Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query get a show. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query get a show. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Brackets and the Debt Clock
[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
Thursday, September 19, 2002
FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK
=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)
Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991
Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.
=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================
*
This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04
Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.
[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]
With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Sincerely, Roger Larson
Post script. (4-25-02)
If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".
However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.
I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?
Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.
===============================================================================
On Democracy and media coverage:
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.
What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?
Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.
UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html
This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.
Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.
Roger Larson Bellevue, WA
===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================
Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.
Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)
While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.
When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?
Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
Roger Larson
ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]
To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000
COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000
RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.
This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI
[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===
TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.
TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)
Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991
Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.
=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================
*
This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04
Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.
[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]
With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Sincerely, Roger Larson
Post script. (4-25-02)
If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".
However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.
I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?
Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.
===============================================================================
On Democracy and media coverage:
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.
What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?
Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.
UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html
This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.
Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.
Roger Larson Bellevue, WA
===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================
Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.
Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)
While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.
When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?
Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.
If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".
It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.
Roger Larson
ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]
To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000
COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000
RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.
This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.
[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===
TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.
TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic
It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
A Plan to B-Team
[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Thursday, March 20, 2008
UPDATE ONLY?
Barack Obama gave the following speech
on March 18th, 2008
which has come to be know as:
"a more perfect union"? **
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U P D A T E . B E L O W (SEE BREAK)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A great speech which I challenge anyone with a heart to listen to.
And for those who prefer to read
the text: in his own words.
or my peremptory comments here.
Obama is right, now what will others write? Never mind.
[Obama Explains Wright, Will McCain Explain the Far Right? 3-18-08]
As far as The Day After... and speechless:
Five years ago that day the war began.
Honor the dead and fighting, by hard work.
But belated? another speech.
[The Day After...3-19-08]
[BTW: articulated throwing under the bus? No Joke: 11-8-02 not update but a back draft, whiffed at by Ed Schultz today. My further update in the next hour as far as going far enough: a caller wanted to move on from race because of her fears of the dialogue* and its circular nature, but that is why Obama should be heard over and over in order to get through to the herd that are only sheep. Thanks to Cheryl and the process.]
* she is right about the media that feeds the dialogue and the sheep, but the only food is the proper light to face it head on. A ram charger, not to dodge or forget the ewe.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
H A P P Y WholeEday: [3-26-08]
I will be on sabbatical and hope to limit my postings to here.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[UPDATE 3-22-08: Media Moment: Billed...]
** UPDATE 3-24-08: Having updated this intro to the speech,(another link) I will encourage that it be read and reread or reviewed. And further that its title as it will come to be know by, will direct people in just that review of our history.
McSane Speech (Marjorie Cohn) or McSame BuSh (only worse)
The New Wave (see Wave LABEL)
The Ed Schultz Show and thanks to caller Jeff
for an inspiring speech in defense of pews on Where America comes to talk.
A Tribute to McCain: So Plain - - In Spain,
Raining McCain - - A Good Sense of Trickle Down.(And math and English "24/7" in particular 3-4-08?)
McCain gives response "to that heart felt statement"
of his and mine and the old GOP.
And tort reform from Hillary? Not exactly.
QCON: Working group a good idea,
but link of war to economy is key. Reform of system that puts investor profits and executive bailouts over failure of so-called free markets, may be a pincer attack that Obama and Clinton can perform on the trickle-down. Meanwhile as far as pressure to get out of Iraq, remembering who the commander-in-chief is, not that he should get his way, but his way of getting out may be hampered by who he and his crowd are. They could leave a disaster as bad as they believe it will be, because they can or rather because they are unwilling to do what might work. Putting the war on the books is a start. (Thanks to Rachell Maddow and David Bender for this QCON linking in my mind, and Fox for Hillary and The New York Times for Krugman)
[3-25-08: Till further notice all links will be completely read prior to inclusion unless noted. The previous two have now been read, and the linkage made seems supported. As to earlier links, I may be cherry picking, but I don't rip off the branch or chop down the tree, or push the pits.
(Seemingly apropos to the following already posted and read.) ]
[ Bush "comma" 4000, "Say Goodnight, Gracie" "Sadly.."
(hint: scroll over links, read "4000," first) ]
[ McCain: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.
I've seen the facts on the ground," (Period)?
