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]

#1 Discipline - Philosophy

Philosophy should be the top priority for the Democrats!
It is the top priority for the Neo-Cons
and the Republicans are all too disciplined.

Philosophy is just one discipline.
Discipline is not the only philosophy.
Their philosophy is just "offensive".
Our philosophy must be "everything matters".

Not just more discipline, but more disciplines
as in "law" and "politics" "Get No Respect" as Rodney Dangerfield said.
And as I have said, hence the dangerfield we are in.

War is a "last resort", but does the President still have the "war powers" which congress gave him to fight "terrorism"?
His philosophy is that his word is the exception to every rule.

The other two points of THE POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT,
may be Physics and Psychology [*].


These should be the next two priorities, which should focus on what goes on in the world and what goes on in peoples minds,
besides the philosophy that "We are No. 1" for each and every one of us. But it must be noted how much science is devalued, at least in getting it together. Of course we know what physics has brought us in terms of the nuclear age, but the matter of which came first is still a head game.

Where does this fit into the current affairs? Some might say, it is the "Power of Intention" but it starts with trying to determine what other's intentions are while devaluing what our own intentions are or should be.

[any links will be added in due course]
[italics are additions, and bolds are for emphasis, and minor editing within 10 minutes of original post]

The above is not based on a reading of the following... yet!

The Next Act By Seymour M. Hersh Iran? Syria? [update here  ]

Kristol: ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’

These are just two links,
that are yet to be read by me.
HAVE YOU? - - NO MATTER,
if you can process and address the rest of the above.

For deeper matters see these two organizations;Center for American Progress
and
just foreign policy

[* UPDATE 04-08-08: pinnacle or tetrahedron to be added phoney or funny to political points ] as in
[1. Physical
2. Psychological
3. Philosophical
4. Political
(power loop of phony and funny or what will happen)
Hence the battle over not just temper but meant and there4 humor's another battle field, not counting Dangerfield.]

Bush: the Belated Preemptive

The BLAME GAME is really a preemptive excuse to be unprecedented.
Of course Bush needed to preempt in 2000 the people and was selected unprecedentedly by the Supreme Court.

One way to understand this may be to look at the jokes that are "out there".

Politicians and lawyers "get no respect"!

That is because we must respect the understanding of them first, before blaming the people that practice them. And if our goal or starting point is truth or perfection, then we do not intend to really practice them. Meanwhile we must do what it takes to stop others who's intentions we cannot be certain about.

Can we break the vicious cycle?

The question is more important than the answer.

But one answer must be that we value/respect the process, not value slash meaning from words.

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

Featured DO NOT SEE!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. *

Idol Chatter: Pre-Screaming.
Reuters: No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary Post comment.
Angry Astronomer reports.

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

* OK, see the trailer, which is admittedly more a mocumentary.

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?

Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]

[[If the above ramble is hard to follow, maybe reading the following will help.
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins -- Maybe not, but it may make it seem easier. (It may also be helpful to point out that this is only an example used by unwilling participant above.) ]]

[04-22-08: more links on Expelled - -
PZ Meyers Expelled, Gains Sainthood -
Lying for Jesus - (nfry)

It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Faith in doubt and inquiry -
Related video link:
'New' American Theology of Civil Submission - ]

Give an inch, Take a mile.

Congress gave much more than an inch with the Patriot Act, yet the President still takes a mile or more.

Lawyer, Michelle Boardman says, "The separation of powers is working when we have this sort of dispute." But not when the president signs a bill but plainly makes exceptions. That is not separation of powers but misuse and disuse of powers.

Again the branches legislate, execute and interpret law, but the people or the press must be left to figure out who will enforce the law. Needing both law and politics in need of more respect than the Dangerfield* we are in.

* An allusion to the playing field that we create with law and politics that is now in so much danger as Rodney Dangerfield would have said, "gets no respect".

Tolerance at the table?

People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...

