pun on run down, but Thomas Roberts Rules,
[water gate ? B S: Uphold or Holdup?]

[ MSNBCTV is Thomas Roberts: live rule yesterday Jansing &Co Re:action swing flop De:volve Thomas Roberts ! ]
[Huff Times, AM**, Salon. NG v GN]
**Ruth Marcus: Obama Legacy? Re-do?

[ Politics Revisited / R M ? ! NewsNation M M. Jobs / Freedom ?]
[OK, the above line is as boggled as anything, but it is about the nature of the process and reality or the politics and die manics(to parse the dynamics or how of the beef) which is still spinning on The Cycle.  The Supreme Court is not a dictionary.  Justice Roberts reportedly did not say it was tax.  But Republicans need to see things black and white or they can't uphold their politics of holdup.***]

[Fee Fi Foe FUMM? MB on Mitt the Mandatious(ChamberMade). Fear and uh...
MR
RM.. uh, Martin Bashir pre-CP.  Mitt the Moderate? ]

*** Again, sorry for getting caught up in the pun and parsing of politics. It comes down to one word: running.  Running the government or running for office.  Another word: table.  Oops.  What is on the table?  Do we want them running the table?  Obama ran to put it all on the table and Republicans want to run the table.

Vanity Be Thy Vain?

We should ask ourselves.
Have we used any words in vain?
Have we asked any questions in vain?
Have our troops died in vain?
Have we used a dictionary in vain?
Have we ever written in vain?
Have we ever read in vain?
Have we ever listened in vain?
Have we ever killed in vain?
Is any feeling in vain?
Vanity we thy Name.
Vanity be thy mirror.

(the clean version, i.e. no links or connections, but one.
Is it all in vain?)

[4-1-08: previous "hallowed" link below replaced (nyfr) = not yet fully read ]

Earlier Rant or Ramble (and back)

Better to flip-flop than to completely flip or flop.

Judge and re-judge thyself,
lest thee be Re-judged and De-judged.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(The links were added as after thoughts, or post script. I now find a core theme for these seemingly out of the blue thoughts. Bold inserted hypocrisy -(?) and thanks to GoLeft.TV below.)

Compelled* or expelled ** for flip-flop, my point is that it turns on politics.

*to go on... stated plainly flip-flop is explained by nuances and if nuance is not applied will be hypocrisy or just flip-flop. Long story short: Nuance is just flip-flop, while flip-flop can be just hypocrisy. But justice is not just _ _ _ _ ! (fill-in or leave blank)

But underlying this duality, is that politics is not a dirty word! No more than is power or money, but it is about having a choice and better than choosing between tyranny and anarchy. Using it or loosing it may have bearing, but will not indicate ones bearings.

A careful look at Barack Obama's bearing, as well as his choice of words and their meaning will highlight what will be found in the dictionary under bearing(s) [especially the 8th]. There is no reference to age or marbles or balls except as in page, carriage, heritage and language, unless one digs into heraldry and a likely escutcheon but as a pilot McCain should know better and not be so touchy and defensive. Or is it just offensive?

** Mocumentary and stranger yet later and more, and surfing the net.

[5-14-08: In trying to shore up a weak link (one of the above did not connect) I found a stronger link to what started this offensive narrative(McCain claiming Hamas endorses Obaba). Stated more correctly McCain endorses Bin Laden in his argument for his bearing down on Iraq. Of course this is just a trick of words, but the emphasis is on the trick and the focus should be on the meaning, and the tack. (A midcourse correction saved me from a tactical(no technical)error with tact) Specifically of course it is about our course and the choice between A. Obama's tact and B. McCain's tack and how we deal with attacks or a tact.]

[ 5-14-08: Since this originally seemed out of the blue, here is one out of the red (nfry) to be "fair and balanced". ]

(?) 5-14-08: even I can't recall the reason for the "bold insertion" reference unless I'm lost in italics but hypocrisy is noted in the out of the red above. And now I add a spin for the ages titled E Pluribus Nixon and a note on "positive polarization" and find irony in having a bearing without a (w)hole or a shaft to spin on.

"Truthiness" of Ranked Words.

Banned Words are listed by a Michigan university, and those words in the headline itself are tongue-in-cheek as in not really the truthiness. But "truthiness" did rank(def. 9) in their rank(def. 19 or 24 slang) of words. It was however honored as "the word that best summed up 2006 in an online survey by dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster."

