Memorial Day

In honor of those who died for our cause.
Just what is our cause? Is it the body of political thought arising from John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? As Thom Hartmann summarizes the alternative, that man is either basically good and merits his freedoms or that man is basically evil and needs restraint. The latter (Hobbes) wrote of this in The Leviathan about the need for a powerful state to restrain what even religion failed to check. Thom's guest, Michael D. Tanner, author of Leviathan on the Right

It is my view that The New Leviathan is actually The Corporation ** (circa Globalization * ). But the bottom line is that the nature of man (and I leave the nature of women aside)is a duality. Now the nature of woman may be the countebalance or lacking component, for are we not talking the balance of good and evil and the scale of justice depending on the notion of competition and cooperation.

Now the above may be too metaphorical. But for more to sort:

The Logic of "Leviathan": Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes.

Natural Right and History

Note: Being Memorial Day, The Thom Hartmann Show was a "best of". But this post is realtime, yet closes an interesting loop. The Leviathan in my mind was not a monster, but just a creation of man called government, while the corporation is also a creation of man and not supernatural, nor/let alone an individual. What would more honor the dead, than to know what we are fighting for?

* [the corporation / globalization loop and the part we play or don't]

[** May 25th, 2009: Corporations are only the Leviathan in terms of the fear that is implied from something big as the state is to be feared when unchecked. But they are both necessary within limits.]
[10:39 AM The Rhetoric of Leviathan led me to further summarize (rhetorically), what is the connection? "Hard work" as in "War is"... and who does it and what is the nature of the state of economics?]

CAD (2 out of 3 be bad)

May Day ain't what it used to be.
Cads are what they will be.
CAD used to stand for Computer Aided Design.
Fore! To correct the swing of sorts.

I recently referred to Ted Nugent as having CAD, Cause Affect Deficiency or Disorder, along with Mitt Romney.   And since it is all about the defining issues of our time, or the 2012 election, the ideal flip-flop from Cause Affect Disorder is Culturally Aided  Design.  If fact I feel that the Jonathan Haidt book, The Righteous Mind may be enlightening to read, but I believe it has some imbalances.

Why does he pick the categories he does to distinguish liberals from conservatives?  Why is having them balanced better than in some hierarchy?  Why should we look to the sacred, and wouldn't the rest follow of sorts?  SEGUE
If moral psychology is the foundation for politics and religion, what is the foundation of economics?  Or physics and philosophy?

Now I know I am avoiding comment on the May Day issues**, but in the greater scheme of things, there may be a related point to do so.  While I have yet to get the book, I have perused more than once most of the links in the previous paragraph(pre-segue).  Not that they may be inserted only slightly more than haphazardly.  In my lede, I have hinted that to be a CAD is not always bad, but sometimes it is just*** a tool*.

*BTW:  it was more than just for convenience that I used affect over effect.
** 5-2-12
***5-3-12 "CAD" and "just" links are not endorsements of confrontation without consequences.  Violence and destruction must not be condoned.  Anarchists should be seen as part of the 1%. (Hijacking the message, much as the Tea-party had their's hijacked by the Koch bothers.)  I might add that globalization, capitalism and even cap and trade, are not the problems or solutions^.  It is the entitlements of the 1% in their hyperbola of fantasy.  The only difference between anarchists and libertarians is the fantasy.  Not that anarchists are more real, at least they realize that their is something about the foundations over the fountainhead.

[5-4-12 On the globalization front.]

The Final Judgement?

Of the National Intelligence Estimate

[THIS IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH AND BULLET POINT:
and if I may say an interesting point to end on.]

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical
ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

-- We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.

[Do we still have the right to question what our interests are, let alone what is meant by globalization or is that too sentimental?]

FADS away?

"Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away...otherwise known as privatization and globalization."

The previous post was sent to the local paper as well as the Senators Dorgan and Wyden and by late afternoon the project was killed. (Or at least some aspects of it.) Admiral Pointexter took credit that day for the controversy and reportedly offered to leave the administration, so they let him. Just as four other high figures in the administration took responsibility for erroneous WMD in the state of the union, they and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion) Bush is still around.

Today Lou Dobbs in a column on the Economy in that same local paper writes a titled piece: "Left and right joined in attack on progressive thought" leads me to a mutation[*] of MacArthur’s going away. "Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away, otherwise known as privatization and globalization." But Dobbs is right, and correct too in that progressive thought is needed, but also thinkers that know the difference and don’t use the label liberal as their only argument. If someone believes in principles, they would discuss openly and have the courage to debate them rather that wander around between them and keep the dead wood that fuels his fire.

On a related matter, maybe. Secretary of State Powell is reported to be leaving at the start of the next administration. NOT? Do we have more strategy from the Office of Strategic Information (Slash) Influence? Here are some choices. Either he did or he didn’t let someone know that piece of information. Either it was clear or it was vague or something close to that or different. More choices are that the source made it up, or concluded from other information or was wrong.

