Liberal reticence an oxymoron?
[To say the least.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query no gain. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query no gain. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Media Whores*
Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:
[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:
[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]
Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.
It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.
* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.
* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]
[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...
[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:
Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".
[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]
Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.
It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.
* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.
* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]
[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
What Powder is Dry For!
[From email sent 9-12-05]
Melodrama over meaning as I see it... Melodrama over meaning? That takes the cake without even having the guts to eat it. Medved claims Hurricane Katrina will have little impact over 99% of our citizens. Even if that is not an exaggeration, it means that roughly 3 million will be affected. Unfortunately the 99% less effected "ballparking" of the figure does not apply to the fraction of these 3 million who are displaced, or with lost property or lives. The Superdome was only able to shelter almost that number or not quite the 30,000 lives that Medved must feels have little meaning or that Barbara Bush "feels" are doing well at the Astrodome. No wonder the president was into baseball, his thinking is only ballpark and his advice really comes from the outfield and we now know just what is meant by a "shutout". The people get shut out while they shutout what really should be feelings that they can have an impact on so many realities.
As I see it Medved wants Bush to really hit it out of the park with nominations to the Supreme Court. But in all reality the administration has three strikes or at least a walk, but only out of power: the investigations of the Downing Street Memo, the Plame Outing, Phase II of the investigation into the pre-war USE of intelligence, and now the FEMA reaction to Katrina. If this is not the "extraordinary circumstances" that give ample reason for Democrats to call for at least a rain delay, then America should call for new umpires if not a whole new park.
(It is ironic that I agree that more needed saying about the nomination of Roberts. However very unironic the link that deluged New Orleans. My quibble is over calling coverage of the tragedy melodrama. Again it is no melodrama that Bush uses tragedy for political gain and ducking and covering however unsuccessfully.
Melodrama over meaning as I see it... Melodrama over meaning? That takes the cake without even having the guts to eat it. Medved claims Hurricane Katrina will have little impact over 99% of our citizens. Even if that is not an exaggeration, it means that roughly 3 million will be affected. Unfortunately the 99% less effected "ballparking" of the figure does not apply to the fraction of these 3 million who are displaced, or with lost property or lives. The Superdome was only able to shelter almost that number or not quite the 30,000 lives that Medved must feels have little meaning or that Barbara Bush "feels" are doing well at the Astrodome. No wonder the president was into baseball, his thinking is only ballpark and his advice really comes from the outfield and we now know just what is meant by a "shutout". The people get shut out while they shutout what really should be feelings that they can have an impact on so many realities.
As I see it Medved wants Bush to really hit it out of the park with nominations to the Supreme Court. But in all reality the administration has three strikes or at least a walk, but only out of power: the investigations of the Downing Street Memo, the Plame Outing, Phase II of the investigation into the pre-war USE of intelligence, and now the FEMA reaction to Katrina. If this is not the "extraordinary circumstances" that give ample reason for Democrats to call for at least a rain delay, then America should call for new umpires if not a whole new park.
(It is ironic that I agree that more needed saying about the nomination of Roberts. However very unironic the link that deluged New Orleans. My quibble is over calling coverage of the tragedy melodrama. Again it is no melodrama that Bush uses tragedy for political gain and ducking and covering however unsuccessfully.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Aye of Newt
The Interpretation of Dreams*
Pre and post Freud.(Nietszche/Jung)***
Projection of terms/Slash/Tools.
The difference between ends and means seems lost.
Speaking of lost, find Armey's only regret is "calling for" government shutdown before doing it.(My original source was MSNBC, but haven't located it.)
Well? Close enough and speaking of intent...not exactly.**
But is that Alinsky, or both ends against the middle or "authentically dishonest"?
Footnote: This was originally intended to hold some comments for later research, but worked out in the end, excessive links aside.
Label: Post-Nietzschean-Manichean-Platonics.
[Original footnote:(LABEL aside)I was not aware of earlier uses of Aye of Newt.]
* [the two links inserted later]
** [exactly(Forbes/D'Sousa)]
***[4 links added]
QED?
[progressive/pragmatic verses purity/pragmatic = incremental no slippery slope]
[See Comment.]
