Boxer to Stand With Conyers
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query play politics. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query play politics. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Monday, July 28, 2008
POLITICS
NOT A DIRTY WORD!
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.
But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]
[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.
But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]
[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Third Time's The Charm
[Finally posted 3-14-11 ]
Three times lucky? Actually I have not been lucky in finding the origin of the first, but I have been several times knocked off course. Just as I wrote this the news was noting the passing of a local law enforcement officer who had three centers of gravity, friends, family and work, so is that the message? "Every cloud has a silver lining" has also recently infiltrated my blog. That is credited roughly to John Milton and Katty Macane.
Numbers may play a big part in superstitions, but they also may play a big part in meanings. Past, present and future is just one case for threes, though not necessarily in that order, and this is not just to play with words. Of course if superstitions play any part in society, they will play a part in words, and words play a part in meanings, but which comes first? Some of this math and meandering came to my attention in regards to politics. Have you heard of the third way? The Clinton Adminstration was the first occasion I became aware of it in a political form, not that I had done the math in regard to other departments. But basically there are the two ends of the political spectrum and then there is the centrist. But is it the people, the target or the answers that are there? Or is it target, people or answers...who knows? However at this time I intend to apply it to the topic of navigation, or at least The Myth of Triangulation and wonder if a silver lining plays into any of this. While it is plane* to see where three plays into many things, it should suffice to read Robert Reich's article yourself as I have now read it twice. But I have yet to revisit the concept of navigation itself or any application of the tetrahedron to other perspectives of improving on our picture.
*pun on points
Three times lucky? Actually I have not been lucky in finding the origin of the first, but I have been several times knocked off course. Just as I wrote this the news was noting the passing of a local law enforcement officer who had three centers of gravity, friends, family and work, so is that the message? "Every cloud has a silver lining" has also recently infiltrated my blog. That is credited roughly to John Milton and Katty Macane.
Numbers may play a big part in superstitions, but they also may play a big part in meanings. Past, present and future is just one case for threes, though not necessarily in that order, and this is not just to play with words. Of course if superstitions play any part in society, they will play a part in words, and words play a part in meanings, but which comes first? Some of this math and meandering came to my attention in regards to politics. Have you heard of the third way? The Clinton Adminstration was the first occasion I became aware of it in a political form, not that I had done the math in regard to other departments. But basically there are the two ends of the political spectrum and then there is the centrist. But is it the people, the target or the answers that are there? Or is it target, people or answers...who knows? However at this time I intend to apply it to the topic of navigation, or at least The Myth of Triangulation and wonder if a silver lining plays into any of this. While it is plane* to see where three plays into many things, it should suffice to read Robert Reich's article yourself as I have now read it twice. But I have yet to revisit the concept of navigation itself or any application of the tetrahedron to other perspectives of improving on our picture.
*pun on points
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Political Strings Pulled
Bush upcoming big speech.
McCain wants debate delay.
Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.
If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.
On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?
Maybe we are finally there.
White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.
Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."
How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.
Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.
McCain wants debate delay.
Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.
If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.
On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?
Maybe we are finally there.
White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.
Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."
How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.
Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Time for us to go
TO WORKThe new Un-Frame for Them?
Republicans would actually want to lose so that they can blame the Democrats so that they can return to fight at a later date? Now that is courage. NOT!
But this is the unspin. Would they really risk possible impeachment of Bush for the sake of their own power? Not that Democrats or the people would have the guts. Maybe they want the Dog to wag. But this puts a spin on politics that I have been trying to halt. My point is that governing is hard work, which Republicans do not believe in, and would rather let Democrats carry the load, while they run away to fight another day. How is that good for the country?
Is this just more to talk about, to keep us from the "hard work"? It also distracts from and should raise questions of which came first, the strategy or the words of regret (or coming to their senses) which some conservatives express. Another question: do they put themselves before facing the issues?
AND MORE: it will be TIME FOR US TO GO TO WORK.
Will they work with Democrats for those two years?
Will the Democrats be finished even reviewing let alone correcting the last six?
