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.

Eating Their Own?

Perfect Presidents, or Perfect Politicians?
The Forum Part A, and Part B.
To be broadcast on the Seattle Channel.

It has been complained that Democrats have a problem of eating their own, meaning beating each other up in the political races, but compared to Mike Malloy who sometimes wants to eat his own arm, it is all relative. I call it dialogue and debate and impassioned perspectives, and just what politics needs. Not that anyone should be eating anyone, for Republicans who view things as "Us and Them", there is probably no problem with eating others. But if one just looks at the Democrats and the amount of "dialogue", who needs Republicans? [One always needs loyal opposition, but loyal followers? That was just answering a rhetorical with a rhetorical.]

PART OF A DRAFT FOR AN INVESTIGATION

The flood of investigations that have not gone anywhere, call for new leadership at the top.

Short of that I recommend a bi-partsan team with full powers consisting of Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell.

Short of that the last hope is that congress do it's job and the press work even harder.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it is clear that Congress needs to take seriously the role of the federal government in meeting the needs of its people. I am urging you as my representative in Washington to:

1. Fund the health care, housing, nutrition, employment and education needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina;

2. abandon all plans to extend or grant additional tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations; and

3. abandon the budget reconciliation plan to cut health care and nutrition programs for low-income families.

I HAVE AMENDED THIS TO ADD MY OWN CONCERN REGARDING THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE ROBERTS:

From the Editorial in the September 19th issue of THE NATION
as summarized here:

1. His conflict of interest while interviewing for his nomination.

2. His claim he would recuse himself when it came to "conflict with his private religious views.

3. His participation in the Republican remake of federalism,

4. and the release of his Solicitor General papers when he was "detailed specifically to handle the most politically sensitive materials".

JUST POINT ONE(conflict of interest during the process) should disqualify Roberts.

And to go on:
POINT 2 (recusal should really be questioned in his confirmation process)
a. He already violated that principle.
b. He must delineat his views or caseS on which he would recuse himself in the future.

POINT 3 is counter indicative of the latter and confirmation of the former
while Point 4 is further documentation being hidden.

IF THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (Under the terms of the Judicial Compromise of the Gang of 14) that there are three unfinished inquiries that need further independence and progress, (Downing Street, Plame Outing and Phase II on the Use of Pre-War Intelligence) but now a fourth continuing disaster and fiasco that (Bush will investigate Brownies Heckuva Job at FEMA)...

THEN I GUESS AS SOMEONE PUT IT --
Hurricane Katrina was only a
"NEAR CATASTROPHE".

Swiftboating of McCain?

As I pointed out the term needs adjustment.
And I "really" dislike the headline US News and World Report uses:
New York Times Drops Bomb On McCain and forgotten?
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY by The Drudge Report.
Not that I have fully read these, but this:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk is worth the read and fits in with the image management that needs exposure.
Hence the term Swiftboating should not be used as that was a campaign of misinformation, while FlipFlopperKrafting provides double exposure.

[O'Reilly "Lynching Party" is really a Fox Hunt. Media Matters is Hard Work]

[2-22-08 Flip-Flopper-Crafting? I still like the "K". But I will amend the comment to note that often headlines are sensational, yet The New York Times understated the issues "For McCain..."

“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter," said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

and a more direct headline "No Public Funds for McCain" from Politico has an interesting bottom line that is well summarized in the last few paragraphs.

But even if the commission were meeting, one must wonder if the panel -- an organization that decided the cost of field organizers doesn’t need to be added to the overall cost of winning a state primary -- would tell the Republican Party that its nominee can’t slip through a newly carved loophole and arm himself for battle against a significantly better funded and unrestricted Democratic nominee.]

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.

4-11-07 Terrorists Strike Shock Jock and...

"young women" athletes.

Jason Witlock, on TODAY, attacks "opportunists" and "domestic terrorists" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for "causing them to receive threats on their lives." While he seems to be placing this in some rational context, he continues they "continue to go light fires around the country". Frank Luntz talks about "words that don't work" also on TODAY.

These clips taken off the Internet are not necessarily in context, but they do afford an opportunity to react. Taken separately they are part of the problem. Individual fires that need to be addressed. But the metaphor of war or fires are mixed metaphors, or are they (?) People are not trees, but fire fighters do light back fires to fight fires, and this is an interesting "firestorm"[Matt Lauer, 2nd clip] For the reaction that these "opportunists" are accused of "causing" are needed, not only to stop the spread of smoldering degradation, but to light the way to more confrontation. If the market is supposed to be what will address this, and supposed to be free, then how can shining light on that market be blamed for correcting it.

More light needs to be focused on the producers of these clips and their overall programming. For the smoke was blown by their presentation and likely lack of confrontation directly, at least as they are spread on the Internet. Matt certainly let this spread without even picking up a shovel, which is what fire fighters (the media) should do, rather than aid the arsonists or real opportunists, like the networks. The real light may be that the market obviously does not work in either focusing light or fighting fires, but more light or more reaction are not the terrorists.

