LOYALTY
Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team
In rebuilding effort, loyalty to Bush administration was paramount
This is probably the most important piece of the failed course that will not change. It not only rules out opposing views but limits the number of available skilled staff for an administration with little faith in the government serving the people. Then it also penalizes even those in the same party with open minds that see things differently. It should be no wonder that failure is so frequent and change is so difficult. Even those with merit that chose to keep giving their input will have no effect without the administration being willing to change and risk further exposure of their failures.
As George Lakoff, points out in the book, Don't think of an Elephant Know your values, Frame the debate there are a pair of parental metaphors Strict Father vs. Nurturing Parent and I earlier joked it was about the "Golden Rule", or rather the rule vs. the joke,(Those with...etc.). However there is a much simpler and more familiar way of putting it that explains the philosophy which is behind this all. "Do as I say, not as I do." Sadly the reaction to the reality that is in the results is also familiar to the strict father metaphor. "I'll give you something to cry about."
A second point, (not necessarily in order in the article)and I have not read beyond a few words in a few paragraphs, is probably the goal of privatization of government. It sounds good, but in reality it is a double edged sword that is not even half good. The two sides are either, you are on your own, and corporations will take care of what matters. It should simply be remembered that "privatization" is really "corporatization". Not that corporations are a bad thing, only that too much freedom is as much a concern for corporations as to individuals, for none of us would fair well on our own, even the ones that are trickling down.
[I will try to add links to my earlier references.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query loyalty. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query loyalty. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Monday, May 21, 2007
Air America Radio 2.0
celebrates with a series of interviews of 35 national leaders.
I will celebrate with a portion of an email to a local leader.
Mission Possible Or "heckuva job".
Before I had even read this * (Don't Blame Bush, by Paul Krugman), the reference in the debate came to mind,(the Jack Bauer moment) where the Republicans jumped on the idea that things are solved "above the law" as in the show "24". Just after September 11th, Bush took a swipe at the "Hollywood types" suggesting that they be more helpful with their creativity and come up with some scenarios to fight terrorism. But they are so culturally illiterate that they must not even watch the old shows that were already "out there"(X-Files) not to mentiion, Mission Impossible, and miss the fact that they are not only fiction but they rely on the presumption of having the intelligence and continuing investigations. Or are they? They are probably some of the characters in those shows. Not only is Jack Bauer just another North or Liddy, but Cheney and Rove are no "Briggs and Phelps", let alone the idea that their cast of characters are limited by loyalty to ideology over talent or principles.
I have been busy with some business of my own, ( I will have to catch up on your email later) but have not let alone work in this area which I will send under separate cover, retitled "Mission Possible".
*(not more than into the third paragraph)
I will celebrate with a portion of an email to a local leader.
Mission Possible Or "heckuva job".
Before I had even read this * (Don't Blame Bush, by Paul Krugman), the reference in the debate came to mind,(the Jack Bauer moment) where the Republicans jumped on the idea that things are solved "above the law" as in the show "24". Just after September 11th, Bush took a swipe at the "Hollywood types" suggesting that they be more helpful with their creativity and come up with some scenarios to fight terrorism. But they are so culturally illiterate that they must not even watch the old shows that were already "out there"(X-Files) not to mentiion, Mission Impossible, and miss the fact that they are not only fiction but they rely on the presumption of having the intelligence and continuing investigations. Or are they? They are probably some of the characters in those shows. Not only is Jack Bauer just another North or Liddy, but Cheney and Rove are no "Briggs and Phelps", let alone the idea that their cast of characters are limited by loyalty to ideology over talent or principles.
I have been busy with some business of my own, ( I will have to catch up on your email later) but have not let alone work in this area which I will send under separate cover, retitled "Mission Possible".
*(not more than into the third paragraph)
Friday, September 22, 2006
Our Patriotic "Duty"
One may wonder if I have prescience, but it is more likely what may need to become more common sense. Common sense is really only a sense of what is more common. It may take a more radical sense to detect what is real. If that is hard to follow, at least it makes sense to me why it is.
Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.
Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]
Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.
LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?
P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.
Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.
Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]
Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.
LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?
P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Bush the United
Bush the Unitary*
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)