[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]
Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.
* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query politics the point. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query politics the point. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Throwing the Game
or Tetrahedron.
Or should we call it die with less perspective?
Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.
The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.
[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.
Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.
What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]
[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]
Or should we call it die with less perspective?
Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.
The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.
[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.
Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.
What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]
[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]
Monday, March 21, 2011
There was nothing...
necessarily prophetic meant with Third Time's the Charm. Or was there? It may have been the spin-off of either or and the likes of Beck and some evangelicals. Even just in the either or of "I'm just saying", which might be related to a silver lining, which only has three sides. There is the light, the dark and the actual cloud that matters. [SAVED IN DRAFT & CONTINUED & SUBMITTED 3-22-11) Third Times a Charm, means that if you look right, look left, cross the street, and there is a chicken already on the other side, you may have learned a lesson...or not. Not to be making light of recent tragedies, but that actually is the point. That nuclear energy is not on the same plane as air or traffic accidents. But back to the original point, that Third Times a Charm regards Toning Down the* Lines.
*Or were we?
[SUB-TEXT: the table and I Ron Knee.]
[Update: my original assessment before the air strikes began was that the President was following the letter of the law if not the spirit. I won't get into the spirit of the Patriot Act but is part of the law as well as the 1973 War Powers Act and the constitution. My point being that it is one thing to debate an action by the president, it is another to make a law determining or undermining his powers. Any reassessment will have to take into account the current politics as well as earlier circumstances not to mentiuon the politics then. It is that frame in which I am optimistic that change matters as well as who is in charge.]
[Footnote to power and politics not to mention economics.]
[Not exactly breaking, but one reason going to congress would not make sense. Would it make sense to make doing the right thing even more political? Would it make sense for journalists to be giving detailed intel to an enemy? The right thing being to save lives rather than waiting for a massacre. It can be wondered well why not other places, well then get some consensus, but some are in the past and others may be prevented in the future or nothing may change. And there may be a bonus feature[**] in this turkey on the table and that is the subject of war funding and the budget process or complacency.]
[**] 3-25-11 links added
*Or were we?
[SUB-TEXT: the table and I Ron Knee.]
[Update: my original assessment before the air strikes began was that the President was following the letter of the law if not the spirit. I won't get into the spirit of the Patriot Act but is part of the law as well as the 1973 War Powers Act and the constitution. My point being that it is one thing to debate an action by the president, it is another to make a law determining or undermining his powers. Any reassessment will have to take into account the current politics as well as earlier circumstances not to mentiuon the politics then. It is that frame in which I am optimistic that change matters as well as who is in charge.]
[Footnote to power and politics not to mention economics.]
[Not exactly breaking, but one reason going to congress would not make sense. Would it make sense to make doing the right thing even more political? Would it make sense for journalists to be giving detailed intel to an enemy? The right thing being to save lives rather than waiting for a massacre. It can be wondered well why not other places, well then get some consensus, but some are in the past and others may be prevented in the future or nothing may change. And there may be a bonus feature[**] in this turkey on the table and that is the subject of war funding and the budget process or complacency.]
[**] 3-25-11 links added
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Irony versus Hypocrisy
Smackdown: Shuster Nails Ari Fleischer over GOP Hypocrisy
Shuster gives as good as he takes, but the irony is that Fleischer is there arguing over the childishness of Obama when Rush is not elected by the people, and neither is he. So the Catch 44 is that if Obama is wrong for painting the Republicans with a Rush Brush, then MSNBC is wrong for presenting unelected spokespeople for the Republicans, however it is the nature of the media to try to present both sides, and the nature of the Republicans to use Joe the Plumbers.
Speaking of plumbers and whose job it is...
Several links having filtered through my email box unprofessionally*
bridge the spectrum and filling the bill.
I will not unembed the threads but leap to the next field so to speak.
A more selective approach browsing the TED forum, a spin on the technology of politics and religion by Noah Feldman presents a preemptive perspective on hope. Having viewed less than two minutes, I noted before logging out, the following:(Unmodified but for one dash)
The third leg if not noted here is Economics and the Point is Justice or the fulcrum the Law. Values and their management is the key. Balancing the tetrahedron of flip-flop so to speak. The hour glass of consumption or conservation. Economics Politics Religion Law for the People - Executive, Legislative, Judiciary for the people and the point of balance.
