Update

Since my sabbatical began, a lot has happened. Palin is trying to escape from hot water, Cheney is finally getting warm and the CIA has its own bubbles, while Supreme Court nominee Sonja Sotomayor begins her confirmation hearings.

[There seems to be a misuse of words and wise old men and wise old women in the attack on Judge Sotomayor which is actually an agism. For it is context that matters and wisdom is hard to pin on age. In fact it is hard to deny that experiences are a key ingredient in wisdom if not related to age.]

[Jeffrey Toobin CNN: "applying the law is not a judicial philosophy" after defending the right to decide confirmation on ideological differences, yet it seems similar to the judicial philosophy of the right. Republicans sure can complicate meanings, like having your cherry picked apples and oranges cake and eating it too.]

[7-14-09 Bold added to begins (The Uptake: Sotomayor hearings... Huffington Post) and old men (LA Times Blog/Text of Hearings) links
in addition Sessions miscounts * right meaning.]

[Things could not be more muddled from 3 takes:
The American Spectator: Ricci: A 9-0 Rejection of Sotomayor
The New York Times: The Opinionator
Slate: The Fray
It seems the Summary Judgement hinged on the Second Circuit Court getting it back, and that it was a 5-4 activist court which did not rely on precendence. The only 9-0 would have been if Sotomayor and the Second Circuit would decide the issue rather than the Supreme Court. It might even be said (per curiam) that we have a failure of trickledown and a slippery slope in the ability to act.]

[It might now be clear that for Sessions experience is prejudice.]

* The above analysis not counting the 3 takes just might make Media Matters (See miscounts ) more clear. Failure to account for failure to remand must be counted.

What's going on?

Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.

But enough of the usual stuff.

Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:

Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal

Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]

Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!

Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.

One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001

Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.

And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]

In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.

[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?

Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]

These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.

So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?

Two more sources - in their defense?

Belated Calls and Commemoration?

NEVER!
HJM 8016
SJM 4027
Wexler wants hearings.
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

What brings these links together? The first three are about investigations into recent history, while the last, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is timely. I say this, no tongue-in-cheek, in that it is the subject (timing) that links these pursuits of justice.

Is there a better time to stand for justice or is there ever a time it is too late?
And if we are not standing for justice, just where will we sit? This may be rhetorical, but what is the alternative? At a recent progressive event, with a progressive crowd and a progressive speaker, the speaker replied to some issue, "The people will not stand for that." Does that mean the time for not standing has come? I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?

I am not comparing the courage of those that wish to begin this process with those of the past, but the lack of courage to proceed to bring light to the process is as harmful to justice and is a neglect of each branch of government's job and their oaths for which they stand. And the press is doing a 'heckuva job" as well.

Even Martin Luther King Jr. comments on the time he takes from his reader with his letter, but he says earlier: "We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability." He says a lot more if you have the time, but it is never too late, or is it? Apparently some argue so, but we must not just move on.

For those who miss the point, violations of law must face consequences and too few have even the courage to shine a light. [In describing this article, if it reaches that level, I point out: The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know that the law must be enforced so that it can not be preempted at will, let alone enforced preemptively. Breaking a bad law is the only way to place it before the process of enforcement and review, but it might even be understood by this administration that it is just a matter of time.] [Updated with slight corrections 1-18-09]

[footnote: Inspiration for the timing thing? Postman on Politics and my belated links following 1-15-08 a day which I missed commemorating but was reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and a day on which I missed another good speech (text of above video) which was not too noted, nor connected. But speaking of timing. ]

[1-17-08: Yikes! Deleted Whitehouse E-Mails; Another Bush Criminal; Another Reason To Impeach by Rob Kall That is not the "Yikes!" part. But this:

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed.

From 2001 to October 2003, the White House's practice was to use the same backup tape each day to copy new as well as old e-mails, he said, making it possible that some of those e-mails could still be recovered even from a tape that was repeatedly overwritten. "We are continuing to analyze our systems," Fratto said last night.

(my bold added)
It is the gap in the logic here that points to the disconnect between intention and cause and effect. Yet these guys had the intelligence to decide to review a National Intelligence Estimate? One thing they are expert on is gaps, and I guess they are good at filling them or leaping them.]

MAY 2013 FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE

5-1-13 Happy May Day!: Bad Footnote Day. If you can scroll over while reading you MIGHT have a better shot at my gist [!] [Poetic Justice, Justice? (s.c. ), Technical Difficulties!, Pass the Trillion.]  [FP2]
Note: (s.c.) = scroll click flip-flop resulting from blog search algorithm(May B?)
Brook No Truck ?[!] : I think I have been clear enough but here are blog searched(b.s.) references under 'twain.[(A, B, c, d, E, f, G, H, I, J, K, L, M(m), N(n), O(o), P(p), Q (q).]