My point is that if September 11th, 2001 changed things, maybe April 11th, 2007(the day MSNBC canned Imus) has changed things, and we will really fight in a new light. Unfortunately light is not new, and fire was a great invention{?), but smoke is only a signal that often is just blown away.

If this is just a media war, it should not evolve to just "star" wars, where personalities rise to the skies and continue to fire from satellites. That product of progress will really shine the light on the intentions(?) of the market and the culture of personalities(Imus) who might step up on the bottom line of all else. If he makes it elsewhere will he change his shtick? So far intentions are really lost in the smoke of slightly longer sound bites, that are just more little fires. Demonstrating that the so-called "opportunists" Witlock "blames" for setting fires are really doing the "hard work" that needs doing.

(apologies that these are only clips and I did not directly address much of either)

[4-17-07 slight punctuation changes and note 3(?):
intentions(?) of the market, invention(?) of fire- and there is more association than I thought of at the time I was just noting the ironies of mixed metaphors (?) ]

Legislative District Townhall Meeting

[A conversation of sorts in questions raised and answered by the participants.]

On the issue of horse trading*, I guess my point was the question: is the sacrifice worth it with a side that will not even stand behind their own word? [In particular the school funding majority issue]. It may be a pragmatic approach to differing views, but from the view of either side or the middle how should not standing behind ones principles let alone ones own horse trading get viewed? And if the public does not know what is being traded, let alone that they are not stood behind, then it may be just them that is sacrificed.

But this may be no better than the perspective of the guy who wanted to get hate and divisiveness out of politics ** but was not really clear what it had to do with the 2004 election, except that maybe he had the answer or yet at least did not say where he laid the blame.

But back to my question/comments and my segue to the guy who recommended that you as state representatives, tell the county and city level what his views are, (Sports Arenas) and while he was not connected to the facts on state dollars and getting returns on "our" money, (there will be no state money as far as you are concerned) I wished to endorse the reverse concept that you carry our concerns up the ladder rather than down, where I inquired on the SJM 8016 (impeachment) and 8003 (escalation) and as you informed us on the SJM 8012 regarding the National Guard. Thank you.

Lastly in comments on the side: the expression that the Building Industry provides 1/3 of the budget is awkward or seems to need a tweak of perspective or economics. I understand the comment but it seems divorced from the concept of who actually pays or what the budget is for. Like the transportation issue with 122 different plans or sports arenas and their several localities/municipalities and 3 levels of government funding or influence, with the BI there are a multitude of economic transactions filling needs and customers paying. They are no less interwoven, or in need to be penciled in, but bottom line, is not the cost and needs relationship revolving around the people? I think that your understanding of it and it’s complexities are much greater that you can express but I hope I have tweaked something.

* the act of trading votes or bargaining for bills
** he had his own perspective on the way it should work: somehow magical or without appreciating even his own part in the problem [my words not his]

Brackets and the Debt Clock

[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]

[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]

The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.

The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.

Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.

Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.

But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.



[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]

*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself

[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!

[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]

Hitting Snooze Button

Meme or and um.

Just a little stepping back on the previous post of mine. First: it is always in the words that you find what you Google. Second: then they must still be filtered.

[ 8-20-07 * * * SEE PREVIOUS WARNING: CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * * Wake Up America * * * ] caught my interest, and hit some spots that were familiar and where I often go.

The particular page on Rove and Hillary along with the new filter as I note above, Meme or and um , spells it all out. But I still have a ways to go, and it is not that clear where it is coming from. All I can say is that it is a filter. What it fertilizes is still up to the "hard work" of the people. Which is something I need to get back to... later.

[Heck: Oh and I did not even read the reference to language [8-20-07 * * * CLICK AT OWN RISK (in comments to Wake Up America) * * * ]
and ended mine on vocabulary,
but "there I go again". [[11:08 AM Re: Bill Clinton as a cuss word versus Cheney a pardon for such, is just a hint at a difference in perspectives, which I had missed earlier. "Pardon my Cheney" as in "Pardon my French."]]
Here I will preemptively hit the nail on the head.
Mother Jones, you see hints at the point in the title. Alleged White House-Petraeus Arm Wrestling Over September Report a Ruse? At least that is my point. And TYT. From other source or my general filtering, Patraeus is dancing around "the turd blossoms" of information and politics. Now I will read the report.-
Now that I have, it comports with my opinion and the facts. One thing that must be remembered, there is no obligation to tell the truth to anyone in the media. Even the media has the right to lie. And apparently in this case there may be two stories ** both in public and behind closed doors. And this goes directly back to troop involvement with the facts and whether their opinions matter, whether they are in or out of the military.]

[10:37 AM - My initial impression needs to be filtered, as now I see that Wake Up America has a perspective that still needs more sorting...]