Will the Democrats even play "the game" that it has been for Republicans? If they play it as well, they would cut them out of it all. Demostrate that we can handle debate and division and bring issues to the fore for the coming two years not just for the next four, but for the people, our country and the world.
I must thank The Thom Hartmann Show for sending me on this tangent, or search: "Time for us to Go". We should agree, it is time for Republicans to go, and for any that survive, not to go back to the politics of either nine words or sixteen. Thanks to Garrison Keillor as well. But I would say (to Reagan's nine)
Let them not be in the government for they are there to help themselves.
And I must make reference to my earlier posts.
A Pre-emptive Comment 11-15-05
Politics 11-24-05
Speaking of Running 3-18-06
Hold of Course 3-17-06
[Tangents are the nature of how things connect,
when every point is in context of the whole.] Not incidentally, quantummatter.com
Republicans would actually want to lose so that they can blame the Democrats so that they can return to fight at a later date? Now that is courage. NOT!
But this is the unspin. Would they really risk possible impeachment of Bush for the sake of their own power? Not that Democrats or the people would have the guts. Maybe they want the Dog to wag. But this puts a spin on politics that I have been trying to halt. My point is that governing is hard work, which Republicans do not believe in, and would rather let Democrats carry the load, while they run away to fight another day. How is that good for the country?
Is this just more to talk about, to keep us from the "hard work"? It also distracts from and should raise questions of which came first, the strategy or the words of regret (or coming to their senses) which some conservatives express. Another question: do they put themselves before facing the issues?
AND MORE: it will be TIME FOR US TO GO TO WORK.
Will they work with Democrats for those two years?
Will the Democrats be finished even reviewing let alone correcting the last six?
Will the Democrats even play "the game" that it has been for Republicans? If they play it as well, they would cut them out of it all. Demostrate that we can handle debate and division and bring issues to the fore for the coming two years not just for the next four, but for the people, our country and the world.
I must thank The Thom Hartmann Show for sending me on this tangent, or search: "Time for us to Go". We should agree, it is time for Republicans to go, and for any that survive, not to go back to the politics of either nine words or sixteen. Thanks to Garrison Keillor as well. But I would say (to Reagan's nine)
Let them not be in the government for they are there to help themselves.
And I must make reference to my earlier posts.
A Pre-emptive Comment 11-15-05
Politics 11-24-05
Speaking of Running 3-18-06
Hold of Course 3-17-06
[Tangents are the nature of how things connect,
when every point is in context of the whole.] Not incidentally, quantummatter.com
Monday, February 13, 2012
Catch-44
President Obama seems to have doubled down on the culture war.
Politics is the pinnacle of the power play.
Physics, Psychology and Philosophy are the base.
Culture is the result and the field of play.
Economics, values and pragmatism the material.
The Irony Leviathan.*
[I have a hecuva lot in draft as well as embedded in previous posts that need sorting, and this may be a crack at that. And to un-Ribble it is in the social Darwinism and the yo gurt! If this is too fantastical, well just ask Raw Money, "Corporations are people too, my friend." See Leviathan, and intestinal Darwinism or rather the cultural state of progress.]
[Andrea Mitchell** and Ginzu Alice: Santorum and Romney slash the economy, with GM and the big dig but we need a big deal.]
** two segments Santorum spokesperson Alice, and reference to slashing the budgets in Michigan and Massachusett, under the light of federal projects.
***[Just caught this Thom Hartmann.]
[Common Ground the Enemy? Recent enlightenment on "The end justifies the means." At the moment I can't locate the link.*^^ But it might be Twain "The Prince"*^ and the Pauper. Martin Bashir segments enlighten, especially the Bane Or Change. Also on the Clint Eastwood Filmography, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, not to mention the Three Little Pigs. Not Bashir, that was elsewhere. Doom and Gloom Snobbery?]
*^ The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, not exactly ugly but three pigs in a blanket of rhetoric. Freedom is not a force, but the government is our creation.