5-6-13: Having read the Non-Sense links, there seems intentional wiggle room. Ctrl F "telegraph+blows":  Rebublican Obstruction? / GOLEFT TV (sc), Rope a dope. (sc), BIG TENT v. MESS TENT, FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK.

5-7-13: (b.s.) Fear and Running, Out Foxed?, Who Are They Calling Elitist?, Is Tea Party Beck?
[(b.s.)  THE COUNCIL OF NICE(s.c.), DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)(s.c.), (c), Fearnauts(s.c.), The Mess Age is the Message!(s.c.).] [[(b.s. ) USE THE PROCESS OR LOSE IT*.( s.c. ), Try Lemmings , Kidding Goats ?]] *

5-8-13: David Sirota's piece is the focus of the caution or heading.

5-10-13 (Spoiler alert under Penzance here.). Spinning off on the ad-HOC Chair.  The Issa's committee hearings seem purely partisan politics and a mockery of checks and balances and any comparison to Watergate, except from a parodical hysterical perspective: the modern inquisitional.   [Not to Al Gore Rythm.]

5-15-13: Not too Mitt Flop [!].  Journalists fume over DOJ raid on AP, Stewart Slams Obama Again: You Can’t Keep Saying You Found Out About News At The Same Time As Us!,  Connecting the Cheese Heads. Hint: hyperlinks Too Fudgin' Ridiculous & (s.c.)(b.s.)

5-17-13: another a maizing field trip ?!

5-29-13: move from to read ( ?/10 [!]) [11?]

5-30-13:  (hard work)= Ambivalence on Syria? ,  (without going)= Transparent Reactionaries ,  (heading or mangling )  "Hotheads" and Frank on Banks :  Par don e moi ?

Commission between the Lines.

Truth Commission May Not Lead to Prosecutions
by Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
It seems that the Democrats are intent on a commission and Republicans are mostly opposed. But the fine line is the truth that it is about investigations and if immunity is involved then prosecutions may be hampered. This should portend that special prosecutors are the way to go, before the Republicans flip-flop for immunity. Of course the media would love and the politics would flare* over open hearings, and selective immunity may combine the best of all worlds.

If there is no stomach for prosecutions the only alternative is a full blown international Truth and Reconciliation of all violence, religious, political or economic, beginning with the death penalty off the table**, except for corporations, being their status as wholly created beings of government.

* international scope [UPDATE]
** replaced with a floating Elba or Rikers.

Counter

messaging
The Challenges of Messaging: Political Economy Version
RE:"traumatic fun"

Re(The)Cycle*:  Is someone suggesting that Roberts lied (Per S.E.) during his confirmation hearings?

*Think Progress
[Missing Tangent.]

Shshshshushing[!]

House Oversight Committe Chair Darrell Issa IRS hearings shushed.

IRS Official: White House Was Not Involved In Targeting Of Conservative Groups

It is a maizing that I have only just instituted the Scandal label.
To sort later*, there was Bengazi, the IRS, the AP searches, and then the NSA/Snowden. ? [!]

* bs not new inserts

6-21-13: Bane Or Change ? [!] W-T-Fudge ?

THANK YOU DAVE ROSS!

For exposing the PVRHT act.
(Otherwise known as: H.R. 1955: for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism)
OK, I left off(or spun off) the PA (prevention act)for its Patronizing Attitude and the quip that the act itself could fall under its own spell.
[Dave Ross interviewed Alicia Mundy (1) of the Seattle Times and Chip Berlet (2) of Political Research Associates.]

[If you read nothing further: read (1) and (2), above]

Bottom Line: The Senate should hold hearings on this act! Or have the guts to act as fast in rejecting this act as premature and ill advised based on the fear it was enacted under. One major failure of this piece is the appointment process which should be balanced in favor of the majority party. The other is the need to review current intelligence gathering and its use. That is what the committee should be limited to, if not extended to the suggestions contained here.