[One Nation & The Plan]
Pre and post Freud.(Nietszche/Jung)***
Projection of terms/Slash/Tools.
The difference between ends and means seems lost.
Speaking of lost, find Armey's only regret is "calling for" government shutdown before doing it.(My original source was MSNBC, but haven't located it.)
Well? Close enough and speaking of intent...not exactly.**
But is that Alinsky, or both ends against the middle or "authentically dishonest"?
Footnote: This was originally intended to hold some comments for later research, but worked out in the end, excessive links aside.
Label: Post-Nietzschean-Manichean-Platonics.
[Original footnote:(LABEL aside)I was not aware of earlier uses of Aye of Newt.]
* [the two links inserted later]
** [exactly(Forbes/D'Sousa)]
***[4 links added]
QED?
[progressive/pragmatic verses purity/pragmatic = incremental no slippery slope]
[See Comment.]
[One Nation & The Plan]
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
Republicans can't run against congress anymore.
Wanna bet ?
That's sarcasm, not a wager.
It will have to be a do something congress.
(FN?) not ready to footnote:
1. Republicans Gain Four Governorships, Bucking Anti-Incumbency Fever
2. A. The Jig is Up?, B. The Real B. S. of the F. C.
3. Former Republican senator sees potential doom in Cantor loss
4. Bad News, Good News. (~)Trick Question of the Day?, (~)Inconvenient, What President Obama should say tomorrow., Debate: Take One
(~) QCON: TruthOut, Trick Question of the Day?, FORGOTTEN HUMANITY! (A, B, C)
(^) Tea
Party Down Grade, Bleep
'n Compromise (Dept Ceiling) Review**, Hoof and
Mouth. (A, B, C)
(~) (usc)~ you scroll click re:anomaly
[AM Rep Cong leader makes good points about Harry Reid, but ignores original obstructionists and power of purse*. Rance Priebus and top down selection.]
Ron an Daily Obama and the leaders.
[RFD, RFD2 , ]
* posted pre-Mitch McConnell address.
[Washington Post: Obama Transcript]
11-6-14
Divide to concur[!]
Yeah, that's the gay divorce[!] aka ticket ala Nietzsche. No more kickin' the "kickin' the can game" down the road. What doesn't kill ya may make you vote.
AKA States Right, People Left
[Manchin]
{RM, RM2, RM3,}
Point counterpoint?
That's sarcasm, not a wager.
It will have to be a do something congress.
(FN?) not ready to footnote:
1. Republicans Gain Four Governorships, Bucking Anti-Incumbency Fever
2. A. The Jig is Up?, B. The Real B. S. of the F. C.
3. Former Republican senator sees potential doom in Cantor loss
4. Bad News, Good News. (~)Trick Question of the Day?, (~)Inconvenient, What President Obama should say tomorrow., Debate: Take One
(~) QCON: TruthOut, Trick Question of the Day?, FORGOTTEN HUMANITY! (A, B, C)
(~) (usc)~ you scroll click re:anomaly
[AM Rep Cong leader makes good points about Harry Reid, but ignores original obstructionists and power of purse*. Rance Priebus and top down selection.]
Ron an Daily Obama and the leaders.
[RFD, RFD2 , ]
* posted pre-Mitch McConnell address.
[Washington Post: Obama Transcript]
11-6-14
Divide to concur[!]
Yeah, that's the gay divorce[!] aka ticket ala Nietzsche. No more kickin' the "kickin' the can game" down the road. What doesn't kill ya may make you vote.
AKA States Right, People Left
[Manchin]
{RM, RM2, RM3,}
Point counterpoint?
Monday, September 10, 2007
Betray US Report
I know it is a little hard to put the CON TEXT in context, let alone my own writing. The surge has worked.
No quotations on that, but my summary was that it would be maybe nuanced. I apparently write so nuanced that I find it hard to search my point that a troop surge would be political. The point I may have missed but had in mind, is that while I called it an escalation, it now is a surge. Petraeus hopes to be back down to pre-surge numbers by summer. The irony is that the solution in Iraq must be political while the surge over here was just political as well. Well maybe that sorts it out, or maybe I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, but the timing is all to drag things out for political gain, or minimizing political loss, and it is impossible to detach the politics.