I had my own preemptive concerns which need to be upgraded [3-6-09]and revisited, but how does this connect to the above?(a pun on hierarchy?) Facing choices and nemeses, not to mention the connection to things being in their place, whether fields or technologies and who uses what or whom and for what. Further search may dig up a reference to direct cause ofor[***] systems.
But prepost I read: Staving Off a Great Depression by Dean Baker The Guardian UK and where does this fit? In the fear or faith options; or fight or flight, excuse or blame sections. But I propose that the numbers game be given international scope[Update **].
[UPDATE 3-20-09: The following section remains in its original form but for bold. See BINGO which follows to where it relates to the nature of preemption.]
The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than the declare a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients that do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.
[BINGO! or rather none other than Warren Buffet gets it.]
*i.e. by friendly nemesies however undivinely.
** Update International Scope and a new link at revisited: "Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar." This guy may be the Rush of Russia but he could be on the same page as Putin, while I feel that economics may be the bailiwick of the Rumpole. "She who must be obeyed" and changed.
*** ofor: metaphysical synergistic concatenation
Shuster gives as good as he takes, but the irony is that Fleischer is there arguing over the childishness of Obama when Rush is not elected by the people, and neither is he. So the Catch 44 is that if Obama is wrong for painting the Republicans with a Rush Brush, then MSNBC is wrong for presenting unelected spokespeople for the Republicans, however it is the nature of the media to try to present both sides, and the nature of the Republicans to use Joe the Plumbers.
Speaking of plumbers and whose job it is...
Several links having filtered through my email box unprofessionally*
bridge the spectrum and filling the bill.
I will not unembed the threads but leap to the next field so to speak.
A more selective approach browsing the TED forum, a spin on the technology of politics and religion by Noah Feldman presents a preemptive perspective on hope. Having viewed less than two minutes, I noted before logging out, the following:(Unmodified but for one dash)
The third leg if not noted here is Economics and the Point is Justice or the fulcrum the Law. Values and their management is the key. Balancing the tetrahedron of flip-flop so to speak. The hour glass of consumption or conservation. Economics Politics Religion Law for the People - Executive, Legislative, Judiciary for the people and the point of balance.
I had my own preemptive concerns which need to be upgraded [3-6-09]and revisited, but how does this connect to the above?(a pun on hierarchy?) Facing choices and nemeses, not to mention the connection to things being in their place, whether fields or technologies and who uses what or whom and for what. Further search may dig up a reference to direct cause ofor[***] systems.
But prepost I read: Staving Off a Great Depression by Dean Baker The Guardian UK and where does this fit? In the fear or faith options; or fight or flight, excuse or blame sections. But I propose that the numbers game be given international scope[Update **].
[UPDATE 3-20-09: The following section remains in its original form but for bold. See BINGO which follows to where it relates to the nature of preemption.]
The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than the declare a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients that do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.
[BINGO! or rather none other than Warren Buffet gets it.]
*i.e. by friendly nemesies however undivinely.
** Update International Scope and a new link at revisited: "Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar." This guy may be the Rush of Russia but he could be on the same page as Putin, while I feel that economics may be the bailiwick of the Rumpole. "She who must be obeyed" and changed.
*** ofor: metaphysical synergistic concatenation
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
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Laughter is the Best Medicine?
This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.
*on disagreement with involvment in Libya
[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]
[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]
** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.
*on disagreement with involvment in Libya
[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]
[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]
** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
QCON: Politics?
Yes! QCON: [Quick Comment On the News] or Question Con, or Question Context, Question Content.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
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.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Billy Club...
needs some explaining.
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Para-model
I will begin at the end, or rather the present.
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?
Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.
* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?
[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]
[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]
[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]
Still going? QED?]
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?
Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.
* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?
[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]
[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]
[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]
Still going? QED?]
Friday, October 28, 2011
Dimentionalism(sic)
[sic] is another tangent or dimensionalism [!]
Dimentions?
Two* Points.
*fore, six, eight
[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...
SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?
Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)
IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.
Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.
Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?
Dimentions?
Two* Points.
*fore, six, eight
[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...
SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?
Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)
IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.
Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.
Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Tetrahedron Ramble*
What the heck** is the point? I revisit my Power Broker Mountain Project, or actually move on. What I call the prime disciplines as in fields of study, Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy form the base with Progress or their result as the point of their projection or application forming a reality or culture, as we know it, or think we know it, or feel we apply it, regardless.
The perspective that caused me to reconsider this model, or concept (as it also may be the perspective) is a proposition that Science, Religion, Politics, and Economics,(structures) have at least three things in common: Values, Ideology, and Power.(VIP) Now I don't want to be restricted to the math or geometry or insistence that there is meaning in them for some sake other than they are structures. But conceptually they are at the point of the tetrahedron and not the point of the tetrahedron any more than culture. Now to some this may have gotten nowhere, but we will get somewhere, with or without consideration of VIP and the Very Important Point of who and what we are or will become.
Is it no coincidence that there are three branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary based on the constitution and the preamble, or that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Freedom and Justice are not forces to reckon*** with, but create.
*somewhat impromptu
** search fuzzy math and English; not to mention viscious cycle or golden rule
*** "bottom line"
The perspective that caused me to reconsider this model, or concept (as it also may be the perspective) is a proposition that Science, Religion, Politics, and Economics,(structures) have at least three things in common: Values, Ideology, and Power.(VIP) Now I don't want to be restricted to the math or geometry or insistence that there is meaning in them for some sake other than they are structures. But conceptually they are at the point of the tetrahedron and not the point of the tetrahedron any more than culture. Now to some this may have gotten nowhere, but we will get somewhere, with or without consideration of VIP and the Very Important Point of who and what we are or will become.
Is it no coincidence that there are three branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary based on the constitution and the preamble, or that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Freedom and Justice are not forces to reckon*** with, but create.
*somewhat impromptu
** search fuzzy math and English; not to mention viscious cycle or golden rule
*** "bottom line"
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
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
True Ledership
No, that is not Leadership, it is the pinnacle of the process.
[9-29-11 Under review re: lede*** (does not require a follow-up as the link morphed) But I am trying to find the lost link This one.]
A lede*** requires a follow-up. Like the constitution has its first three articles or branches of the government, the tetrahedron has its base as a triangle and another dimension, and what is the point? That is political. There are the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary braches. But what is the point? Or rather the base*?
We the people...
[Another problem? Or anti-pragmatics? The narrative will evolve and involve: Highways or the Low(or No) way. Not to hop the Scotch or translations but...Lock Low Mond?]
["In a perfect world the president ought to wish"...[*]NOT! link(for quote) to be** provided later The Place for Politics.]
** Note: not that I have viewed all the links, but many provide the contrast between progress and anything butT-headism.
[Speaking of Process under-LedeRship.]
*** ledership is not always easy to link: Gunn takes Shot at Alley's Weight.
[Speaking Bane Or Analogies: if spending is the coke, then the debt that Reagan and Bush racked up are illegal debts that need not be paid. Explain that to the defense, healthecare and financial industries(the wealthy) that they need not be paid. In fact, that may actually help regarding the ledership and 2012, if the people realize who the dealers of debt are.]
Delta Dawn
Whose your Daddy?
Rolling Stone. The T[?] (Or the t[!])
[Sum of the some game: War is hard work and progress even more tricky, but a few want(scratch that need) a quick fix.]
[*] [9-21-11 Update: It is regretable that I cannot find the MSNBC segment for the quote above, but as for follow up, pandemonium may be embedded somewhere(not).]
[9-29-11 Under review re: lede*** (does not require a follow-up as the link morphed) But I am trying to find the lost link This one.]
A lede*** requires a follow-up. Like the constitution has its first three articles or branches of the government, the tetrahedron has its base as a triangle and another dimension, and what is the point? That is political. There are the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary braches. But what is the point? Or rather the base*?
We the people...
of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.* Oh the humanity
[Another problem? Or anti-pragmatics? The narrative will evolve and involve: Highways or the Low(or No) way. Not to hop the Scotch or translations but...Lock Low Mond?]