*^^ Somewhere there may be embedded some links on the evolution of the 3 founding documents through the likes of Madison and George Washington.
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, December 14, 2010
Clause Wits
...war is politics by other means
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?
*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense
[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]
*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?
*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense
[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]
*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:
Clausewitz’s trinity comprises three specific elements. The identity of those elements is readily evident to anyone who actually reads the first paragraph of his description: It is "composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason...." (emphasis added). This set of elements is usually labeled "emotion/chance/reason"; sometimes "violence/chance & probability/rational calculation"; or, even more abstractly, "irrationality/nonrationality/rationality."It would seem that this creates our reality as opposed to an original intent begetting results, let alone values. Oh, but I guess it does. But some just have a different ge oh me try.
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]
Thursday, March 25, 2010
FAUX NEWS!
I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**
Not to spike the ball.
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Mandate will become a tax!
Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats. It is a victory for congress and the political progress. It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship. Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way. I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014.
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship. That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship. The ACA was passed under reconciliation. It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill. If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters. Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster.
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA.
Pump it up! Obama Cares ! Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy. On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments. I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.
* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ? 4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy! But according to Raw Money? "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline: Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry! A nuanced flip-flopper. But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***
(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)
*** TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]
(photo credit)
[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]
[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have. Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce. Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship. NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe. How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie? He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was. The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress. It puts taxes and states at the table. The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce. As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel. Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium. MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld - U p h e l d !]
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Daily Counter Balance
From The Dylan Ratigan Show:
* to be linked here(Goodfriend Tribute to Snowe^)
[Speaking of preemptive embedding, Hardball on Romney speaking in pros, "looking for a KO"^?
Churning media or fulfilling the table, Killing Organizing, or Freedom of Foundation? Let alone "life among the cannibals.^" Not to mention AP-Paul-ING^ "Politics Nation". Do we want an Obama Nation or a Bane Nor Nation?*** Not to Pun on Lioness Pauling up Watson Creek.]
** actually this was on a panel (note anachronism of rant and panel)
*** Susan Del Percio^: Interesting Republican Spokes Person(2:42) in her opening talking points or not needing to defend Ryan but whine about the panel being 4 to 1 against her, before attacking the Senate or...
[3-21-12 ^ late links^^ added: Ryan Plan 2013]
[The Glorious Revolution is embedded in the academics of "/","not""^^". Republicans want to revisit the mid-17th Century. See ^^ cycle. Sometimes to tergiversate is better than too sate-yore-deceive. (pun on give/take/receive) (Slash Not what you can do...)(If I may quibble withRobert Reich, and Noam Chomsky, I will have to link later^^^, but the former is related byword play to the latter by George. Society plays a part in defining words, so I guess I can't blame Chomsky for using words that we want to change. This relates to the evolution of the wordholocaust and the war on evolution. It relates to groups claiming words while we also want to define them under the flag of progress. Is abortion genocide? Is war murder? The law decides, while some forsake it, and the politics that decide it.)]
^^^ I must find a Chomsky use of the word murder in the context of war. (The connectingtissueis the use of "social Darwinism" in a way that is contrary to the survival of the fittest, that nails trickle-down to the cross. )
Note that not only do Democrats spend less they generally contribute less to the national debt, at least since the late 70's. OK, so there are only two Democrats before Obama, but look what happened to Carter for being conservative, and at least in Clinton's case he bent the curve in two terms.
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Bully...
Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Un-Exceptionalism
Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?
Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.
This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]
No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?
The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.
My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.
In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.
BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]
[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]
Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.
This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]
No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?
The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.
My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.
In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.
BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]
[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal
Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]
Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.
So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.
ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...
Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.
WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?
ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.
THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]
Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.
So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.
ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...
Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.
WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?
A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.
ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.
THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Divide to conquer?
Or back fire*?
This is a geometrical analysis of the partisan nature of politics. We are familiar with the terms Fiscal and Social Conservative. But then there is the un-like Ike wing** and the Atlas Shrugged foundation or^ fountain. Here I may have already divided, to fight on. I will try to keep the links and notations down.