Here is my choice. Powell is not being listened to, he wants to be listened to, the president can now claim to be listening. Powell will make his decision later, if he lasts that long.

[*] [3-28-08: Update- quotation mark is facetious as I am mangling MacArthur, but also meant fade not fad, but was it? I left it. The (Slash) was the link to the futures.(minor editing and link insertion)]

Not 2...

round up [!] *

* bold read

(Pardon the construction, and legend lagging.  Bold indicates actually read.) 

WP: UN Gaza War Crimes
WP:  Abandoning Globalization
Time:  Charleston Terrorism

(b.s.) bold+read *
(fb/Time)
(bold+s.+c.) a, b, C. Calm Pend E Um  , D. Realmiffication , E. HELP NAVIGATION .
(share+'n+angle+read)a, b, C. File of sorts.

(You scroll/click & see right column for Pages/Archives)

[Ron Paul v Fed(~)Obama w/ Marc Maron]
{Not to pun on too.} 
[pitch, putt, punt]

It turns out...

that "turn around" has been a familiar refrain* for generations.  This^ issue has been the standard rhetoric^^ bearer for every administration:  the debt is a problem only when running.

* Rove, Koch, Cain
[Parsin' Local-ships ? ! ]

As it so happens...
I only saw part of the townhall style debate, and heard part of it, and missed part of it.  But from what I did get, it seems that the President had the upper hand, and the Governor*** the upper fACE.  OK, I could only do this so straight, without a Bane or Tan Gent.**

** hmmm  

10-17-12***(Second debate link):  I just did not want to characterize the in"f"able expression(a smile, I guess), the Governor often has.
CBS: Fact Check, combative, edge, contentious, Romney/Bush, outsourcing, assault, Libya, Libya.
Libya Follow-Up. 

^ Republican debt.
^^ Not running well local.
Economics: local / global ^^^
Globalization is not as daunting as the haunting of the illusion of democracy and economics.(note: exception to b.s.)

Buy In or Sell Out

Red Lines and Towing the Line(on Syria). 
The President is not putting America's credibility at stake, he is staking out the credibility of International Law and Globalization. This is a far cry from the Bush Era "war" president and unifier.** 
Pre-title or heading: Rogers' Soap Box, might read "Pit Lip Schtick ".

Related: The Vatican, Steve Clemons, Steve Benen, Maddow Blog, [Boehner let her.]

8-30-13
From Thomas* Roberts, on Crisis in Syria: Re-Bolt On / Bring Em On [!]
(scroll click) Bay of Pit Bulls or Bay of Lip Schtick?
Wiping the Floors @ the UN[!]
* Italics reminder re:(un-bolds too)
** ibid[!]

(FP!)
(b.s.) read Make it so.

Bolt On: A. Toning Down the Lines. , B. Waiting for [Calm Cast] , C., D. Trick Question of the Day? , E.
Bring
Em On: a., b., c., {}D. Congress- - to boldly go... , E. Everything is on the Table! {Why not Hagel?}
{Will Obama declare the end of a war?/ Fix of war powers?}

*** (b.s.) 
[(NOW) SOS Kerry]{..."standing on ceremony"}, }by Ghosh{, ^ un-telegraph/playbook

Clear segue: Secretary of State Kerry begins w/ my running notation
["read", un-Rumsfeld "know", smoking "social media", ^ }pinnacle of our perdicament{, "risk"/"do nothing","matters"..."know what we know", "respect" ...  }general body/China-Russia-Arab signators/jury{ "ultimately".] close. [SOS]

Note: Quotation "marks" =Kerry comments, ^ marks= tangent to NOW,  }{ = marks/highlites my comment/{urgency of now} AM "telegraphing"

[Juxta Position? ... AM numbers?/Clemons/Congressional Bane or?(letter) }I cannot say there should not be a debate, or a vote, or that it won't matter, but it is very important how the resolution is worded and if we can imagine congress krafting it?]

The Air We Breathe...

The Information Horizon: OK, I mixed metaphors which I will let others complete, as I thought of the air waves and the information highway and the rising tide and being in the same boat. Well, maybe I took it one thread too far.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TO THE FCC and CONGRESS
Take Action! [**] <<== CLICK HERE And for more action ==>HERE

The FCC must not further deregulate the air waves. It is bad enough that the public airwaves are controlled by conglomerations already, that should be remedied. But to allow the expanded ownership by the print media should be prohibited. The whole purpose of the FCC should be to regulate something that is supposed to be free, but is limited. It turns out to be quite profitable, and the print media is not on hard times, except for the competition which arises from the same conglomeration. If these cannot be regulated to be serving the public good, then they should be making a profit for the public good.