[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]

[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]

[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]

Romney takes leap

of faith with religion speech
CNN Politics.com -/- Power Line

"I'm not going to be giving a JFK speech,"

-/-

"Freedom requires religion..."
"A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

"public domain"
"the religion of secularism"
"tHEy are wrong"

"trust"
"the equality of human kind"
"to serve"
"liberty"
"public square"
"under God"

"these convictions will indeed inform "

"constitutional order"
"free exercise"

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate..."

Enough?

In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

I return to the quote he used. And note that the preceding words are all parsed from his speech. If you don't "trust" that, use control find (Ctrl "F") on your keyboard and screen for the words you choose to "verify". Rather than read between the lines, I will let you leap between the segments above and now I will do the same with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

You will find "under God" in neither but you will find "God" is in the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence.
Once and only there.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed...

I could "of course" cherry pick or parse more words, but it is all in the putting together. You might want to search other words like "creator" or "power" and you will find no more of the former and much of the latter and where, but this...

I will leave to you.

[Note: I have taken the liberty to italicize some words and some bold, and here note that a -/- (dash slash dash) gives separation between the sources and parsed words at the top of this post, while in the blockquote -- (two dashes) actually are each one long dash and are for emphasis it seems or high light.]
[It is not that it was a bad speech, but he is "no Kennedy" and may be a better "Reagan". But that is a double-edged comment. ]

King of Pop, R.I.P.

Michael Jackson 1958-2009
Tangential Rip here:
Judge not..lest yee get no respect.

Stay the Comity of Course

I think the president’s address could be summarized by a comparison I made the day before, but which Senator McCain reminded me of in his call for comity after the speech and which he spelled out so as not to be confused with comedy. The Senator made a reference to bygone days of cooperation across the aisle, and a plea almost of why can’t we just get along. The day before a thought had crossed my mind, that Bush is probably a cross between Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield, but you just take out the first names. Senator McCain expects that we should just get along, while Bush just gets no respect. That will be very difficult if Bush thinks he is King and we are expected to stay the course through the Dangerfield.

ALL ABOUT THE DANGERFIELD

RAMPING UP THE POLITICS OR LEVELING IT PERIOD.

Politics is the best way to stand up for our principles and participate in the process that moves us forward. It should not be another name for sacrificing both.

If politicians and lawyers "get no respect", we must notice where it comes from. If we don't fight it here, we can't get it anywhere.

PLEASE FILIBUSTER THE RUBBER STAMP ALITO.

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.

FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK

=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)

Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991

Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.

=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================

*

This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.

===============================================================================

On Democracy and media coverage:

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?

It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.

What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?

Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.

UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html

This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.

Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.

Roger Larson Bellevue, WA

===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================

Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.

Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)

While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.

When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?

Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

Roger Larson




ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]

To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000

COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000

RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.

This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.

[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===

TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.

TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic

It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]

Also a version here.

[*] Update link 1-18-10

Courage to be...

taking a test.

Is it the right test? Who is tested?
Who makes the test?...Actually?

"Is there courage there? Is there boldness there? Is there ability to think outside of the box?" - Wilson Goode, Sr., Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Not exactly the questions for the test, but already demonstrated, by the way.

"They have to demonstrate the courage to be lonely. The courage to understand that they may be making a decision that no one will understand, no one will like, and few will respect." - Andrew Card, Former Chief of Staff of Pres. George W. Bush
Not exactly even questions, but nonetheless demonstrated, by the way.

Could the media pass the test? Or are they passing the buck? Will we pick it up?

McCain: "would rather lose a campaign than lose a war"

Obama: "not interested in a false choice"

The parsing the test problem?
What about* the blue book approach?

* I have yet to filter all these tests, but it seems that McCain is taking Andrew Card's advice. And I come now to the final line that ties this up:
"But, the article may have done more for the campaign without being published than it ever could have if it was." That seems to be the McCain strategy, perform poorly and blame the coverage. While it is mistakes that often get more coverage, whining is not winning, but it plays the refs. The irony in the rejection of McCain's piece may be balanced by the error in his parsing by CBS.