From what was earlier work on The Third Way, akin to the moving the center off the absolute, the moderate left seems to be moving the country.(See 1st link). But is more than about geometrics of the left and the right and there being a middle. If conservatives have branches(BTW the gov meant has three^^^); the FC and the SC (owe the irony oar^^), is there a third or more?
A "friend" is counting on either a Tea Party, Conservative or Republican landslide this year. But I am concerned with how branches work and how if there were already two, how Godwin[!] might play[?] Which is a sarcasm[!]slash[?]tangent on the hazzards of branching.
* not to target
** un-like Ike (USC)
Tin Foil Herman
R.S.V.P.
Mmmm MOW, MOW
^ oar shrug heads?(sc)
^^ paddle Fiscal Cliff and (YOU)Scroll Click or NEO-CONservative bent
[!] punctuation mark for irony/sarcasm/rhetorical***
*** anachronistic inserts [Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it.]
^^^ 3-body fig Newtons.or Phig Physics
BTW: USC is one of my alma maters. UW the other. But here I play on the initialism of "You Scroll Click" and Al Gore Rhythms and anomalies of the (b.s.) blog search[!]
Final Note: Under wiki of Divide And Conquer ? [!] (or pyth helmet ?)
Go Hawks !
This is a geometrical analysis of the partisan nature of politics. We are familiar with the terms Fiscal and Social Conservative. But then there is the un-like Ike wing** and the Atlas Shrugged foundation or
From what was earlier work on The Third Way, akin to the moving the center off the absolute, the moderate left seems to be moving the country.(See 1st link). But is more than about geometrics of the left and the right and there being a middle. If conservatives have branches(BTW the gov meant has three
A "friend" is counting on either a Tea Party, Conservative or Republican landslide this year. But I am concerned with how branches work and how if there were already two, how Godwin[!] might play[?] Which is a sarcasm[!]slash[?]tangent on the hazzards of branching.
* not to target
** un-like Ike (USC)
Tin Foil Herman
R.S.V.P.
Mmmm MOW, MOW
[!] punctuation mark for irony/sarcasm/rhetorical***
*** anachronistic inserts [Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it.]
BTW: USC is one of my alma maters. UW the other. But here I play on the initialism of "You Scroll Click" and Al Gore Rhythms and anomalies of the (b.s.) blog search[!]
Final Note: Under wiki of Divide And Conquer ? [!] (or pyth helmet ?)
Go Hawks !
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Philosophy, still in the game?
Two points need making on judicial philosophy. First a question: what happened to the judicial philosophy question? A good question would be, is it trickle down or bottoms up?
These are two points of departure here and almost a pun in that there is not really a difference with the slip of a key, but now that there is a new nominee there is still a question surrounding the philosophy or is it in the original intent of the nomination which should hinge on one question? Is a corporation a person?
Further: Is there equal protection under the law, in particular how does citizenship and homeland security come into play and more originally how do these promote the general welfare as noted in the preamble of the constitution?
Philosophy or politics? Neither are bad, neither are games. Play them. Do the hard work that will always be needed to keep the solutions from being a flip or a flop.
Going back to some other word games, I think of the forum, a battle, a debate, and 4 "M"s; money, mechanics, media and message(not in any particular order) is not just for ’em.
These are two points of departure here and almost a pun in that there is not really a difference with the slip of a key, but now that there is a new nominee there is still a question surrounding the philosophy or is it in the original intent of the nomination which should hinge on one question? Is a corporation a person?
Further: Is there equal protection under the law, in particular how does citizenship and homeland security come into play and more originally how do these promote the general welfare as noted in the preamble of the constitution?
Philosophy or politics? Neither are bad, neither are games. Play them. Do the hard work that will always be needed to keep the solutions from being a flip or a flop.
Going back to some other word games, I think of the forum, a battle, a debate, and 4 "M"s; money, mechanics, media and message(not in any particular order) is not just for ’em.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Yesterday was "a victory for the American people".
