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.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query job. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query job. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
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.
He or his attorney general 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. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and 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 cultural 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.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
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.
He or his attorney general 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. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and 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 cultural 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.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
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.)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9/11 Shade of the Bush
General Douglas MacArthur quoted an old military ballad:
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."
Now it seems that:
Good Generals never lie * , they just shade away.
My point is clear. Generals have a job to do. They take orders. Congress has a job to do. They declare war and fund government. If the General gives testimony, is he not sworn in? Apparently not. (This expert was ejected for suggesting it yesterday.) This does not mean that General Petreus lies or betrays us, he is only apparently doing his job. Will congress? **
And on my earlier point: The surge has worked. That is easy for them to say, when they have not said what working means, and only count "hard work". It was supposed to be political and the report was to measure it's success. There has been little political success ***, unless you count changing the subject from exit to drawdown. So it has been so successful, will we stay the course **** till next summer?
And we are quibbling over words and the honor of a general? Tough! If he can't stand the heat... Not to mention, the attention that MoveOn must generate, if people will read the lines, that the general has generated, one need not even read between the lines.
* & ** embedded recommended reads
*** this link notes 2006 as "Year of Transition".
**** speaking of time
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."
Now it seems that:
Good Generals never lie * , they just shade away.
My point is clear. Generals have a job to do. They take orders. Congress has a job to do. They declare war and fund government. If the General gives testimony, is he not sworn in? Apparently not. (This expert was ejected for suggesting it yesterday.) This does not mean that General Petreus lies or betrays us, he is only apparently doing his job. Will congress? **
And on my earlier point: The surge has worked. That is easy for them to say, when they have not said what working means, and only count "hard work". It was supposed to be political and the report was to measure it's success. There has been little political success ***, unless you count changing the subject from exit to drawdown. So it has been so successful, will we stay the course **** till next summer?
And we are quibbling over words and the honor of a general? Tough! If he can't stand the heat... Not to mention, the attention that MoveOn must generate, if people will read the lines, that the general has generated, one need not even read between the lines.
* & ** embedded recommended reads
*** this link notes 2006 as "Year of Transition".
**** speaking of time
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Perfect Presidents or Perfect Politicians?
Perfect Hosts?
No such thing, they might agree.
The host of this panel of talk show hosts aside, the rest are the closest to what this country needs and were all at Seattle Town Hall this last evening. (This is a flip-flopped if not awkward complement to the host.)
As introduced:
The Young Turks
Mike Malloy
Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
And the moderator/host Thom Hartmann
One thing it reminded me of, is that with all the ideas and great personalities, not to mention candidates, who needs Republicans. That is especially represented in the sometimes heated discussions. Seriously, who needs Republicans?
Especially when it comes to leadership and unity, who needs Republicans? The American voter should remember that as well as the so-called base of either party. The idea of divided government is not about pitting parties against each other, but each branch doing its job. But if congress is not going to do its job, it may be best to have divided Democrats. And still, who needs Republicans.
OK, this was just a quick rant, to make a point. One I am not sure hit its mark. I think it's that Congress should do its job, and Democrats will get elected. And if there are some Democrats that upset some of the people, who needs Republicans?
Well I will close with this. It was a really hot show.
No such thing, they might agree.
The host of this panel of talk show hosts aside, the rest are the closest to what this country needs and were all at Seattle Town Hall this last evening. (This is a flip-flopped if not awkward complement to the host.)
As introduced:
The Young Turks
Mike Malloy
Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
And the moderator/host Thom Hartmann
One thing it reminded me of, is that with all the ideas and great personalities, not to mention candidates, who needs Republicans. That is especially represented in the sometimes heated discussions. Seriously, who needs Republicans?
Especially when it comes to leadership and unity, who needs Republicans? The American voter should remember that as well as the so-called base of either party. The idea of divided government is not about pitting parties against each other, but each branch doing its job. But if congress is not going to do its job, it may be best to have divided Democrats. And still, who needs Republicans.
OK, this was just a quick rant, to make a point. One I am not sure hit its mark. I think it's that Congress should do its job, and Democrats will get elected. And if there are some Democrats that upset some of the people, who needs Republicans?
Well I will close with this. It was a really hot show.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Does it matter?
Which report do you believe?
Seymour Hersch
Foreign Policy
Or which committee is informed?
Budget, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Intelligence.
Officially war powers and the purse are in the hands of congress.
But the military and intelligence are not just in the hands of the president.
How these committees are informed, is the key to progress or more run around.