[And my own parsing is tested: "It is what it is". Just an update.]

Speaking of "global" ** and one for the books, who writes this stuff. (And I was going to note anachronism)

** Having read the speech Obama took it to the wall [... see bumped up material to next post]

GRID IRONY

It is ironic that the death of a football and military hero brings such glory and tribute while the photos of flag draped coffins create such controversy. Pat Tillman Jr. is remarkable for what he sacrificed just to share in the risk and responsibilities he felt he should. The many others who died may not have sacrificed as much just to go, but the truth of their ultimate sacrifice deserves no less respect or honor.

Further fuel to the irony are the depictions of flag draped coffins, if seen as political footballs, were kicked off by the fumbling or punting of the truth both preemptively and post mortem. More offensive are the claims, that those who oppose war feel any less respect or responsibility for our troops.

Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

Mission Accomplished

(AP photo see link)
A case of colors.
The Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the first source for Obama flag waving, but the lede is this: Obama Lauds Troops as Iraq War Winds Up. But under my ledership*, I must note that "Mr. Obama was careful not to declare victory." But Colonel Wilkerson and Rachel Maddow rally** my reasons for the lede here. "Hooah!"

* yes "ledership"(sic)
[link is leadership]
** link yet to be embedded (here)

[Speaking of battles and drafts, yet to be. (Ground Troops***)]

*** i.e. foot noted
[PEA CE OUT]


12-15-11 [*] "Hooha!" Not Exactly,
but close enough[!] (for gov'meant work)
[Nor black and white, but here are four perspectives. This is a deeply embedded line. It is about working together and leadership, not without ledership. The gist of it is in regards to the process of crafting good documents(let alone with imperfect people). As in what the heck is Obama doing, let alone Ron Wyden, or Rand Paul.(or Keynes/Hayek) The most important ingredient in these threads is the people, their understanding, and elections that matter. Issues bring the people to the table, and the ballot box.]
[No Horsing around.]
[*]Well maybe a little horsing around. But with respect to follow-up to Awkward Segue, and "four perspectives"(text today) I note that Norman Goldman addresses the NDAA, and was looking forward to Randy Rhodes giving her perspective, but David Sirota was sitting in.]

A Black and White Chat

Last evening, I had a chat(FP2) with a fellow, that began with the subject of the Kobayashi Maru, and the nature of "no-win" versus "game changing" situations.

He was cynical, to say the least* about politics.  He was almost "fair and balanced"(to balance FOX with ideology**) in respect to his admiration for both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul for their straightforwardness, while blaming both parties for their lack thereof and manipulation of the Overton Window.

Allow me to drop this with dissatisfaction @ how it was not really a debate and my not fulfilling a dream.***

* or to say inadequately characterize his view
** a spectrum [wMd?]
(***) or get to my work with metaphor (FP1)

Note: Italics signify prior posts. Bold(if links) signifies outside reads or to reads.

[Spoiler alert !!!!!]

Belated and Preempted Father's Day

May Tim Russert Rest in Peace.
In my humble opinion, he was the best in a field that could do better.
Any comparisons would be possibly in other fields.
But being the Washington DC, Bureau Chief had its responsibilities and limitations.
The political connection and who one meets, and what the press is deserves as much as he gave and more.

My leap to Obama is a matter that others may regard as ill timed, but seems to be fit to be tied. For who are we to say? He took the opportunity to celebrate Father's Day by sending a message to a community. Some may take offense that he is saying what others have said and they could not get away with it. It might not just be who he is, but what and how and why he says it and to whom. Maybe a message and messenger the world and all communities need to get.

How does this get back to Russert? Being a father, messenger and a message maker may be more than a job description and more than any competition or a father can say.