And a look back: links not necessarily read - (nnr) . ]
(Note: new notation during this segue/sabbatical,
except for retroactive exception of Gracie link )
[Note: error found in post, 6-29-06 - link (nnr). ]
[3-26-08: Only link inserted above referencing Easter ]
[ Responsible Plan presented by Darcy Burner to Take Back America Conference ][also noted at Politickerwa.com ]
[ Five years is long enough: A week and The Day After....]
[3-27-08: Supreme Court Rules Bush Exceeded His Powers]
An odd light on the roots of law which
which need to feed the branches of Government.]
[3-28-08: Federal Judge: Michigan's Presidential Primary Law Unconstitutional -
NPR News: National Pentagon Radio? -
Lhasa Monks Accuse Beijing of Lying Over Unrest -
Process, Process, Process. ??? ]
[Political Intelligence Disclosure Act to open insider market influence? and other
Updates in a look back ]
on March 18th, 2008
which has come to be know as:
"a more perfect union"? **
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U P D A T E . B E L O W (SEE BREAK)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A great speech which I challenge anyone with a heart to listen to.
And for those who prefer to read
the text: in his own words.
or my peremptory comments here.
Obama is right, now what will others write? Never mind.
[Obama Explains Wright, Will McCain Explain the Far Right? 3-18-08]
As far as The Day After... and speechless:
Five years ago that day the war began.
Honor the dead and fighting, by hard work.
But belated? another speech.
[The Day After...3-19-08]
[BTW: articulated throwing under the bus? No Joke: 11-8-02 not update but a back draft, whiffed at by Ed Schultz today. My further update in the next hour as far as going far enough: a caller wanted to move on from race because of her fears of the dialogue* and its circular nature, but that is why Obama should be heard over and over in order to get through to the herd that are only sheep. Thanks to Cheryl and the process.]
* she is right about the media that feeds the dialogue and the sheep, but the only food is the proper light to face it head on. A ram charger, not to dodge or forget the ewe.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
H A P P Y WholeEday: [3-26-08]
I will be on sabbatical and hope to limit my postings to here.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[UPDATE 3-22-08: Media Moment: Billed...]
** UPDATE 3-24-08: Having updated this intro to the speech,(another link) I will encourage that it be read and reread or reviewed. And further that its title as it will come to be know by, will direct people in just that review of our history.
McSane Speech (Marjorie Cohn) or McSame BuSh (only worse)
The New Wave (see Wave LABEL)
The Ed Schultz Show and thanks to caller Jeff
for an inspiring speech in defense of pews on Where America comes to talk.
A Tribute to McCain: So Plain - - In Spain,
Raining McCain - - A Good Sense of Trickle Down.(And math and English "24/7" in particular 3-4-08?)
McCain gives response "to that heart felt statement"
of his and mine and the old GOP.
And tort reform from Hillary? Not exactly.
QCON: Working group a good idea,
but link of war to economy is key. Reform of system that puts investor profits and executive bailouts over failure of so-called free markets, may be a pincer attack that Obama and Clinton can perform on the trickle-down. Meanwhile as far as pressure to get out of Iraq, remembering who the commander-in-chief is, not that he should get his way, but his way of getting out may be hampered by who he and his crowd are. They could leave a disaster as bad as they believe it will be, because they can or rather because they are unwilling to do what might work. Putting the war on the books is a start. (Thanks to Rachell Maddow and David Bender for this QCON linking in my mind, and Fox for Hillary and The New York Times for Krugman)
[3-25-08: Till further notice all links will be completely read prior to inclusion unless noted. The previous two have now been read, and the linkage made seems supported. As to earlier links, I may be cherry picking, but I don't rip off the branch or chop down the tree, or push the pits.
(Seemingly apropos to the following already posted and read.) ]
[ Bush "comma" 4000, "Say Goodnight, Gracie" "Sadly.."
(hint: scroll over links, read "4000," first) ]
[ McCain: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.
I've seen the facts on the ground," (Period)?
And a look back: links not necessarily read - (nnr) . ]
(Note: new notation during this segue/sabbatical,
except for retroactive exception of Gracie link )
[Note: error found in post, 6-29-06 - link (nnr). ]
[3-26-08: Only link inserted above referencing Easter ]
[ Responsible Plan presented by Darcy Burner to Take Back America Conference ][also noted at Politickerwa.com ]
[ Five years is long enough: A week and The Day After....]