Compartmentalized information is the key to our defense being so offensive.
Apparently congress has done as good a job of insulating themselves from responsibility and the adminstration has of blaming them, and excusing themselves. There is evidence that even military commanders to not know what the right hand is doing.* But it is a sure bet that our enemies know more than we can say.
[Preemptive point: Should one need to read the latest? * Given the record of congress and the administration?]
[To put this in semi-clear terms, the president's job is commander in chief and is sworn to defend the constitution. There is a clear record that he has poorly done his job and been given ever more powers by a congress who has not held him accountable and done their's. The sharper point is that of course the president has the power to defend the country as long as he has the ability to defend his actions and is responsible for them. It is necessary to "trust but verify" at home as well as abroad. It is also necessary to make sure that preemption is no longer the policy without such review. And to do so, we must see when it started and when it leaked and which committee knows.]
* Fallon
Seymour Hersch
Foreign Policy
Or which committee is informed?
Budget, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Intelligence.
Officially war powers and the purse are in the hands of congress.
But the military and intelligence are not just in the hands of the president.
How these committees are informed, is the key to progress or more run around.
Compartmentalized information is the key to our defense being so offensive.
Apparently congress has done as good a job of insulating themselves from responsibility and the adminstration has of blaming them, and excusing themselves. There is evidence that even military commanders to not know what the right hand is doing.* But it is a sure bet that our enemies know more than we can say.
[Preemptive point: Should one need to read the latest? * Given the record of congress and the administration?]
[To put this in semi-clear terms, the president's job is commander in chief and is sworn to defend the constitution. There is a clear record that he has poorly done his job and been given ever more powers by a congress who has not held him accountable and done their's. The sharper point is that of course the president has the power to defend the country as long as he has the ability to defend his actions and is responsible for them. It is necessary to "trust but verify" at home as well as abroad. It is also necessary to make sure that preemption is no longer the policy without such review. And to do so, we must see when it started and when it leaked and which committee knows.]
* Fallon
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Straw Elephant
Misery Loves Company
Or Day Late and a Dollar Short?
So much has been made of the pre-emptive leak that there will be a troop "surge" that it almost overshadows the rest of his potential plan. But the possibility that there are a "few good" ideas are overshadowed by the increase in "a few good men" and women. My pre-emptive take on the former is dampened by the pre-emptive reaction to the latter. My pre-emptive cynicism has taken the biggest hit, but here is my take nevertheless.
Whatever the reasoning behind the "escalation" there is always hope that it will work. However, there is more likelihood that it is just a form of "cut and run". It is more than the concept that we must "support our troops" which does not entail agreeing with the president, but that there is emotional strength in numbers in that they support each other. But it must be remembered that the president is the commander-in-chief in that he is responsible for the plan. The possibility that he will not be allowed to carry out his plan, lays the responsibility on congress where it also belongs, in their job of holding him accountable. That is the job that the voters have chosen the Democratic Congress to do, based on the president’s record and the rubber stamp his party has given him.
With all the hope for success and support for the troops always there, it is difficult to say that this is probably the ultimate cut-and-run. For if the president does not seem like he has a plan, there can be nothing for Republicans to cut-and-run from to cover their past, not to mention move forward on. The Democrats have the job to correct the past, and make sure it is not repeated, but Republicans will gladly settle for passing the buck, with an appearance that they are not as united as they were. This takes an old saying into a new camp, from "divide and conquer" to divide to run. There is something to be said here in that Democrats are divided to unite.
Where "fair and balanced" means putting up a straw dog, against a straw issue, there is a lot of "hard work" sorting the many positions and potential solutions to any problem. Is there irony or extreme congruity in the image of former Democrat Ronald Reagan and a 20-mule team not to mention the Borax needed to come clean?
Or Day Late and a Dollar Short?
So much has been made of the pre-emptive leak that there will be a troop "surge" that it almost overshadows the rest of his potential plan. But the possibility that there are a "few good" ideas are overshadowed by the increase in "a few good men" and women. My pre-emptive take on the former is dampened by the pre-emptive reaction to the latter. My pre-emptive cynicism has taken the biggest hit, but here is my take nevertheless.
Whatever the reasoning behind the "escalation" there is always hope that it will work. However, there is more likelihood that it is just a form of "cut and run". It is more than the concept that we must "support our troops" which does not entail agreeing with the president, but that there is emotional strength in numbers in that they support each other. But it must be remembered that the president is the commander-in-chief in that he is responsible for the plan. The possibility that he will not be allowed to carry out his plan, lays the responsibility on congress where it also belongs, in their job of holding him accountable. That is the job that the voters have chosen the Democratic Congress to do, based on the president’s record and the rubber stamp his party has given him.