Yet how appropriate is it to ask that words be carefully chosen, and to expect that a race mean more than a competition and a community mean more than a father, while not bringing new meaning to mother. It might take a village, but it also takes a government and a free press, not to mention respect for the law and our natures.

[For my own words and feelings, I missed much of his work, but cannot begrudge those that will miss him so dearly, no matter how they valued his work. Maybe my lack of pedestal for Tim Russert is the best testimonial to his being fair and balanced without quotation marks, in a so-called "Fair and Balanced" world which is a business and so much more.]

Temporal

Problematics
Rachell Maddow: more than just a perspective. Facts do change with time. Past facts are still past, but present facts will soon be. Not to pun on what will be, but Osama bin Laden's past was really not so much the issue. Nothing will change* the mishandling of facts and choices made by the Bush administration. (By this I mean the importance of not having focused on getting bin Laden when the Taliban made offers asking for evidence before September 11th, 2001)

*actually congress can change and the presidency did (see "hypocrisy" and "flip-flop" under can change link)]

[Dylan Ratigan: Mega Fatwah.The difference* between opinion and ruling.

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]

An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future Muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

*spirt and letter of the law]

[Speaking of timing, I mean Dylan. It is alsmost as if, I had already read these. Not. Actually I have read the last link here, before this Temporal rant, but the rest of the links in this bracket are yet to be read, yet seem to fit the bill or fill the tetrahedron, and a prior intent, or rather a comment yet to be found. Note on timing thing: refers to monkey see monkey do of original intent, meaning an email going around about the psychology experiment(a seam in time with the Dylan cracks), and how some people think they know better.]
[Note bolds as read in balancing act or narrative of labels and perspectives. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, No Labels, Herman Cain, not in context of "more than as if not to be".]

Slightly Too Late

THIS HEADING [Waverly Place]* was never posted.
Saved in draft [Waverly Place] 8-7-12 sometime.
Posted post CP or pie cutter, will anyone ask or
Shift Trek, on WD or
Gramm Rudeman BP (no squat).

* 8-10-12 THIS LEDE (THIS HEADING) has been moved down.
i.e. actually posted 8-10-12
"Waverly Place" replaced by "Slightly Too Late" (or L-ate)
Watch where you trek or dressage:

Any calculations of Romney's so called economic plans must take into consideration two things under the rubric of politics. Captain Mitt Picard and the three step outlined under the first three bullets below. (Not to aim at his wife's Dressage Horse or rubber/glue the horse shoe.) My points actually being, that under executive privilege, his plans are simply to "Make it so." And the Cheney principle, fire arms aside, debt doesn't matter. So (all due respect to economic analysis) any analysis that projects what his plans mean must consider him cherry picking or indeed etch-a-sketching his campaign Cherry (picked) Tree. BTW: George Washington and his cherry tree was one of the nations first etch-a-sketch moments. Ax not what you can etch-a-sketch... or was it hatchet jobs.

Pep to Biz Mall ?  Any one!

[Not*** Quite.**]

** Aug. 9, 2012

Catch The Thom Hartmann Program LIVE 3-6pm Eastern!
In for Thom today, please welcome attorney Mike Papantonio, Host-Ring of Fire Radio
Hour One: News of the day - Cliff Schecter, Libertas LLC / Plus, how JP Morgan's energy program scams consumers - Tyson Slocumb, Public Citizen
Hour Two: GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party - Mike Lofgren, "The Party Is Over" / Plus, the GOP's war on welfare - Bryce Covert, The Roosevelt Institute
Hour Three: Pradaxa...wonder drug or worst nightmare? Attorneys, Ned McWilliams & Roger Denton / Plus, latest on the GOP's war on women - Nancy L. Cohen, "Delerium: The Politics of Sex in America"

*** not that these are related to Slightly Too or Wavering on Waivers.
[And how!]
**B  update for Regional Bonds and Tracks caller(?) on Mike Papantonio today(8/10).