Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.

[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.

Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.

Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.

Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.

Lessons of War

From a less than left writer David S. Broder no less:
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic".

As noted before(I will have to find where)economics may be more a factor in history and war than winning. (Well, I never put it that way exactly.) There are those that ignore the importance of economics in reality(as in all the various fields or disciplines of study), but do tend to focus on just a winning economy. That may be a little closer to the point, and if not even less understood.

Here are two examples: a.) We are now doing business with Vietnam. Versus not with North Korea. b.) Reagan's words tore down the Berlin Wall, or Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.

Again it may not be clear to those that see winning a military war as the only way to win. Money is power, but not everybody wins.

War is hard work. Peace is hard work. Facing realities is hard work.
Enough from me, before I give you more hard work.

By the way. "You break it, you bought it." comes to mind. Besides that fact that pottery bard[*] does not have that policy, I don't know if a point has been made that it is misquoted as "You break it, you own it".
{Use Ctrl f to find each quote in each article) Many do not want to face who pays.

[* 8-19-10] Noting typo

Politics is local?

Ground Game ? *

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

http://open.salon.com/blog/ted_frier/2012/09/12/losing_gop_in_denial_over_own_failures
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/
http://theweek.com/article/index/233148/the-death-of-an-american-in-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/cairo_embassys_statement_what_went_wrong/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/48959856/#48959768 ***

Not the usual MO.** 

[ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/13/house-race-koster-opts-for-the-full-romney/ ]

*Scroll over is sufficient until [fn] and post /under-construction(also redux labels) R done.
** "well" not exactly [!]

*** dropped link [!]

[Unfinished read, refinished read.(perspectivism) Politics over war.  Obama has made progress in foreign policy, but Republicans want to take it back.  The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Iran(an evolution) are the examples of diplomacy(d) over preemption.  It all sprung from the 2000 election debacle, resistance to Clinton policy and the failure on September 11th with the supposed post-9-11 world.  But it is spelled out in the perspective that we cannot expect to teach democracy or politics over there, without practicing it over here(^).  I will refrain from further tangents or links on this post, but I will note that the two reads just mentioned also reflect a bit of a balancing act that is not nearly as cut and dry as it might be written.  One of the key differences in the big picture that makes the previous administration a stand out failure in American History is the combination of the voodoo(b) economics(arithmatic/fuzzy math+fuzzy English) with the neo-con perspective of American Exceptionalism (which is not) exemplified by choosing a war without paying for it.  The success that is so difficult is because politics is local except for them^(f).  This is demonstrated by the current Radical Republican opposition(c) to the Arab Spring,^^^ which removed dictators and is allowing(a) for democracy that might not turn out to be to our liking.  Bush said war is hard work, but just because you want to fight, does not mean that progress and peace(with diplomacy and politics) are not harder work, and more profitable.  That is part of true exceptionalism.

^refrain from a bumber snicker]

9-15-12
(a) FOX wrong about Libya says McCain.
(b) Foreign policy is Bane of Politics: bankruptcy bailout business not an option in either.
(c)  Loose lips? Republican Threat to National Security
(d) not! but whiney!

(^) ibid re^frain [see (d)]

9-17-12 (e) not embedded  i.e. that's right, there is no (e)
Seriously [!] folks ?
[^^ Apologies for sarcasm, but there is a diversity of reliability in the perspectives/sources provided.]
[NOW^^^ w/Alex Wagner w/Martin Basher on America Abroad.^^ But natural track of changing the strategy for Romney of change or status quo. i.e. hijacking change and boogieman status quo. Cam-Pain not working, Obama not running.]
[There is an (f) ]
^^ viscous cycle of anachronism
^^^ then Martin Bashir (NeoMitt)(Mittastrophe of asterisked?)

DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)

Thomas Barnett [***] YouTube presentation
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

A friend sent me this, very optimistic, and saw it as so non-political. Fine. How does this come about? How do we create a "New Leviathan" albeit, calling it "New Everything Else"? This is fine as long as we realize it is political or it is the same old thing, otherwise know as the battle between realism and idealism.

Transparency and secrecy do have their distinct applications,(especially in war and diplomacy) but accountability and rules are in the getting there. (Power is not good or evil only results are and even they are seen from more than one perspective.)

A-to-Z rules focused on dealing with everything? How does one get them? Of course that is not the idea. Excusing based on result, is that the excuse? Hmmm. He has some good metaphors. Networking force? Where does it start? Where does it end? Security? Funny?

I think that he has some good points, but it all could be hinged on a point the world would love to get to, and they would all love to be there, to be the decider. I do not minimize the need for something, and he points to many good ideas to separate expertise and responsibilities, but I would emphasize that there is much more to talk about that may need the same (or better) analysis. There is a "heckuva" lot of work getting the world to see that there is somehow going to be a "new world order", no matter who brings it about and what it is brought about for. And there is no denying the current balance of powers and just wishing or demanding or excusing them away.