With all the hope for success and support for the troops always there, it is difficult to say that this is probably the ultimate cut-and-run. For if the president does not seem like he has a plan, there can be nothing for Republicans to cut-and-run from to cover their past, not to mention move forward on. The Democrats have the job to correct the past, and make sure it is not repeated, but Republicans will gladly settle for passing the buck, with an appearance that they are not as united as they were. This takes an old saying into a new camp, from "divide and conquer" to divide to run. There is something to be said here in that Democrats are divided to unite.
Where "fair and balanced" means putting up a straw dog, against a straw issue, there is a lot of "hard work" sorting the many positions and potential solutions to any problem. Is there irony or extreme congruity in the image of former Democrat Ronald Reagan and a 20-mule team not to mention the Borax needed to come clean?
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Establish-ment words.
"The ruling was attacked by supporters of the law, which was passed by the Legislature with bipartisan support in 2004."
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
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:
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
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.]
(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.]
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
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:
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.]
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.(my bold added)
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.
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.]
Friday, September 26, 2008
Speaking of Makeup
Rachel Maddow has the right stuff*...
for MSNBC.
The only reason MSNBC should have resisted "conservative critics" is if they wanted to be the perfect counter-balance to FOX NEWS. If only they could find anchors without opinions or curiosity or personality, it might be a reasonable excuse. But I find it part of the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" of "do as I say, not as I do". Or part of their whiner nature, could it be "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"? No wonder the Straight Talk Express seems to have a rattle and need a pacifier.**
*intelligence + temperment
** double what?
[Update: I want to caution against too much ridicule of the way Governor Palin relates to foreign policy and economic issues. She is does a pretty good job of spinning up the trickle down. Meaning she is describing them in ways that obscure under sensible principles policies that will not achieve them. In other words she does a brilliant job of defending policies which are indefensible, yet fits the old pattern of what they think will work. But then I could just be too easy on her, or sexist, in an affirmative action sort of way.]
for MSNBC.
As Olbermann's audience grew to rival, though not quite equal, that of longtime ratings king Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC gained an unwanted reputation as an emergent liberal version of Fox News--a view that became more prevalent after Maddow's show was announced.Not exactly "Fair and Balanced".
Meanwhile Republican and former Congressman Joe Scarborough has a three-hour program every morning--more airtime than Maddow and Olbermann have combined. While MSNBC is experimenting with a block of liberal programming, as a network that shares offices with NBC News, it can't afford to be seen as having an ideological bias. The network recently bowed to conservative critics by moving Matthews and Olbermann, both seen as sympathetic to Barack Obama, out of the anchor chairs for live political events.
The only reason MSNBC should have resisted "conservative critics" is if they wanted to be the perfect counter-balance to FOX NEWS. If only they could find anchors without opinions or curiosity or personality, it might be a reasonable excuse. But I find it part of the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" of "do as I say, not as I do". Or part of their whiner nature, could it be "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"? No wonder the Straight Talk Express seems to have a rattle and need a pacifier.**
*intelligence + temperment
** double what?
[Update: I want to caution against too much ridicule of the way Governor Palin relates to foreign policy and economic issues. She is does a pretty good job of spinning up the trickle down. Meaning she is describing them in ways that obscure under sensible principles policies that will not achieve them. In other words she does a brilliant job of defending policies which are indefensible, yet fits the old pattern of what they think will work. But then I could just be too easy on her, or sexist, in an affirmative action sort of way.]
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Spare the Rodney!
"I get no respect"
That is what the troops can say.
But who also gets no respect?
To put it plainly, lawyers and politicians have been the butt of jokes for quite some time, but it should be noted that "we the people" are the real bottom line.
What does this have to do with the issue of supporting troops? Talk is cheap, lives are dear. Law and politics should have the highest priority because of this connection. And that was not even where I started out on this course. My intention was to show that when all is said and done it matters who is in charge. So even behind what some say, what they do will be different. Context is always important, who says what is also important, but who is leading and who can follow it is the key.
It is too much to ask that those that disagree just shut up, but that seems what some are doing, without having the guts to even stay the course of saying it.
The point I can't put too plainly is that whatever is said, the context of who said it is important but that even different players taking the same course could do a better job, but it could be more important avoiding them.
[update beating around the job]
That is what the troops can say.
But who also gets no respect?