[3-27-08: Supreme Court Rules Bush Exceeded His Powers]
An odd light on the roots of law which
which need to feed the branches of Government.]
[3-28-08: Federal Judge: Michigan's Presidential Primary Law Unconstitutional -
NPR News: National Pentagon Radio? -
Lhasa Monks Accuse Beijing of Lying Over Unrest -
Process, Process, Process. ??? ]
[Political Intelligence Disclosure Act to open insider market influence? and other
Updates in a look back ]
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]
Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.
While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.
Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).
The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.
Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]
Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!
As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.
It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
New Hampshire Defeat?
Or Win for progressives?[or change *]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting
John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting
My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.
And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.
[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]
[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting
John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting
My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.
And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.
[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]
[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Other tracks.
Business Week and Russert and the Media.
My comment there:
[[[Ed Schultz would be a fit for some shoes here, but I think he enjoys the job he's got too much and could actually be in the running for the whole show. And of course Keith Olbermann would be great, if he was not so great at his present job.]]]
- - - - -
Meanwhile I have been writing in other formats, message board and email. And will get to the following (nfry), later.
- - - - -
When McCain Drops by Steve Rosenbaum
US General Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes
Broken Laws, Broken LivesPhysicians for Human Rights
Michael Reagan Should be charged for terrorism
or they are right, our freedoms are what gives us terrorists.
How could a wrong be so right? NOT!
She talks about the real America. Will she be heard?
In no particular order:
Kucinich: Impeachment Not "Off the Table"
I hope to be back to these links, but wish that they did not tie in so well, that more will be following. But I will summarize my feeling that McCain may be just a place holder in a strategy where there is too much to loose not to give it more than he's got, and that plays into the way I see them always playing it.
Meanwhile Obama has "flip-flopped"[**] on the Public Campaign Finance System but faces it in a more honest a principled manner than the media can follow or wishes to follow. While McCain may just be a distraction for a sleeper candidate, they cannot come up with one that should not be asked what he or she would do about holding history accountable.
* GE profits are a picture that may not fit full disclosure journalism, economics or environment, but then I acknowledge I don't fit or have the full picture either. Meaning I have taken digs at them, and it does not mean that profits are above principles or question, but that it is another story.
** The Catch-22 for them not us, but we*** can't help it. "Flip-flop" is a charge that was created by those that fear nuance or the work required to do their jobs or an attempt to do too many jobs or diminish those that see your own flip-flops, which maybe is all they can see, since this has created a loop. [[I did not intend to throw the book at a term, but then we are all about the Catch-44. And then there is the actual records. Not that I want to go there, but that may be one of the reasons we are here, with McCain a candidate, not his record, but the difficulty in facing it all, and the actions/reactions that brings.]]
*** "we" does depend on a job sometimes and who "them" is, not to mention the word.(While there may be some typo's or gramatical sloppiness in this post, this line have been double and triple checked mentally, not technologically.)
My comment there:
Not being a regular consumer of his work, I did not have him on a pedestal, but given the nature of the business he was probably the best they could afford. And given the nature of the world, even harder to find one without more of an edge. Maybe as the comments on Kiley have shown.My suggestion to MSNBC is to fill several pairs of shoes in memory of Russert's work. Not as in trying to fill his shoes, but to uphold his several jobs. It will still be difficult. [Maybe David Bender if not Rachel Maddow could fill one or more of those pairs, but not necessarily that they or GE* would want them to fit.]
[[[Ed Schultz would be a fit for some shoes here, but I think he enjoys the job he's got too much and could actually be in the running for the whole show. And of course Keith Olbermann would be great, if he was not so great at his present job.]]]
- - - - -
Meanwhile I have been writing in other formats, message board and email. And will get to the following (nfry), later.
- - - - -
When McCain Drops by Steve Rosenbaum
US General Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes
Broken Laws, Broken LivesPhysicians for Human Rights
Michael Reagan Should be charged for terrorism
or they are right, our freedoms are what gives us terrorists.
How could a wrong be so right? NOT!
She talks about the real America. Will she be heard?
In no particular order:
Kucinich: Impeachment Not "Off the Table"
I hope to be back to these links, but wish that they did not tie in so well, that more will be following. But I will summarize my feeling that McCain may be just a place holder in a strategy where there is too much to loose not to give it more than he's got, and that plays into the way I see them always playing it.
