Understanding the nature?

Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong

"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"


"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"

Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?

If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.

Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.

I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".

* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]

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):

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."

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."

Especially as it continues:

Was he offended by the shot at skeptic(sic) of the science behind climate change?

"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."

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".

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?]

Arrow of Time

or Symmetry of Inheritance?
Thanks to Keith Olbermann and
FOX News for the
Trifecta of Bad Times.
An end to an error, and the flip-flop of freedom as not a force but a purpose that requires work. There will be no end to humor or force for humility, as it is no longer funny that Comedy Central has more News and more balance. With inspiration I acknowledge the difficulty in laying down the tools of sarcasm and satire, but I will try to remember more than just the hope in this day of transition.

And maybe Biden can even aspire with a nod to Sarah Palin
and even Dick Cheney, to work with congress.
As far as leadership, and OBAMA
the time has come for change.

[Approximate closing of this post: 10:20 BG (before google)]
[update: 10:45 no end to humor or force for humility (links added and seemingly proof of some sense or other)]
[Please note that I DID NOT find it funny that Chief Justice Roberts could not get the oath straight.]
[I originally misreported it as Trifecta of Bad News]

[Update 1-21-09] to be sure see above: There will be no end to humor or force for humility...links to video of original Obama oath and actual oath.
[Update 1-26-09: Colbert catches it.]

Leaking Intelligence

Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.

{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?

BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.

Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.

[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]

Europe and U.N. and many of U.S. see...

Foundations for Hope
(Unprinted Letter to Editor King County Journal:9-29-03)

A September 29th letter , "U.N. not best choice" asks why the anti-Americanism in Europe? The question itself is only one interpretation. He goes on to blame the U. N. for the choice between doing nothing and using force, while minimizing political matters.

The writer may find it easy to see why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us, but he cannot see where Europeans and the U. N. value "political matters" like "honest debate". I can certainly see why he would see these as having no connection, when it was the administration that framed it as a choice between using force and doing nothing. And then expects to find hope?

The only hope is that we can improve our practice of democracy before we force it on others. Our founding documents have many words of hope but I don’t recall much about forcing it on others. There are many words we need to practice more or we have little hope of even working with others.

It should not be odd that when "political matters" are minimized or made a mockery of that the result is having little choice but force. The choice between "political matters" and mockery should be made in every election and should have been clear in 2000.

How ironic there seems an undebated not to mention unfunded and unfounded mandate for "democracy". For those I waste irony on, I am sure I must probably make clear: yes we should hope and do more for democracy.

[updated editing 1-29-09]

Happy President's Day

Speaking of Shout Out:
Just where did George Washington say:
"Government is brute force." ?
Really! Not to mention where does the question mark go?
So even though it is neither president's actual birthday
and not our first president's till next Sunday,
I do him the reference here:Better context

At his inauguration, Washington stated, "This Constitution is really in its formation a government of the people . . . in which all power is derived from and, at stated periods, reverts to them. . . . It is purely a government of laws, made and executed by the fair substitutes of the people alone. . . [The American form of government is] a new phenomenon in the political and moral world, and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brute force."

[UPDATE:ARARA not... ]
In this regard for wondering:
From LewRockwell.com
and Where thin air meets hot air,
there is More Scrutiny Needed.

And more on Thrasymachus:
Or the Mealymouth Debates.*

The Nature of Justice. The question which opens this immense dialogue is: what is justice? Several inadequate definitions are put forward, but the most emphatically presented definition is given by a young Sophist, Thrasymachus. He defines justice as whatever the strongest decide it is, and that the strong decide that whatever is in their best interest is just (review again the Athenian position in Melian Debate). Socrates dismisses this argument by proving that the strong rarely figure out what is in their best interest, and this can't be just since justice is a good thing.

*No disrespect for the Athenian position but a play on the media or maybe the right. (Actually I did just review it, and then the history that Athenians were defeated by the Spartans or Typhoid. ) Story aside I wish to note my leap based on the words that preceded and how one leaps. To this: Some expect their thinking or success to not be based on others. While they may be right in parts, together they cannot stand without facing the wrong. Freedom in particular does not stand or fall alone. And in view of some wrongs, must not. Yet arguments on economics and the environment are a case of not even being able to survive without some outside force. Or a case of the case for a free market, not being able to survive without the workings of the market as it actually exists, while anachronism and stories run through it. [Bumper stickers and name calling aside, there is a tendency to oversimplify, but here goes. It may be a case of the bubbleheaded elite and who blows it for whom.]But I guess that is just disrespect for the Athenian position and respect for the review.