What Senator Frist called a stunt is probably only the first battle for which the Democrat's powder has been kept dry. The Republicans are outraged at the unprecedented use of Senate rules and leaving the public out of the process. The irony is woven so thick even my head hurts.
The charge that Democrats are criminalizing politics is an indication that it seems they feel, that all is fair in love and war. Leaving love aside, since there is no love lost, they feel that rules are only for losers. War is only an extension of politics where the rules are only for others.
The complaint that they were not consulted and that the public was left out shows that they would love others to play by their rules without questioning their war. It is laughable if it were not likely treason that somehow they make light of revealing the name of a CIA agent while being offended by a request for a closed session concerning the use of intelligence, while VP Cheney is not only at the heart of the current inquiry, but was able to keep his energy panel secret.
If this does not make your head hurt too, see my earlier baseball analogy, and the recent indictment analogy by Fitzgerald. And the next time they want the public not kept in the dark, call their bluff and put all the cards on the table.
The charge that Democrats are criminalizing politics is an indication that it seems they feel, that all is fair in love and war. Leaving love aside, since there is no love lost, they feel that rules are only for losers. War is only an extension of politics where the rules are only for others.
The complaint that they were not consulted and that the public was left out shows that they would love others to play by their rules without questioning their war. It is laughable if it were not likely treason that somehow they make light of revealing the name of a CIA agent while being offended by a request for a closed session concerning the use of intelligence, while VP Cheney is not only at the heart of the current inquiry, but was able to keep his energy panel secret.
If this does not make your head hurt too, see my earlier baseball analogy, and the recent indictment analogy by Fitzgerald. And the next time they want the public not kept in the dark, call their bluff and put all the cards on the table.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Exercise Lie or Confusion [Original of letter edited and printed in KC Journal. 2-11-03]
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English
Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.
Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English
Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.
Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
Thursday, September 19, 2002
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
[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
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
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
Monday, February 02, 2009
Pass the Trillion.
The problem with some Democrats? They listen. The problem with others, they play by the rules. Grayson is the new Democrat, Franks the old Democrat. OK, I am trying not to spin this, but others spin about the situation.
I find it hard to blame the Republicans for holding the line for what they believe, right or wrong. I find it hard to urge the Democrats to hold the line by taking back from the table what may have been put in the package to appear non-partisan or to please certain pockets. But that is the nature of politics and the transparency is apparently being worked on. There still may be some passing the buck but it is about what works and change. Ching, ching, no pun.
BIG HINT: There is a table at the table;
Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck Moody's basically seems to dispute what Republicans think(or at least say) works. In fact it seems that spending is 2 to 6 times more effective than tax cuts depending on the focus. In fact there is little bang for the buck Bush style. But this is apparently on GDP and that may not be an effective metric. One must still follow the money.
[filed]more for later
Stimulus package: Jobs gained or saved? Christopher S. Rugaber AP
Senate to demand big changes in stimulus bill. Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle
[for tinkering]
Poetic Justice
hiatus or sabbatical
Stop that!
Tinkering...
American Recovery
Previous post may take unwinding
I find it hard to blame the Republicans for holding the line for what they believe, right or wrong. I find it hard to urge the Democrats to hold the line by taking back from the table what may have been put in the package to appear non-partisan or to please certain pockets. But that is the nature of politics and the transparency is apparently being worked on. There still may be some passing the buck but it is about what works and change. Ching, ching, no pun.
BIG HINT: There is a table at the table;
Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck Moody's basically seems to dispute what Republicans think(or at least say) works. In fact it seems that spending is 2 to 6 times more effective than tax cuts depending on the focus. In fact there is little bang for the buck Bush style. But this is apparently on GDP and that may not be an effective metric. One must still follow the money.
[filed]more for later
Stimulus package: Jobs gained or saved? Christopher S. Rugaber AP
Senate to demand big changes in stimulus bill. Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle
[for tinkering]
Poetic Justice
hiatus or sabbatical
Stop that!
Tinkering...
American Recovery
Previous post may take unwinding
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)