Meanwhile Obama has "flip-flopped"[**] on the Public Campaign Finance System but faces it in a more honest a principled manner than the media can follow or wishes to follow. While McCain may just be a distraction for a sleeper candidate, they cannot come up with one that should not be asked what he or she would do about holding history accountable.
* GE profits are a picture that may not fit full disclosure journalism, economics or environment, but then I acknowledge I don't fit or have the full picture either. Meaning I have taken digs at them, and it does not mean that profits are above principles or question, but that it is another story.
** The Catch-22 for them not us, but we*** can't help it. "Flip-flop" is a charge that was created by those that fear nuance or the work required to do their jobs or an attempt to do too many jobs or diminish those that see your own flip-flops, which maybe is all they can see, since this has created a loop. [[I did not intend to throw the book at a term, but then we are all about the Catch-44. And then there is the actual records. Not that I want to go there, but that may be one of the reasons we are here, with McCain a candidate, not his record, but the difficulty in facing it all, and the actions/reactions that brings.]]
*** "we" does depend on a job sometimes and who "them" is, not to mention the word.(While there may be some typo's or gramatical sloppiness in this post, this line have been double and triple checked mentally, not technologically.)
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Happy Earth Day!
The earth celebrates the 38th Earth Day. As a youth participant of the very first Earth Day 1970, I was out there in front of a local shopping center at a table as part of a class project, educating the public about various aspects of the environment. I was also excited to have been in attendance at a speech by R. Buckminster Fuller.
Today I heard that one of the original co-chairs of that event has finally seen the light and registered as a Democrat. Unfortunately as I am posting this just under the wire, I can not dig up his name. That's my excuse, but I don't know why it is not on the link above.
Also today I would like to note the upcoming 25th anniversary of Newsweek On Air. Today's show was particularly good in contrast to (well it may not be fair to contrast such a weekly collaboration with something else) but the recent "firestorm" of events came to mind.
Lastly I would like to note contrasting links: HorsesAss.org The only local "liberal" talk radio, and Sightline.org a "progressive" think tank. Well, balancing links may be a more proper way of putting them, and the liberal "quotation marks" are his, the "progressive" marks are mine, as just a short hand reference to my original intent to contrast or balance ala The Liaison Report's intent as well.
I hope to get back to improve this post, but may be continuing my sabbatical,it went so well last time...* (April 3rd to April 10th) April 5th was an exception to the ruler.
* [Saved April 3rd, 2007 - not used till post-April 11th.]
To whom it may concern- - The FCC or applicable congressional committee
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:
Today I heard that one of the original co-chairs of that event has finally seen the light and registered as a Democrat. Unfortunately as I am posting this just under the wire, I can not dig up his name. That's my excuse, but I don't know why it is not on the link above.
Also today I would like to note the upcoming 25th anniversary of Newsweek On Air. Today's show was particularly good in contrast to (well it may not be fair to contrast such a weekly collaboration with something else) but the recent "firestorm" of events came to mind.
Lastly I would like to note contrasting links: HorsesAss.org The only local "liberal" talk radio, and Sightline.org a "progressive" think tank. Well, balancing links may be a more proper way of putting them, and the liberal "quotation marks" are his, the "progressive" marks are mine, as just a short hand reference to my original intent to contrast or balance ala The Liaison Report's intent as well.
I hope to get back to improve this post, but may be continuing my sabbatical,it went so well last time...* (April 3rd to April 10th) April 5th was an exception to the ruler.
* [Saved April 3rd, 2007 - not used till post-April 11th.]
To whom it may concern- - The FCC or applicable congressional committee
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:
Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".
Thursday, November 11, 2010
What Obama can't say.
Chris Matthews says Obama must do something to show he gets it. But what really needs to happen is that the people need to get it. Get it?[***]
[As the show(Hardball) progressed.]
[11-12-10 We aren't even sure the Debt Panel gets it. Often we aren't even sure what (or who) it is to get, but a recent comment by Thom Hartmann spurred me to comment as he closed his show with: "we need to start making things." While that is partially correct, is it not a bit too into the "consumption racket"*? Why not say we need to start valuing things? Would that not shine the irony on our market system? Maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe I am being too idealistic. But both these shine the light on the complexity of reality. My point ends and begins in The Republic, and (regards the irony of)** Platonic Justice.