This is a good approach for the military, the rest may be everything else. Including looking at how we came to learn this lesson and whether it was already plain to too few.

Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **

[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.

[***] earlier link to Barnett

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

Parsing Combat

{Bracketed (next) with both titles written before this blog post begins and this is not finished.}

Dennis Kucinich said something recently, which rankled me

"peace is inevitable".

I do not believe it is. Peace is "hard work"!

Having yet to hear(or read) the whole speech , the above "Parsing" refers to other's (Norman Goldman) comments.[I may continue to parse.]

Where's a cop when you need one?

Is this a good cop/bad cop deal or is it more of "staying the course"?
Here are a few headlines that I will comment on in the light of hope that it is the former.

Hamas' win muddles Mideast peace prospects
Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel get 76 of 132 seats in parliament
[1-27-06: editors note actual link title: Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections]

Bush: Hamas must renounce stand
Peace is never dead,’ he says when asked if he’d rule out relations

U.S. releases five Iraqi women prisoners
Official denies move is linked to demand of U.S. journalist's kidnappers

Actually I may let them speak for themselves and read them later, but I am reminded who the Secretary of State is and who the President is and with Rumsfeld and Cheney to cloud the picture I think that there could be hope that Rice is working in this area, and that with all the bad around that some good may come from the "hard work" our troops are doing, and we that politics will actually prevail over violence.

I lighted upon the following segment from the middle link:
But behind the scenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be talking to Russian, European and U.N. officials later Thursday in a bid to get them to pressure Hamas into renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel’s right to exist.

Of course, the devil may be in the details, but then the administration hasn't done a "heckuva job" with them anyway. Renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist seems like a good starting point. Maybe even politics can clean it's name and be brought home again.

PC / Hypocrisy Round Table

My main PC is down, but Politically Correct is the term I mean. Spending the last several days on a trip to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park there is a lot that has piled up or slipped off the table.* Edwards. Greens. Economics. Gregoire. FBI investigation

It is a shame that Edwards has been potentially removed from further service to the country while greater problems hamper so few Republicans. I don't doubt he will continue to work hard. As for the next four links the thread is economics which needs further hard work.

Not to mention Georgia.
e.g.? Hypocrisy runs round it.
Who is Bush to tell Russia what to expect now? I won't touch that for now.

e.g. (note the other link's letters.) Except for F for potential follow up of failures. Don't forget the AAA link above.

Economics seems to trump all sense sometimes.
By George or Georgia, I believe I did it. (see trumps)

But these links do take a careful read to catch the nuance of my thread. And money not being the only factor or party to our equations, I urge participation in the process, and if you can't pick one of the two major parties, make sure that your vote counts, and know that it will, even if you waste it. Of course that is another story and ironically links to how the buck is passed.

* now I have piled on more than enough and hope to follow-up with other matters, speaking of PC; my computer and Politically Correct. The latter always requires context and is not always a con text, let alone a pre-text. And given the runaround that words can provide it may be sensible that there is no use for protext.(without a capital P)

Fearnauts

There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.

So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.

Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.

Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.

Dedicated to the Praxis Peace Institute

This poem was crafted just before the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The victims to which I also dedicate this)but it did not feel right to submit at the time, with the seeming implication of the first line, however there is no good and evil, but man's nature. (This is culturally precise(CP) given the view of women's nature)

I also dedicate this to the Great White line-up at the Republican debate last night. Not that there is anything wrong with power, but force is not the only power. If any of them are even half the Roosevelt who launched the Great White Fleet, they are the half that carried the "big stick" and only half understand the other Roosevelt and "the only thing we have to fear". They are no Roosevelt, not even half of either.

[5-10-07 reference back to link Council of Nice and a new link on Kant(as in The Liaison Report Between Common Sense and Kant
but reading it is hard work, so I will add- - what is wrong with faith
in reason and criticism and a process for progress ?]

This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL

Stupid Intelligence.

Actually this is a smart link titled Israel's Stupid-Smart Moves which is not too long, but a tricky read. Tricky maybe only in that I want to add my two cents worth. It is written by Michael Shtender-Auerbach who "writes on foreign policy for The Century Foundation and is press director for the Security and Peace Initiative, Century's joint venture with the Center for American Progress."
[I am not familiar with him, but have good feelings about his affiliations.]

It is about the negotiations or movement that must take place and the players that it may take, and well worth the "hard work" of a page and a half read.