Myths for review:
Ruin your health with the Obama Stimulus...
Thin air meets hot air...

Above the Law?

Below the Media!

Trayvon Martin,

Stand your ground law.

Re:sources

USNews,

Slavin Law Firm,**

Re-Writing (theLastWord) on a Hate Crime*

Huffington Post /NRA across the nation,

NPR spotlight?

* I have intentionally minimized wordplay in this post, with this possible exception.

** FSL

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

F.S. §776.013(3)

3-27-12 MSNBC:

Lawrence O'Donnell,

Florida Sentinel,

Denver Post,

Miami Herald,

Rachel Maddow,

Florida Sun Sentinel...

Politics Nation,

The Last Word,

The Ed Show.

Obamacare Tax Penalty,

Morning Joe.

Good Night Joe!

SHOUT OUT!

Glenn Beck said: George Washington said:
Government is brute force...
Interesting context...

Better context

At his inauguration, Washington stated, "This Constitution is really in its formation a government of the people . . . in which all power is derived from and, at stated periods, reverts to them. . . . It is purely a government of laws, made and executed by the fair substitutes of the people alone. . . [The American form of government is] a new phenomenon in the political and moral world, and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brute force."

Questionable context: "Being brute force, it can never do un-alloyed good."

Regardless of source, I agree. That is the nature of forces.

Key word: un-alloyed if it exists. Or unalloyed Fox.

Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.

[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*

*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]

*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?

[See Asterisks here **]

Yesterday was a nice round number: 02-04-08

Today is the day for the tide to turn.
For Change!
The day before was a Super Bowl,
today is a Super Tuesday!
The Giants beat the Patriots. Hmmm.
Post Prophetic? Or just luck?
It was "hard work", but they play by rules,
a season ends and another begins.

But today we can take this ground swell for change,
for the underdog, and for hard work
and work the force for change.
Freedom is not a force.
History does not blaze a trail.
People and leaders do,
by passing laws and making sure they are followed.
I knew I was going somewhere, I hope you can see now.

Let impeachment process begin
RICHARD W. BEHAN GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle PI

The above link supports much of what I have noted in this blog in the last 7 years, and a few I missed. It follows a pattern of preemption that if leaked, actually caused a preemption cycle of its own. An important question is, how long has this been the policy of this ship of state, and how long has it been leaking. These are not mountains out of mole hills, but trickle down by passing the buck. Investigations must begin, while shoring up the process of accountability. It is not too early to begin the work of transition. But never too late to join a tide of change. And if this metophor seems to imply a washing away, or just another cycle... true. Things will wash a away, but people will still be the point, not the boats and the driftwood.

See link below, in particular.

Historic Health Care Bill Passed

The House has Passed the Senate Bill.
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]

The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.

*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.

[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]

The Bermuda Triangle

or whatever their shorts.
(Scroll Over) It is surpising that there is not a charge of Death Panel in this wild shot by the media, but there does seem to be a lot of hot air about a task force that has been around awhile.
[Odd segue? Consider the populist problem of Geitner (shorts) and whether the right replacement would even be approved by the Right, over the question (their) of the task force even being related to health reform let alone (whatever) the administration. (see Paradigms/Huff Po/Yale]

[UPDATE: 11-21-09 Point...man? Laying it on thick, Geitner is not the pointman...He has been commended but there are the Sec. of Labor and Commerce that should also weigh in. Geitner might just be the forward or center.]

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]

Underwhelmed?

[Updated 6-23-11 on two fronts: below and here.]
Fairly Helmed(text)

Underwhelmed* is the lede some might choose for their take on
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)

Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way. We’ve ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.

As they do, we must learn their lessons. Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.

We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force -- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we’re doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their own destiny.

In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power -- it is the principles upon which our union was founded.

* Norman Goldman and Mike Malloy

[6-23-11 Selected quotes from remarks extended.]

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

(...)

That’s a lesson worth remembering -- that we are all a part of one American family. Though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the United States of America is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. Now, let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. With confidence in our cause, with faith in our fellow citizens, and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America -- for this generation, and the next.

May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Bully for Obama, no Bully, no Teddy,more pulpit.

DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)

Thomas Barnett [***] YouTube presentation
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

A friend sent me this, very optimistic, and saw it as so non-political. Fine. How does this come about? How do we create a "New Leviathan" albeit, calling it "New Everything Else"? This is fine as long as we realize it is political or it is the same old thing, otherwise know as the battle between realism and idealism.

Transparency and secrecy do have their distinct applications,(especially in war and diplomacy) but accountability and rules are in the getting there. (Power is not good or evil only results are and even they are seen from more than one perspective.)