* "air quotes" added (not that anyone calls it that)
** (comment added): maybe (dynamics of) would be better.]
[*** change: too much(Obama) or not enough?(jobs)]
[Bingo? see * here not there]
[Breaking yet to read. But I will preemptively summarize what I feel is the Obama approach, broad brush change, that started with his domestic agenda, through diplomacy and security issues, ending in global support for change. Wow, when I start a broad brush, I really swath. But in particular I mean global monetary policy, and I forgot to note the issue of trade policy, in this step up the paint ladder.]
[Note: 4-26-11 Bold and Link added to The Republic: "Yeah, That's the Ticket"]
[As the show(Hardball) progressed.]
[11-12-10 We aren't even sure the Debt Panel gets it. Often we aren't even sure what (or who) it is to get, but a recent comment by Thom Hartmann spurred me to comment as he closed his show with: "we need to start making things." While that is partially correct, is it not a bit too into the "consumption racket"*? Why not say we need to start valuing things? Would that not shine the irony on our market system? Maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe I am being too idealistic. But both these shine the light on the complexity of reality. My point ends and begins in The Republic, and (regards the irony of)** Platonic Justice.
* "air quotes" added (not that anyone calls it that)
** (comment added): maybe (dynamics of) would be better.]
[*** change: too much(Obama) or not enough?(jobs)]
[Bingo? see * here not there]
[Breaking yet to read. But I will preemptively summarize what I feel is the Obama approach, broad brush change, that started with his domestic agenda, through diplomacy and security issues, ending in global support for change. Wow, when I start a broad brush, I really swath. But in particular I mean global monetary policy, and I forgot to note the issue of trade policy, in this step up the paint ladder.]
[Note: 4-26-11 Bold and Link added to The Republic: "Yeah, That's the Ticket"]
Friday, September 05, 2008
Change (vs.) the Issues
Yes, I was not dreaming. John McCain did accept the nomination for President of the United States. Is he real yet? And yes. I did find that he did say: "I wasn't my own man anymore; I was my country's." So despite the story that this happened while he was a prisoner of war, as late as the last year, several reports to the contrary are out there. So it must be legitimate to ask what kind of change is he talking about?
In his speech he claimed: "I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us." So he actually changed after his internment, and it seems he fought his party, that needed change. Has he won yet? So he is a party man, who fights for a party. Has it changed or has he changed again? Remember he was his countries man at one point, but you know?* I think I'm going to get lost.
OK, maybe I am not the only one. Maybe McCain can tell us how we are lost, maybe: "We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington." For a pilot, I would think he should know which way history is, but I am not even sure what "do business" might mean. So, I turn back to look for change in his speech, and being a bit of a gambler, but not as much of a Maverick as McCain. I would lay a solid bet on McCain's one line: "Change is coming". But I would not bet, he knows how to get there. In fact, I believe he has shown "That's not change we can believe in."
* [I wonder if he even knows he is leading his party yet. But it should show in any change that may be appearing any day now. And as far as lost goes, I really almost detect some nuance in his words, but then I literally feel the flip-flop.]
In his speech he claimed: "I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us." So he actually changed after his internment, and it seems he fought his party, that needed change. Has he won yet? So he is a party man, who fights for a party. Has it changed or has he changed again? Remember he was his countries man at one point, but you know?* I think I'm going to get lost.
OK, maybe I am not the only one. Maybe McCain can tell us how we are lost, maybe: "We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington." For a pilot, I would think he should know which way history is, but I am not even sure what "do business" might mean. So, I turn back to look for change in his speech, and being a bit of a gambler, but not as much of a Maverick as McCain. I would lay a solid bet on McCain's one line: "Change is coming". But I would not bet, he knows how to get there. In fact, I believe he has shown "That's not change we can believe in."
* [I wonder if he even knows he is leading his party yet. But it should show in any change that may be appearing any day now. And as far as lost goes, I really almost detect some nuance in his words, but then I literally feel the flip-flop.]
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas to the Democrats
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.
[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]
[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:
[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]
[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]
RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.