This is not just an economic issue, it is a power issue. You will use yours for good, or you will use it for power and profit. If it is the latter, you should have neither.

I was not going to make a major production out of this, and I suppose I could have included of few statistics rather than just seemingly pull this out of the air waves, but here is an example I stumbled upon today. In doing a background check (google) on Joseph Stiglitz, "Making Globalization Work",
I came across a review in my local paper by Bruce Ramsey and embedded in that piece is the following:

His book is flavored with a deep distaste for inequality. "Those who are concerned about inequality see much of it arising out of luck -- the luck of being born with good genes or rich parents or the luck of buying a piece of real estate at the right time," he writes. "Those who are less concerned feel that wealth is a reward for hard work."

It is, of course, a combination of the two. Free-traders would give freer rein to luck in order to maximize overall economic gain. Stiglitz would not.

While this may seem "fair and balanced" [*], or at least I feel that Ramsey believes he is being so, his conclusion is slanted to the freeing up of the luck, after admitting it is a combination of the two. You, ladies and gentlemen, should be working hard to make sure not only hard work is rewarded, but that you are not making it easier for those getting something for free (the air waves) while making it harder work and harder luck to compete.

[Update: A New Optimism - -A New Pre-emption - - An old Foundation]

[Update: Pre-Empting Crimes ]

[*] And not in the FOX way, but here is a fairly powerful and balanced take on the media and democracy: The Proper Imbalance ]

[**] SEE COMMENT regarding Senate Bill 2332, the "The Media Ownership Act of 2007.

Citizens United

What with*** the I Ron Knee of globalization** and the evolution of the* Eisenhower crack ...



[Spoiler alert: read all before linking 'n asteris king or scrolling over.]
*find photo
** embedded "factor" not Ctrl F "4moolah"
*** unMess I uh
(fn / FP1 )

[6-27-13(edit):/FP1 added to correct "fn" link ]

Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)

Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.

Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.

In memoriam.

* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.

** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.

*** maybe him but not here

Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]

P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.

PC of Mini-Me

Press conference, that is!(*)
Presidential press conference on Syria Us and Con Gress.
Not to Maddow(2) or that's the ticket, but a diplomacy of preemption and word wars, not a red line of nuance.

* * * Labels PC(pre-conference) * * *
Foreign Policy
Diplomacy
Globalization
Obama Doctrine

(*) heading triggered by Hardball's Chris Matthews
No Grand Bargain nor Mini-Morph but Share 'n Angle

      ( *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *)      
First Question: Syria / Game Changer
2nd?Q: Bengazi B.S. Headline Generator
Self-Radicalizing?  Old Hats Diehard?
Mark (twain) Paul Jones?
           *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Guantanamo Dilemma and the Taliban Party.
Domestic Justice Exceptionalism and Community Divergence.
Chicken Little   State Rights
               *        *        *
(asterisk bracketed to sequester other asterisks as genre shifts)
(9*'s): press conference begins
(7*'s): genre or nuance shift [?] ! [(**)]

                  *          *(1)
[Self Radicalization and Boot Straps(3)]
(1) label added inserted "and" 
(2) Maddow
(1): anachronistically (2 too)
(2): a, B(b),C(c)
(b.s.): A, B(b), C(c)
(3) A, B(b), C(c), D!
[In time for Now!(Ann-Marie Slaughter/Tango) THE THIN RED LINE! Self Radicalization links inserted]
[PCR? Published Chemical Reaction? See Now with Alex Wagner.]
[(B S) Boot Straps (FP1) ]

[(**) all links this line inserted post-4Fp's]
[Update: Top-line links inserted and font change 5-3-13]

Dough Ha!

Michele Bachmann endorses Mitt Romney and Doha?

On the(not so funny) China front?

Update 5-4-12:  On the globalization front.(For later reading)(et al)
[Noun verb Bin Laden, and China Kristol, speaking of table ]
5-16-12 update tweet

Elephant Expectations?

Thomas Friedman’s “The global debate returns to Earth” ends in a great joke that I had already jumped to, in a way. First I had the final two paragraphs to absorb as I was made aware of “teeth-gnashing” at the thought that of course what goes up, must come down, so to speak. He had talked about elephants flying at the Davos World Economic Forum last year and landing with a thud this year. It made me think of the high-wire balancing act he was doing just to walk the line with the 3 issues: the US thinking it could go it alone in Iraq, the opponents to that strategy trying to dominate in their own way, and globalization.

I will leave their analysis to those who want to follow up on the original, but just because they have landed with a thud does not mean they will rise before they sink further. It may seem that someone is not fence sitting, but the elephants may have only hit the wire. A very similar punch line. And if the image of balancing the concept of support is not clear, maybe just this sound-bite will do: It’s the world economy stupid.

To go further, just because what goes up, may come down, does not mean we may not still have to go to hell and back first.