To put it plainly, lawyers and politicians have been the butt of jokes for quite some time, but it should be noted that "we the people" are the real bottom line.
What does this have to do with the issue of supporting troops? Talk is cheap, lives are dear. Law and politics should have the highest priority because of this connection. And that was not even where I started out on this course. My intention was to show that when all is said and done it matters who is in charge. So even behind what some say, what they do will be different. Context is always important, who says what is also important, but who is leading and who can follow it is the key.
It is too much to ask that those that disagree just shut up, but that seems what some are doing, without having the guts to even stay the course of saying it.
The point I can't put too plainly is that whatever is said, the context of who said it is important but that even different players taking the same course could do a better job, but it could be more important avoiding them.
[update beating around the job]
Monday, June 07, 2010
Head Hunters?
Actually I am looking for a new job.
Rabbilive.com interviewed Helen Thomas.
Now she has been forced to retire in an ironic atmosphere. Of course she is a journalist and she should have been more careful with her words, or not even held an opinion or at least not mentioned it or done an interview.** Ironically it is hard to extend that consistency to the likes of the Right where journalism and opinion are so connected there would be a whole lot of job openings if it were to be applied across the board. It would also be hard for her to be turned down by some speakers boards*. But then we are back to the irony.
(or Try Un Ism)
* of course given market forces it would still be a risk
** even this may be to harsh an analysis: one would think that she said that Jews should get out of Israel. That is a flat out error by CNN.***
[There is no defending the conclusion that has been reached by those that have listened to Helen Thomas, yet that is a double-edged sword. The conclusion is unjustified that all Jews should get out of Israel, it is also not necessarily what she implied. The challenge is to find a true transcript of her answers to the questions and then not ask "what if's" that are equally off base, especially behind her back.]
*** ["Thomas was then asked where the Jews in Israel should go? Thomas responded, "They should go home," which the White House reporter identified as "Poland, Germany ... and America and everywhere else."] The bold is not confirmed by the original on Rabbilive.com]
Rabbilive.com interviewed Helen Thomas.
Now she has been forced to retire in an ironic atmosphere. Of course she is a journalist and she should have been more careful with her words, or not even held an opinion or at least not mentioned it or done an interview.** Ironically it is hard to extend that consistency to the likes of the Right where journalism and opinion are so connected there would be a whole lot of job openings if it were to be applied across the board. It would also be hard for her to be turned down by some speakers boards*. But then we are back to the irony.
(or Try Un Ism)
* of course given market forces it would still be a risk
** even this may be to harsh an analysis: one would think that she said that Jews should get out of Israel. That is a flat out error by CNN.***
[There is no defending the conclusion that has been reached by those that have listened to Helen Thomas, yet that is a double-edged sword. The conclusion is unjustified that all Jews should get out of Israel, it is also not necessarily what she implied. The challenge is to find a true transcript of her answers to the questions and then not ask "what if's" that are equally off base, especially behind her back.]
*** ["Thomas was then asked where the Jews in Israel should go? Thomas responded, "They should go home," which the White House reporter identified as "Poland, Germany ... and America and everywhere else."] The bold is not confirmed by the original on Rabbilive.com]
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Fine Tuning.
THE GAME (Slightly updated: bold Stay the Course - job->search) The topic is our job which is to help navigate embedded with a link to help you navigate. Not to mention bottom links that brings some news to light if you go there, or sometimes just a previous connection as below.
In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.
In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
GOP-GAP
NOT!
Whether it the Grand Old Party or the Grand Oil Party there is no GAP filled by Governor Palin. OK, some executive experience. And she's human, they had to say.
OK, maybe we are both stretching things a bit. But this is serious. She did a fine job presenting a fine speech and a fine life story, after Reverend Rhetoric ** presented his fine rendering.
All in all it was a fine show that was very inspiring to the base who have faith in something beyond facts.
Governor Palin[*] has an inspiring way about her. It is the energy and her certainty that is her strength. Unfortunately, her selection seems to be aimed at the Plexiglas ceiling. There may be cracks in it, but when you are on top, you can say anything and still be standing on it. My original panic was that Biden's fire and humor would be tempered against a woman. But given her own fire and humor, and my original panic being sexist, he should give her all he's got. They are already complaining about the media, and unless she expects some affirmative action or pity, she should be able to stand on her own.