[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]
[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:
It would seem to me that Congress should be able to "get 'er done" without the 60 votes. Either as some suggest by "going nuclear" (I am against Nuclear Power but) by blowing up the filibuster or somehow utilizing a reconciliation or conference process to do it. Failing that, there are probably enough progressives to kill the bill, but that may not be necessary[or advised**]. Removing the mandate, just might put this in the category of a budget issue under reconciliation, but failing to remove the mandate, might just put this on the track for constitutional review and modification, where it is imagined that a public option just might be the only option. It just might be wise for the Republicans not to push the constitutional issue and settle for a public option now, possibly with a 10-15% buyin margin on Medicare. In the alternative, giving states an option to have a public* plan, and freeing those to sell out of state, might be another crack in the (just say no)[***] armor.
[TruthOut/McClatchy -- Steve Clemons/Huffington}
* one Representative mentioned that the option would have a name other than public, and that could just be non-profit or within the caps imposed.
[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]
[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]
RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]
Friday, December 02, 2011
And BINGO was his dog...
This dog will hunt.
But that was a link before I hit the jackpot.*
B I NGO
"Europe is not U.S. when it comes to austerity, infrastructure or other investments." The jackpot is that when it comes to comparing austerity, one must recognize the starting point. Also it is not the "entitlements" but the investing, or more accurately, the not investing or arrangement of payment. But it is a bit of a double-edged-sword that is not just about cuts. Austerity is not the only answer, but paying for it is. Europe may have more to pay for, but that is not just on the negative side of the ledger, as they have more social programs and infrastructure on the books and actual works. I might not be painting the clearest of pictures, but I am trying to show that Europe is a different picture than U.S.
* Don't get me started on David Brooks. BUT THIS IS THE HEAD WATER.
(i.e. drop in the falls)
** Ironically, David Brooks starts*** out making some interesting points, but speaking of pictures... he is an Escher in Wonderland, speaking of trickle-down.
*** "social constructs" are fine, but the formula needs work, not to mention ethics in ethos
[OK, this was much ado about Brooks(ouch). Speaking of Cliff, n o t e s]
II (a,b,c,d,e,f)
III(a,b)
Ouch 2.0[or XIV(ethos)]
VI (a,b,c)
XII (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r )
XIII (a)
[XIII(a) = XIV]
[See XII(q)bonus]
[The Dickens you say? Spin off of Twist. Scroll and Ctrl F, please.]
[On the other hand.
Then again.]
But that was a link before I hit the jackpot.*
B I NGO
"Europe is not U.S. when it comes to austerity, infrastructure or other investments." The jackpot is that when it comes to comparing austerity, one must recognize the starting point. Also it is not the "entitlements" but the investing, or more accurately, the not investing or arrangement of payment. But it is a bit of a double-edged-sword that is not just about cuts. Austerity is not the only answer, but paying for it is. Europe may have more to pay for, but that is not just on the negative side of the ledger, as they have more social programs and infrastructure on the books and actual works. I might not be painting the clearest of pictures, but I am trying to show that Europe is a different picture than U.S.
* Don't get me started on David Brooks. BUT THIS IS THE HEAD WATER.
(i.e. drop in the falls)
** Ironically, David Brooks starts*** out making some interesting points, but speaking of pictures... he is an Escher in Wonderland, speaking of trickle-down.
*** "social constructs" are fine, but the formula needs work, not to mention ethics in ethos
[OK, this was much ado about Brooks(ouch). Speaking of Cliff, n o t e s]
II (a,b,c,d,e,f)
III(a,b)
Ouch 2.0[or XIV(ethos)]
VI (a,b,c)
XII (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r )
XIII (a)
[XIII(a) = XIV]
[See XII(q)bonus]
[The Dickens you say? Spin off of Twist. Scroll and Ctrl F, please.]
[On the other hand.
Then again.]
Sunday, May 29, 2011
What is a slut?
Tracy Clark-Flory in Salon draws an interesting conclusion:
[Saved in draft till 5-31-11]
[Over the weekend, I was ranting this ribble with a friend and really got riffing, or was it flushing. But I also pondered the genderless generic form of a "slut". Not until today did the word "monger" present itself to me. Somewhere before(of course), the word "scatology" may have entered the rhetoric. So I believe that the most useful appropriate word for the likes of most right wing talk peddlers, is scatmonger, as opposed to...well, I guess the left can have some scatmongers, but if it were understood how a septic tank works, it might be different.
[This is a deeply embedded and plumb'd ribble, with leaks in italics, and may be clarified or upgraded(updated) upon review.]