A-to-Z rules focused on dealing with everything? How does one get them? Of course that is not the idea. Excusing based on result, is that the excuse? Hmmm. He has some good metaphors. Networking force? Where does it start? Where does it end? Security? Funny?

I think that he has some good points, but it all could be hinged on a point the world would love to get to, and they would all love to be there, to be the decider. I do not minimize the need for something, and he points to many good ideas to separate expertise and responsibilities, but I would emphasize that there is much more to talk about that may need the same (or better) analysis. There is a "heckuva" lot of work getting the world to see that there is somehow going to be a "new world order", no matter who brings it about and what it is brought about for. And there is no denying the current balance of powers and just wishing or demanding or excusing them away.

This is a good approach for the military, the rest may be everything else. Including looking at how we came to learn this lesson and whether it was already plain to too few.

Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **

[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.

[***] earlier link to Barnett

Between Two Farces.

Force A. Business
Force B. Freedom

Now that is climate change, the change in tone of my heading and lede or ship some are in. But my original intent was in all due respect to the opposition of the Affordable Care Act.  The farces?  You can keep your healthcare, not that the government is a monopoly and can tell them to keep you and they are not able to change. Now that is a swift navigator.

BTW: If some of my perspective is lost in translation it may be because I used them elsewhere.*  Example:  It takes more than three points for perspective, but one more to fix it.

* Knot so related Google Find: Paul ? Not yet read.[9-30-13 now not so unrelated, not to mention AB||BA.]
(insert order: 1,2,3, 4,6,5) Not that it was a $ixth $ents or B.S.[!]

9-30-13 2B Slighty(1) less(1e/t) obtuse(2).(2A&e/e)Lemon Ship /Obtusity?  xG Ctrl F(2) "'choice".
Note: 2B & xG(FC)
[update here @  =. ]

Between two other farces, and The Cycle.  Democracy and the Republic pop U lace.  I am talking congres as it is divided.  President Obama won his election, the Democrats took the Senate and the popular vote for the House is also a Democratic majority.  If not for Obamacare?  I think not.  There must be an end to the compromise and hostage taking.  Not to mention cats and dogs on Martin Bashir.  A clean vote would pass in the House.  I guess it is a filibuster of one, the House Speaker under the Hastert* rule**.  Knot so random insert.
* 10-1-13 **

Slip of the tongue [2.]

I was going to be facetious and say in the tone of an Ed McMahon rejoinder to Johnny Carson: "I did not know that" instead of Slip of the tongue [2]
But
Bush as made some progress in candor at a Press Conference.

There were two exchanges that seem to bring light on our problems more than Bush or the Press apparently know. Emphases added for focus.

ONE:

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

TWO:

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forgo their own financial interest

Two brilliant examples where congress should take charge of their powers[the purse, war and treaty] that we address concerns like these at home before they become questions of foreign policy and the press refocus as well.

Special thanks to Rachel Maddow for covering things that are important. While I heard these earlier in the day, yesterday, and then found the sources.

Intelligent Design? More Irony.

Going back two posts to the reality of cause and effect that seems to be denied by Bush, it should be obvious that Cindy Sheehan's important question(What is the noble cause?)is normally addressed preemptively in order for there to be any success in a project. Just how can anyone expect to reach a goal that is shifting and undefined, not to mention prepared for properly without all the input available.

Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.

Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.

Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.

Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.

Bane and Company

"If we keep talking about the economy we will lose."
A more anachronistically correct quote was never said.
The sentence and yes I mean (bane and Company, Inc.)

It was actually said by Presidential candidate John McCain, about their campaign, and is exactly what will doom any Republican campaign. The Democrats will want to keep talking about the economy, as well as what the solutions are.

[My apologies*** for losing which major network noted* the Romney "quote"/ad. But later...]

* a search engine found these two links

[On another front: civil disobedience and** the blue line***.]

** (correction)/update
*** actually I have two...this is a tragedy that if true, begs the question. Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights. Will there be accountability? Is it a federal concern, or based on community standards, or walking like an Egyptian. I am not advising the same pathology, but there is breaking news on that front.
*** third dimes a charm Who walks the line?

[Note the timing & *** which are recyled, and problematic: The asterisks are separated by my tangents and breaking news. There are two uses of the triple asterisks within the text, as well in footnote. This is an unhint of sorts. I wish I could bold a path.]
[The tragedy of the third footnote*** allows segue "On another front...": the line the law and military walk,(see drafts) for the people, and what makes us exceptional.]
[Now three in draft, including True Footnote.]

Tolerance at the table?

People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...

[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]

[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]

[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]