[*][9-4-08: Heck, even the above link has fallen for the flip-flop on the press ***. Granted the press was in McCain's corner or they were off the plane and missing the barbecues. (I have no confirmed reports of either.) But the flip-flop that the "mother lacked the soaring oratory skills of Obama", to the "calm, TV-friendly tones reminiscent of Ronald Reagan", belies her joke about "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull" and her "beat and a smirk" lipstick.(I took liberties to finely edit this.)]
[I watched most of what I watched on C-Span, and bounced in and out of MSNBC, but did catch a bit of grousing about the timing of the speeches, not allowing for the media filtering. While I did not watch equal amounts of the two conventions or networks, they were probably right that the speeches were more tightly timed, but it seemed that MSNBC had filtered and missed several of the Dem ones anyway. So I could not tell if MSNBC gave equal time or equal filtering for both convention's speeches. Imagine, the convention speeches were getting in the way of the pundits "filtering". I noticed with the first convention the flip-flop, but they actually brought it up. Deleted reference to "moose gun" here. Audience: Aahhhh. Sarcasm there, but to the point, I don't know if the media is falling for or intentionally validating, the whining that comes from the Good Old Patronizing Party, but I think the brilliant selection of Palin was to preempt and to stay the course.]
** [these are chronologically added and I use the word Rhetoric as a compliment. Huckabee had a zinger of his own and Biden "Whoa"good show, fine "lines" and "heckuva" job.]--[I must add between the lines or just plain more lines: it is about leadership, not just being an executive, and intelligence, but more about who and how it is filtered.]
*** bold added and where I may have gotten fine but was filtered through MSNBC.
Whether it the Grand Old Party or the Grand Oil Party there is no GAP filled by Governor Palin. OK, some executive experience. And she's human, they had to say.
OK, maybe we are both stretching things a bit. But this is serious. She did a fine job presenting a fine speech and a fine life story, after Reverend Rhetoric ** presented his fine rendering.
All in all it was a fine show that was very inspiring to the base who have faith in something beyond facts.
Governor Palin[*] has an inspiring way about her. It is the energy and her certainty that is her strength. Unfortunately, her selection seems to be aimed at the Plexiglas ceiling. There may be cracks in it, but when you are on top, you can say anything and still be standing on it. My original panic was that Biden's fire and humor would be tempered against a woman. But given her own fire and humor, and my original panic being sexist, he should give her all he's got. They are already complaining about the media, and unless she expects some affirmative action or pity, she should be able to stand on her own.
[*][9-4-08: Heck, even the above link has fallen for the flip-flop on the press ***. Granted the press was in McCain's corner or they were off the plane and missing the barbecues. (I have no confirmed reports of either.) But the flip-flop that the "mother lacked the soaring oratory skills of Obama", to the "calm, TV-friendly tones reminiscent of Ronald Reagan", belies her joke about "the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull" and her "beat and a smirk" lipstick.(I took liberties to finely edit this.)]
[I watched most of what I watched on C-Span, and bounced in and out of MSNBC, but did catch a bit of grousing about the timing of the speeches, not allowing for the media filtering. While I did not watch equal amounts of the two conventions or networks, they were probably right that the speeches were more tightly timed, but it seemed that MSNBC had filtered and missed several of the Dem ones anyway. So I could not tell if MSNBC gave equal time or equal filtering for both convention's speeches. Imagine, the convention speeches were getting in the way of the pundits "filtering". I noticed with the first convention the flip-flop, but they actually brought it up. Deleted reference to "moose gun" here. Audience: Aahhhh. Sarcasm there, but to the point, I don't know if the media is falling for or intentionally validating, the whining that comes from the Good Old Patronizing Party, but I think the brilliant selection of Palin was to preempt and to stay the course.]
** [these are chronologically added and I use the word Rhetoric as a compliment. Huckabee had a zinger of his own and Biden "Whoa"good show, fine "lines" and "heckuva" job.]--[I must add between the lines or just plain more lines: it is about leadership, not just being an executive, and intelligence, but more about who and how it is filtered.]
*** bold added and where I may have gotten fine but was filtered through MSNBC.
Friday, October 05, 2012
Replacement Refs or Not...
If it were a debate* we would have stopped it.
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John! Bring it on, Joe! The President needs to hold a Sit Down.
Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks. Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts. By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs. Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^ (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)
And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator. Well, who knows? But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates. And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast. Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter. Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't.
BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]
*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...
^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.)
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism? Might it be, rational subjectivism?
<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12 slight edit ( "r.... ",)
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John! Bring it on, Joe! The President needs to hold a Sit Down.
Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks. Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts. By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs. Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^ (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)
And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator. Well, who knows? But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates. And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast. Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter. Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't.
BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]
*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...
^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.)
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism? Might it be, rational subjectivism?
<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12 slight edit ( "r.... ",)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Mis-Infotainment Tonight
Well, last night.
Since it is likely that the above link will be pulled* from the internet, this proves there is a conspiracy of the liberal media.
Nevertheless, I will comment on Bill O'Reilly's interview of Dennis Miller, comedian.
Dennis Miller makes Bill O'Reilly look...like a "fair and balanced" interviewer. Dennis Miller makes Jonathan Swift look...like a satirist.
I could go on, but it was all about Dennis Miller and... hate and... lame at that. Except for one laugh: "I don't know why people say things out loud sometimes. I think maybe..."
Speaking of lame: Rachel Maddow is spoofed on SNL. I don't know if it is just me, the characters or the writers, but it was not so funny. Maybe it is hard to spoof someone who is funny and doing a good job, without needing to do an even better job. Burris may even fall into that category, but it could be just in comparison toBlog-oy-ya-bleep.
For more fun'n edifying:
*** ***
[CORRECTION: Poor transition!]
*** ***
FOR ACTUAL Fun'n Edifying:
The Stephanie Miller Show
The Randi Rhodes Show
* this link was emailed with the urgency that it was going to be pulled from the internet because Democrats did not want the truth out there. It is not.
[For the irony challenged, I flip-flop between facts and "frame of reference"** rather than straight satire. So I will con descend to flip the con text: It is not at this point pulled or the truth.]
** apparently the genre of the right, not to mention the Miller's...
LOCAL RADIO and Real Infotainment.(Time Stamp 9:10 AM)
And National Fun'n Edifying:
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report(TS 9:40 AM)
And for real "fair and balanced" see Huffington Post though not really radio or TV. But something must be "read into" that by Bill Kristol: The reason conservatives had food is that they provided it, which was nice for Will to host Obama, while the "liberals" were invited by Obama and he was just being conservative or not letting you read something into that also.
Since it is likely that the above link will be pulled* from the internet, this proves there is a conspiracy of the liberal media.
Nevertheless, I will comment on Bill O'Reilly's interview of Dennis Miller, comedian.
Dennis Miller makes Bill O'Reilly look...like a "fair and balanced" interviewer. Dennis Miller makes Jonathan Swift look...like a satirist.
I could go on, but it was all about Dennis Miller and... hate and... lame at that. Except for one laugh: "I don't know why people say things out loud sometimes. I think maybe..."
Speaking of lame: Rachel Maddow is spoofed on SNL. I don't know if it is just me, the characters or the writers, but it was not so funny. Maybe it is hard to spoof someone who is funny and doing a good job, without needing to do an even better job. Burris may even fall into that category, but it could be just in comparison toBlog-oy-ya-bleep.
For more fun'n edifying:
*** ***
[CORRECTION: Poor transition!]
*** ***
FOR ACTUAL Fun'n Edifying:
The Stephanie Miller Show
The Randi Rhodes Show
* this link was emailed with the urgency that it was going to be pulled from the internet because Democrats did not want the truth out there. It is not.
[For the irony challenged, I flip-flop between facts and "frame of reference"** rather than straight satire. So I will con descend to flip the con text: It is not at this point pulled or the truth.]
** apparently the genre of the right, not to mention the Miller's...
LOCAL RADIO and Real Infotainment.(Time Stamp 9:10 AM)
And National Fun'n Edifying:
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report(TS 9:40 AM)
And for real "fair and balanced" see Huffington Post though not really radio or TV. But something must be "read into" that by Bill Kristol: The reason conservatives had food is that they provided it, which was nice for Will to host Obama, while the "liberals" were invited by Obama and he was just being conservative or not letting you read something into that also.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
"if I were dictator"
Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."
As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."
Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?
Is there another kind of politics or reality?
I'll have to check and get back to you.
[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."
As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."
Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?
Is there another kind of politics or reality?
I'll have to check and get back to you.
[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The State of the Job Report
Think Progress reports 19 facts that could be known before you watch the State of the Union.
Number 3, more jobs created in 2011 than 7 of 8 Bush years.
And just consider what would have happened with the help of Republican Leaders.**
BTW: I buried the hatchet by not using other words.*
* or what would have happened without their help(a pun on job won)
** I had harsher words or a flip-flop of help, but if congress had worked, or if Obama had not compromised
Thursday, September 19, 2002
Flash Back
[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]
*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link
*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *
[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]
No Fast Track for War-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.
"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.
[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)