The following section from it needs more attention:
"This past weekend, the participants at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, rushed out a statement calling on the parties to agree to the following immediate steps to bring an end to the violence: The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; an end to the shelling of Israeli territory; an end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and the release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians. While this is certainly a sign of international consensus, thus far, little has been done to bring the concerned parties together in agreement." [My italics and bold: These steps reflects a balance but the release of the arrested Palestinian portion is not getting much press.]

My two sense is that what must be avoided is what maybe some wish for, lack of movement or rather staying the course "...which could trigger an Israeli assault on Syria and Iran - a scenario that would change the face of the Middle East and eliminate any hope for regional stability."

Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan.]

This may be my shortest two cents yet.

Follow-up: 11:28 AM US at Odds With Allies on Mideast Conflict
Credit: TruthOut.org
Unread: Bush's vision, and the region, appear to be near collapse

There I go again, but the title gets right to the point, and I will. How can you negotiate with terrorists? How can you negotiate with authoritarians? Actually I am answering the questions with the problem. If rubber stamp is the answer, does one stamp fit all?

Total Recall?

Not to pun on the Republican governors, but I must recall that Rachel Maddow has won an Emmy and Ed Schultz takes on the Republican takeover of the Postal Service.
Yet I can't locate my references in regard to my recommending them as host on MSNBC.

["Peace is hard work."
So is math, and it's MAD!]*

[Speaking of Jobs Plan: It is on! ]

[Speaking of/or lines.]

* how ever
Norman Goldman
[Republican on business malfeasance since 2006 in regards to Postal Act. Insert The Ed Show. /-/ 9-29-11 now see bold "Insert".]

Pitbully Soapbox

Why They Hate Us
by Julia E. SweigThe Los Angeles Times
senior fellow Council on Foreign Relations
www.truthout.org

Panic as Policy
by Erik Leaver
research fellow Institute for Policy Studies
www.ThomPaine.com

Hoping for Fear
by Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Democrats must stand for law and order, peace and security, not war and terror.
We really are for "war as a last resort", after exhaustive diplomacy.
War is hard work. Peace should be worked for just as hard.

Given the huge costs and the disasterous results, we have a heckuva budget, not to mention wiggle room to work with.

[This was just going to be the links to the two(then three) sites, but could not just leave them without comment.]

The Be All and End All?

NOT[!] *
Nor,
Neither.

Not to trammel up the consequences,
but "Peace is hard work"
and so are economics and progress.
Not to catch up on the gaming metaphor either.

(See Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism")
Not to mention actual tables.

[ T. O. W.]
Politics ---> Economics, Government, Religion (Values)
Philosophy -
Psychology -
Physics ---> Math, Meaning, Forces(Ge Oh Me Try)***

Leaving aside the dynamics of philosophy and psychology, the internal and external dynamics of thoughts and feelings should be noted.
Also note difference between theories and models,
not to mention** formulay.

* note irony puncutation [!] in regard to the INET dicussion of models in the context of "Moneyball" and the Bard.(next two links) But more importantly in the context of the Platonic system, which I call the Tetrahedron of Will(TOW).
** Or KOW TOW
*** not just to pun but physics is the base and politics the pinnacle in this GPS of whose will and what will happen.

[Update: 7-10-13 hilites added also labels(INET/The Last Word)

Noble, No Bell, Nobel

It was no dynomite for some, nor Hopenhagen.

[Comment above posting on 12-14-09..Originally held in draft 12-11-09 continue as AMENDED here:
Obama's Nobel Lecture; MSNBC, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Jon Stewart , If Only[**]. ]

[Rounding it out: Obama Doctrine*, If Only, Great Debates, Values: to boldly go wagering "hard work" ]
[EarlierWest PointSpeech: just in case]

* "If Only" this link were followed by...(ribble?)following the Obama Doctrine and wagering Peace. "If Only" duplicity hints at Asterisk Trek, or the star power of words. Do not confuse the just with the jest.

[For future and path, consideration.]

[See 1st comment: PEACE! Get 'er done! Not pieces, get err done. On the other hand...]

[** 12-15-09 UPDATE: Arianna Huffington aggrees with Sarah Palin? Only in Con Text which is out of context, meaning what opinion makers so easily do by selecting their snippets. Neither Palin nor Bush would have been able give this speech and put war in context, but taking it out of context, there could be no difference.]

President Bush recently stated. "You cannot wage war defensively."

My reply (if I have not borrowed it from somewhere) is: You cannot wage peace offensively.

I would gladly end it there but more comes to mind. It is frequently said, "the best defense is a good offense." This refers to the game of football where there are rules. In war where the rules are declared by the victor and ignored by the participants it would seem that this would not apply. The game of football has referees that impose the penalties without bearing arms. If we do not get agreement on following rules it's hard to see where we can expect them to be followed by others. If the more fortunate among us have difficulty following rules, how can we expect those under pressure to maintain self control, let alone hope? We must work on both the rule book and the game plans.