The trouble is that everyone has a different idea of where that line is. It's all very subjective, because how many partners is too many? How much cleavage is too much? When does flirting cross the line? As feminist activist Jaclyn Friedman explained in her SlutWalk Boston speech, "That's how the word 'slut' usually works. If you ask 10 people, you get 10 different definitions" -- and, of course, therein lies its power.I won't define or defend the word or its use. But my original comment or lede had to do with Trumping the word, or flushing a show. There is no profundity in having to explain, not that either are funny but it is about breaking things.
[Saved in draft till 5-31-11]
[Over the weekend, I was ranting this ribble with a friend and really got riffing, or was it flushing. But I also pondered the genderless generic form of a "slut". Not until today did the word "monger" present itself to me. Somewhere before(of course), the word "scatology" may have entered the rhetoric. So I believe that the most useful appropriate word for the likes of most right wing talk peddlers, is scatmonger, as opposed to...well, I guess the left can have some scatmongers, but if it were understood how a septic tank works, it might be different.
[This is a deeply embedded and plumb'd ribble, with leaks in italics, and may be clarified or upgraded(updated) upon review.]
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Friday, September 21, 2007
To Democrats in the Senate:
CAP THE FILIBUSTER!
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:
Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?
I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.
What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?
It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.
The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?
The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.
The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.
If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.
May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
One of my readers
if there is more than one, is concerned about my communications.
Note Under Construction label. I agree, it is problematic at times and heavy in links to say the least.
Fair and Balanced News? is a link directing to The Daily Show.
That is called Ledership you can choose to follow.(The FOX NEWS motto versus Comedy Central as a news source.)
Debt is a Red Herring, is a statement and a link and spins from here:
The rest is context and more sources, which may merit more spin and unembedding here: segment,the club of association)
If you don't get it you maybe out foxed.
Nonetheless i will further comment on some of the above links.
Club: The Norman Goldman 4-Point Plan to Rescue America
Association Lawrence O'Donnell, Dennis Kucinich interview about Tea Party coordination.
More: Randi Rhodes interviews Ron Paul
Spin: It is hard to believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be outed by prank, as puppet of Tea Party Sugar Daddy David Koch.
And back to O'Reilly interview of Beck, it completes a circle. The democracy that means the so-called communists and fundamentalists Beck says will be at the table in Egypt will be practiced in some repects in America and there will be uprising against the crony capitalism of Governor (Mubarak)Walker.
[2-24-11 See Comment and added footnotes in the form of the last two links embedded.]
[Late find of Lawrence O'Donnell v. Beck: tangent out ]
Note Under Construction label. I agree, it is problematic at times and heavy in links to say the least.
Fair and Balanced News? is a link directing to The Daily Show.
That is called Ledership you can choose to follow.(The FOX NEWS motto versus Comedy Central as a news source.)
Debt is a Red Herring, is a statement and a link and spins from here:
Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:
1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy
The rest is context and more sources, which may merit more spin and unembedding here: segment,the club of association)
If you don't get it you maybe out foxed.
Nonetheless i will further comment on some of the above links.
Club: The Norman Goldman 4-Point Plan to Rescue America
Association Lawrence O'Donnell, Dennis Kucinich interview about Tea Party coordination.
More: Randi Rhodes interviews Ron Paul
Spin: It is hard to believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be outed by prank, as puppet of Tea Party Sugar Daddy David Koch.
And back to O'Reilly interview of Beck, it completes a circle. The democracy that means the so-called communists and fundamentalists Beck says will be at the table in Egypt will be practiced in some repects in America and there will be uprising against the crony capitalism of Governor (Mubarak)Walker.
[2-24-11 See Comment and added footnotes in the form of the last two links embedded.]
[Late find of Lawrence O'Donnell v. Beck: tangent out ]
Friday, February 07, 2003
OH REALLY FOG
OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Sunday, May 01, 2011
SHOCK and Awe!
Shock to hear the anouncement by President Obama
that Osama bin Laden has been killed.
Awe at the amount[*] of celebrations[***] that have sprung up.
UPDATES AS DATED:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
President Obama Announcement
Rachel Maddow , National Outpouring
Temporal Importance
[Daily KOS
The Telegraph McCain and Bush Too.]
Slate: How White House kept a secret.