** This is already being denied.

Over Helming.

[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]

Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.

* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

Congressional Oversight Needed!

To clarify the intentions of our laws.
Executive Order Expands Presidential Power Over Agencies
truthout.org : TheNewStandard :
The same old course. Deregulation of regulation.
"guidance"?
Here is my comment "out of the blue" so to speak: They got caught on Iraq, they got caught on signing statements, they got caught on the Plame blame and now the only buck to pass is to save some cash. It may seem innocuous enough, "Clinton did it", but give an inch, they take the Nile. Actually they have not really been caught, they just shift their banks... Hmmm. Meaning there is still a fight to be fought, if they can't have it over there, it is at home meanwhile.

ACCOUNTABILITY!
The executive branch is charged with administering the laws not making them. If they are not clear enough, then there needs to be more laws. Not an independent department of market forces.

Now my "out of the blue" was actually brought to the ground, what really came to my mind from above was this:
Market forces do not supply needs! They only supply value to wants and balance others. I don't know who said that but I am pretty sure someone should have. If not, it should be decreed, and get on with the job of government.

Molly Ivins is remembered and not coincidentally her writing also found in the link Accountability above at Bush the Unitary!

THANK YOU DAVE ROSS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonus hit: trust but verify

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAY DAY IN PEORIA!

Disenfranchisement of Labor: Nothing New.
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their condition. For this use the nation needs these Territories." (Italics included,p.111-112) *

Not necessarily in May, nor politically correct, but these are the words of Abraham Lincoln in Peoria in 1847.

Lincoln had other interesting comments on issues that could shed light on our direction or needed course change or that there actually may be something new. Namely that if labor is not a right, then it is a substance whose abuse should be penalized, or the flow of both Manifest Destiny and Freedom are ebbing.**

HAPPY LAW AND ORDER DAY!
What was started in American was supplanted by power.
That is the same old thing.

* Hint: to update this reading replace the interest groups of Lincoln's time with labor, immigrants, corporations, and whatever needs or territory means?

** Things would be interesting if either Lincoln or FDR had made even more progress, not that loyal oppositition is not worthy, or at least it should be.

Political Football

What is worse than jumping to the conclusion that a bill has merit because both sides win some and lose some, is jumping to the conclusion that it is worth passing just because both sides compromised a little bit more. I am referring to the three separate paths of legitimate citizenship offered and the inclusion of guest worker programs. The path to legitimacy was sacrificed for some while the path to exploitation of others was left open. It is tempting to call it progress, but is it really, when the door is still open to guests that may require the same rights and needs that our citizens deserve while having little teeth in making sure that employers will not be exploiting workers rights and programs everywhere?

It just seems a shame that there is so much attention to something that is still so fluid and is actually taking a lot of their time and may get little done. Let us hope it is more than pandering and more than politics but it may be all we can get. I am embarrassed to point out that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and we can only hope that there is a lesson here to squawk about.

"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I’m confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."

These are well chosen words, but the actual bill and bringing them to reality are another matter for debate.

WORDS FIT

[Submission trimmed to fit needs of the New York Times: September 17th, 2004]
WORDS COUNTING

The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. It is ironic he is in the paragraph profession and a Bush supporter, but not that he misses the connection to education having something to do with it. How much education does one need to see that an equation new or old needs more than a few words and that life is more than numbers crunching? Diversity is found in those that know there is more.

Intelligence For Commission

…on the topic of not reading something fully before speaking up, I've done it again. Actually the following 9/11 Commission Chimera is right on that topic, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/911_commission_chimera.php

(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)

Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.

See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.

This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.

My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238

* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.

See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html

SPIRIT OF THE LAW

The president has spoken recently again, about the spirit of the law. This has been his out in all of this dissembling. Good intentions somehow figure into interpretations of the law more than the actual words in the law. To cover the other end of the deal, write memos that no one reads but hope they will follow until they need to be rewritten. Who needs lawyers when you have judges? Who needs to rewrite history, when you can rewrite memos?

The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.

I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.

…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004

It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.

BAD WITH NUMBERS[Written around Feb. 18th, 2004]

So now I am a Dean delegate with no candidate. I missed my chance early on, to follow through on a thought to open a domain name: Uncommitted.com or dot-org.

NPR or another outlet reports that Kerry needs to lose 60% of the remaining delegates to lose the nomination. My first thought is why don’t they say that he needs 40% of the remaining delegates to keep the nomination?

As I write this it becomes clearer even now, that the trend is set for him to be the next fall guy. Will that leave Edwards the next and final shoe-in or result in a contentious National Convention. As the trend has gone so far the media ball is already rolling if you will note that Kerry only got 39% in Wisconsin. I thought the administration was bad with numbers, now we know how they can get away with it.

(from an email of 9-25-03)

Move On and Look Back.

Dear Honorable Leaders:

Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.

My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.

After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.

Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!

I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."

If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.

The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.

On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?

Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?

The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.