Congratulations to my name sake, Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, or rather his choice of name as the inspiration for my choice of The Liaison Report.

Speaking of words (and I suppose purists would say writing of words), as the year closed I thought of the origins or my rank of a few words.

"Bush Basher" and "Context".

And since 2006 was about change of course, I will MoveOn for the moment and pick up this track in the next post.

A belated HAPPY NEW YEAR, but I feel we turned a few pages before the last closed.

THE WAR OF THE WORDS!

One change Bush may want to consider is getting a new speechwriter. One who will write speeches he can’t mess up. He blames trial lawyers for Ob-gyn not being able to practice their love, with women all over this country. Structurally it may make sense if you are very careful, narrow-minded and know what is meant. But do we really want a president who stays the course, since one reason for the Iraq war was to make sure Saddam knew he meant what he says?

Maybe he is the great educator and this comedy a ploy to get the dictionary more widely read if not changed. How can we tell the jokes from the truth that may leak out? We know that leaks are a ploy and combined with increased information classification* to minimize actual truth getting out, very effective. A joke or not, is there a chance that at his first press opportunity when he said things would be easier if he were dictator that our friends let alone enemies knew what he meant?

Brace for more "catastrophic success". Which means winning what you don’t know how to win or ever will, faster. Or at least not being able to say it.

* After writing this I pursued a link that had been recommended by one of the links I have to the right by those NOTBEATING… It will be read later, but the only connection I make is to the reference on classifications not comedy. It has no link to my thinking this comical or the comedy line I pursued, as I had not followed up on it yet and don’t know if I will, follow up or find it comical. But in being preemptive or funny, timing is everything and words may be key too. This footnote while at first seemingly unnecessary actually tied up more than I expected.

MEDIA MASSAGERS

Nader and Bush: What a contrast. Nader packed with issues. Bush packed with clarity. Both can serve a beneficial purpose. Clarity in a debate. Nader has too many to be clear. But I concur with three. The parties, the media and the money are too big a factor in our democracy.

Bush? Well, clarity. The one pol who hated polls as well as government starts his campaign by using both to wedge his way into the topic of marriage or gays. The one who talks about others rewriting history, now wages a battle for clarity or the dictionary. What about giving some clarity on states rights and/or religious freedom. The New York Times has to clarify. “Putting Bias in the Constitution.” http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022604C.shtml

The benefit of both these controversial figures is to bring issues to the forefront for debate. Now who will have the guts to face the issues with clarity in debates? That aside who needs the media?

SELF EN-TITLED...RULES

[11-10-11 title upgraded and link added.]
(Defining our way to wars), Or beating around the Encarta* Bush.
Fighting terrorism, the cause,
finding Patriotism, the effect.

We fight the terrorists: defined

Somebody using violence for political purposes:
somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping,
and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: defined

Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports
or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

In need of an un-redefined way out,
Still in need of defining a way in.
Still having a ways to go.

Still going… I intentionally borrowed, no Bush or Blair intended.

Uncertain the rules allowed, the matter is now embedded.

Uncertain an asterisk did it, I did not wish to take too much credit[**].

The following: Take it or leave it.

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©
& (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

You thought it was all over, so if you’re not with it, you’re again it.
[11-10-11 links not provided to Encarta, since it requires registration. See upgrade of title above and additional link.]

DEFINING OUR WAR TO WARS.

Fighting terrorism, supposedly the cause,
with patriotism the resulting claim.

We fight the terrorists: Somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

Have we considered the definitions before our actions or is it just rhetoric? Do we know the way we will choose before we act or are they empty words or just talk?

Some see a way out that depends on the definitions, others see war as better than more defining of our ways or doing nothing. Which way will we go after the war? Will we have it defined? Will there be an after? Will we still be in need of defining or ever stop the redefining?

Thanks to:

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Also Russ Baker, Howard Zinn, and www.tompaine.com

PASSIVE AND MUTE?
by Russ Baker
Iraq is out from under Hussein, but that shouldn't leave liberals at a loss for words.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7682

MY COUNTRY: THE WORLD
by Howard Zinn
Tom Paine enlarged the idea of patriotism when he said: "My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind."
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7726

NOTE: Originally I titled this "Defining our way to wars", but in capitalizing it, an interesting typo crept in and I could not resist leaving it.