MSNBC Pakistan "Double Game"
Today Show Yesterday Bin Laden is Dead!
Ed Schultz Fired Up!
the operation
Politics of death.
Executing the operation
Remembering the fallen.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ground Zero
Pakistan
Bi-Partisan Dinner
Rhetorical Coolness. Just Desserts.
The Rewrite.
Monday, May 02, 2011
President Obama, No Osama.
MSNBC
CNN
FOX
CBC
Let's MoveOn!
Mean While
Thanks to some friends of Facebook for some of these, and some I thankfully don't use.**
Huffington Post
You Tube
C-Span
Salon
[Think Progress]
[Center for American Progress]
[Center for America's Future]
In defense of FOX News, a caller to the Stephanie Miller Show, claimed that there was absolutely no mention of President Obama on their home page. That is not correct. He is noted 4 times. And the video and transcript of his announcement about bin Laden are one of those, the second is a generic label for "In The News", the third an All-Star Panel on his emergency response, and the last an expose on "the one" letter difference between Obama and Osama. (Now Six*)
Navigational hint: go to bold links for Presidential material.
Speaking of live blogging: FOX Ups the Anti.
KARL ROVE: After Bin Laden's Death, President Obama's Next ...
[*] appropriately inserted last
[**] or rather last... noting the FOX Terrorist Threat, I am reminded of some inconvenient unfinished sentences or unintended sends of my own(De NO RAH O'Donnell tweet), but I mean reAlly?
FYI:
The news broke to me in just the right manner, straight from President Obama on the late night news. But if I had been online... Or a tweeter?
[***] celebrations
[Parting Shot?: Thom Hartmann has Gareth Porter on for some history. The point(Porter's) is that President Bush had no plan or intent to get bin Laden, not necessarily embedded in these links. My point is that Osama bin Laden could have been old news in 2001 but for the grace of Bush. If we had had different Pre-9-11 thinking, we could have had more justice and less tragedy and cost.]
[Updates: Ledes, Links and Labels added]
that Osama bin Laden has been killed.
Awe at the amount[*] of celebrations[***] that have sprung up.
UPDATES AS DATED:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
President Obama Announcement
Rachel Maddow , National Outpouring
Temporal Importance
[Daily KOS
The Telegraph McCain and Bush Too.]
Slate: How White House kept a secret.
MSNBC Pakistan "Double Game"
Today Show Yesterday Bin Laden is Dead!
Ed Schultz Fired Up!
the operation
Politics of death.
Executing the operation
Remembering the fallen.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ground Zero
Pakistan
Bi-Partisan Dinner
Rhetorical Coolness. Just Desserts.
The Rewrite.
Monday, May 02, 2011
President Obama, No Osama.
MSNBC
CNN
FOX
CBC
Let's MoveOn!
Mean While
Thanks to some friends of Facebook for some of these, and some I thankfully don't use.**
Huffington Post
You Tube
C-Span
Salon
[Think Progress]
[Center for American Progress]
[Center for America's Future]
In defense of FOX News, a caller to the Stephanie Miller Show, claimed that there was absolutely no mention of President Obama on their home page. That is not correct. He is noted 4 times. And the video and transcript of his announcement about bin Laden are one of those, the second is a generic label for "In The News", the third an All-Star Panel on his emergency response, and the last an expose on "the one" letter difference between Obama and Osama. (Now Six*)
Navigational hint: go to bold links for Presidential material.
Speaking of live blogging: FOX Ups the Anti.
KARL ROVE: After Bin Laden's Death, President Obama's Next ...
[*] appropriately inserted last
[**] or rather last... noting the FOX Terrorist Threat, I am reminded of some inconvenient unfinished sentences or unintended sends of my own(De NO RAH O'Donnell tweet), but I mean reAlly?
FYI:
The news broke to me in just the right manner, straight from President Obama on the late night news. But if I had been online... Or a tweeter?
[***] celebrations
[Parting Shot?: Thom Hartmann has Gareth Porter on for some history. The point(Porter's) is that President Bush had no plan or intent to get bin Laden, not necessarily embedded in these links. My point is that Osama bin Laden could have been old news in 2001 but for the grace of Bush. If we had had different Pre-9-11 thinking, we could have had more justice and less tragedy and cost.]
[Updates: Ledes, Links and Labels added]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)