[OTHER COMMENTS]Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security "Boondoggle"
technocrati thought police? 3 tags
The Agonist "pointed at the Republican Party"
Video from the middle (link) 1st one Kennedy

Previous Posts:
Unity in Principle July 22nd, 2004
Intelligence for Commission
Bicameral Brain
Up The Filter August 2nd, 2004
CIA our job one November 17th, 2004
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
The links that connect
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike" August 26th, 2006
Caution merited? September 26th,2006

Lastly: The words of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 seems innocuous enough, but so do the words of the [Project for the New American Century] but it must be looked into. Recommendations for any new intelligence or laws must be put on hold until investigations of old intelligence and laws have been made, not to mention the Phase II.[Apparently done, yet...]
[For more radicalized research yet more conservative as in fiscally responsible consider what is already "out there" (I do not recommend you trust, but verify? YES!)

* Patronizing Attitudes may be the cause of radicalization and terrorism as spelled out in current research. Not to mention the problem of defining ideology and intelligence: having more of it, does not mean you have enough to handle it. The process is important and it must be considered what is being done to complicate the process by those who have no faith in the process, yet want to add to it.

Bonus hit: trust but verify

It may also be worthy to study the words of Thomas Jefferson under subheadings, When Revolution is the Only Answer, Consequences of Revolution, and Prospects for Reformation, and just before these The Need for Leadership:

"The moderation and virtue of a single character [i.e., George Washington] have probably prevented [the American] Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. ME 4:218, Papers 7:106

Speaking of "nuance" meaning nothing in this post should suggest violence is the answer, nonetheless I was surprised to find this, thinking I was reaching for something more "out there": from Goldwater

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

Bottom line is the people, bottom line is your job. The political spectrum is not linear but needs ones own perspective and the realization that the answer is not limited to that linear spectrum either. This should be realized by the three branches of government and the light that intelligence should shine on the process as well as the "hard work" of all people.

FURTHER: Nothing is more important than the focus on activities not words, except for the law, as proper protest must have a line to cross and confidence that there is a line to stand on and the same one to cross to suffer the consequences. And that line must be applied up and down the process and its people. And a quick search of "laws, not people" found the fog of our ways, another act that needs following up to be certain congress has done the "hard work" spelled out in their job description .

[Long Story Short: Update from Slate found after my Pre-Empting Crimes.]

TM-R (day 21)

Barely half-way though a period of review, today we have another quixotic mess which I was barely able to wade through.

HOWEVER I DID,
BUT ONLY AFTER THESE ACTIVITIES TRANSPIRED:

Last night my local Democratic Legislative district passed a resolution to urge our senators to support Russ Feingold's move to censure Bush.

HERE IS MY PLEA TO THEM THE DAY BEFORE:
Since impeachment procedures can only begin in the House, please support Senator Feingold on his resolution to censure President Bush for illegally wiretapping without court order.

This measure should get a full committee hearings with sworn testimony that will hold not only the administration accountable, but Republicans who won't uphold the constitution, accountable.

The argument is that this is a political stunt. It is also a constitutional stunt. If politics is not used at it's fullest to protect the constitution, it will be used to circumvent it. If it is not clear to partisans on our side, it is on the other. Even swing voters would likely prefer a clearer choice than between those that break the law and those that will not uphold it.
[boldness added here]

While some "loyal opposition" may call boldness an Impeachable Strategy and resort to political calculus and even the physics of gravity like trickle down...

My reply:

Gravity does not apply in politics!
Bush (or a con) knows that will does.
Gravity is a two way street and while the masses may pull down the politician's bootstraps, only real leaders with courage can choose to pull up the bootstraps of the people.

Those who will not stand up for clarity from the administration and those who cut and run from the constitution and conversation, have no lack of will to trust, but little faith or courage to verify. Only that makes the process quixotic.

Means Trumps Meaning, but can't read memos.

When you stick your foot in your mouth you best take it out. This is to indicate I hope I have two feet and they try to keep moving, as well as my mouth and keyboard.

But in regards to the last post, here is a hero which if I had heros would supplant Murtha. In fact if Gore had not been supplanted in the theft of 2000 we would be doing more than putting our foot in it. Or putting it up others.

In regards to Bush/Alito and again I hope to remain behind on my research as long as good people are standing up for principles even though we may wonder where their feet are.

What got me to the two links above were their titles of course and thanks to a www.tompaine.com Again I post them preemptively(unread), but their titles should intrigue. The Alito Hearings: The Democrats Katrina should read The Constitution's or the Peoples' Katrina. And Gore says Bush Broke the Law With Spying pertains to the same substance, where means will trump meaning.

But to put a point on it, it may seem idiotic, it may be ideological, but it may be just about them. Meaning it may not be about founding fathers but about power and one's conscience. They think conscience is one and the same as con science. A true case of one is as one does.