MoveOn.org draws the line, the troops should not be in the crossfire and the General should not just tow the line.
[1:35 PM If he is really presenting "his" testimony, it does not mean he is not still straddling a very careful line. 1:55 PM a few bold/links added]
No quotations on that, but my summary was that it would be maybe nuanced. I apparently write so nuanced that I find it hard to search my point that a troop surge would be political. The point I may have missed but had in mind, is that while I called it an escalation, it now is a surge. Petraeus hopes to be back down to pre-surge numbers by summer. The irony is that the solution in Iraq must be political while the surge over here was just political as well. Well maybe that sorts it out, or maybe I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, but the timing is all to drag things out for political gain, or minimizing political loss, and it is impossible to detach the politics.
MoveOn.org draws the line, the troops should not be in the crossfire and the General should not just tow the line.
[1:35 PM If he is really presenting "his" testimony, it does not mean he is not still straddling a very careful line. 1:55 PM a few bold/links added]
Monday, January 15, 2007
Hope? Under Cover of Denial.
"they could try to stop me"
To Congress "Bring Em On!"
This is another one of my preemptive reads, [First Read] ...(not even clicked on) where I am giving my take based on a glance at the headlines and little more than what Air America Radio or the local paper provide. Which is probably a bit more than Bush reads, but he does say that they(the media) are a filter and I am sure he filters much of what he gets from his "objective staff". The second hope (the first being "they" do) is that there will be more diplomatic results:
Rice to attend Israeli, Palestinian summit
Secretary of state hears demand for stronger U.S. push on Mideast peace
But as I must go back, as I promised, to add links connecting previous takes, I will go straight to the point. Is the president attempting to implement all the suggestions of the IRSG under cover of denial for political gain? Or is he attempting to implement an Iran strategy under cover of politics for the security of the country? Denial of politics is not what I am talking about here in that politics must play a part, but the part that must be focused on is the goal and that and it's parts are still cloudy.
Diplomacy under the cloud of offensive measures, even under cover of defensive needs, is no excuse for not uncovering what our goal really is. Actions speak louder than words, but words must begin to be trusted, then verified by both sides, whether between nations or branches of government. The "unified executive" here and the "unity government" of Iraq, must be scrutinized, especially under the light of the cloud they like to place over the United Nations and international "law".
To Congress "Bring Em On!"
This is another one of my preemptive reads, [First Read] ...(not even clicked on) where I am giving my take based on a glance at the headlines and little more than what Air America Radio or the local paper provide. Which is probably a bit more than Bush reads, but he does say that they(the media) are a filter and I am sure he filters much of what he gets from his "objective staff". The second hope (the first being "they" do) is that there will be more diplomatic results:
Rice to attend Israeli, Palestinian summit
Secretary of state hears demand for stronger U.S. push on Mideast peace
But as I must go back, as I promised, to add links connecting previous takes, I will go straight to the point. Is the president attempting to implement all the suggestions of the IRSG under cover of denial for political gain? Or is he attempting to implement an Iran strategy under cover of politics for the security of the country? Denial of politics is not what I am talking about here in that politics must play a part, but the part that must be focused on is the goal and that and it's parts are still cloudy.
Diplomacy under the cloud of offensive measures, even under cover of defensive needs, is no excuse for not uncovering what our goal really is. Actions speak louder than words, but words must begin to be trusted, then verified by both sides, whether between nations or branches of government. The "unified executive" here and the "unity government" of Iraq, must be scrutinized, especially under the light of the cloud they like to place over the United Nations and international "law".
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bush never says he will not follow unconstitutional laws.
[THIS POST WAS LOST OR RATHER SAVED IN A DRAFT FILE FROM July 25th, 2006 and Published October 11th, 2007: COMMENTS MAY FOLLOW BELOW]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
Friday, April 07, 2006
More Heroes Needed.
Words I saved in file yesterday:
From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.
WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.
This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?
How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?
It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.
While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.
From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.
WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.
This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?
How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?
It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.
While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)