["In a perfect world the president ought to wish"...[*]NOT! link(for quote) to be** provided later The Place for Politics.]
** Note: not that I have viewed all the links, but many provide the contrast between progress and anything butT-headism.
[Speaking of Process under-LedeRship.]
*** ledership is not always easy to link: Gunn takes Shot at Alley's Weight.
[Speaking Bane Or Analogies: if spending is the coke, then the debt that Reagan and Bush racked up are illegal debts that need not be paid. Explain that to the defense, healthecare and financial industries(the wealthy) that they need not be paid. In fact, that may actually help regarding the ledership and 2012, if the people realize who the dealers of debt are.]
Delta Dawn
Whose your Daddy?
Rolling Stone. The T[?] (Or the t[!])
[Sum of the some game: War is hard work and progress even more tricky, but a few want(scratch that need) a quick fix.]
[*] [9-21-11 Update: It is regretable that I cannot find the MSNBC segment for the quote above, but as for follow up, pandemonium may be embedded somewhere(not).]
Friday, August 31, 2012
Give us a brake?
[Originally Posted evening 8-30-12]
Raw Hide!
OK, the RNC convention is over.
It is hard to say much about the Clint Eastwood performance.
Was he in character, or was he just acting his age?
It was a good performance, but the Romney camp has defended it as an ad lib.
It was a break from the rest of the speeches, except for the empty chair.
Rachel Maddow is reporting it as wierd. I would give it more credit.
They are saying that much will be made of the Clint Eastwood performance.
Which will detract from the other so-called messengers of the convention.
So much of the convention were good performances, if you forget that governing does not go by a script.
[8-31-12]
The above** might not be my usual script. But is less or more* a Charlotte's Web.
"Move em up!" might have been its original heading, but it is lost on the edit-room floor.
"Give us a brake?" is the pun on the break or the foot in the mouth on the brake?
The point is what is the point. And it's politics, not its politics.***
*Mitt Flop=?[!]=meaning? Not!
**written "as is" 8-30-12[UPDATE]
*** "Stunk and White(and Angell)"[!]?
[Note the simplicity of the bottom line(see bold ** to*** of text ). Note the elements over the style. Not exactly a pun, far from Socratic. A bit more Platonic, less Pythagorian, not exactly by the book as for the "Elements...(or)Style". See turn around and braking script or characters. Don't scratch too deep. Or is it scroll ?]
[Footnote: I really should brake and change gears, but here I note that I may later insert links beyond the original raw hide. BTW: I know the series was one word, but it is the way I literally rove and un-rove.
Raw Hide!
OK, the RNC convention is over.
It is hard to say much about the Clint Eastwood performance.
Was he in character, or was he just acting his age?
It was a good performance, but the Romney camp has defended it as an ad lib.
It was a break from the rest of the speeches, except for the empty chair.
Rachel Maddow is reporting it as wierd. I would give it more credit.
They are saying that much will be made of the Clint Eastwood performance.
Which will detract from the other so-called messengers of the convention.
So much of the convention were good performances, if you forget that governing does not go by a script.
[8-31-12]
The above** might not be my usual script. But is less or more* a Charlotte's Web.
"Move em up!" might have been its original heading, but it is lost on the edit-room floor.
"Give us a brake?" is the pun on the break or the foot in the mouth on the brake?
The point is what is the point. And it's politics, not its politics.***
*Mitt Flop=?[!]=meaning? Not!
**written "as is" 8-30-12[UPDATE]
*** "Stunk and White(and Angell)"[!]?
[Note the simplicity of the bottom line(see bold ** to*** of text ). Note the elements over the style. Not exactly a pun, far from Socratic. A bit more Platonic, less Pythagorian, not exactly by the book as for the "Elements...(or)Style". See turn around and braking script or characters. Don't scratch too deep. Or is it scroll ?]
[Footnote: I really should brake and change gears, but here I note that I may later insert links beyond the original raw hide. BTW: I know the series was one word, but it is the way I literally rove and un-rove.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Bottom Line Update
[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]
On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]
On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]
The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.
* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?
[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.
[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:
Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]
[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]
On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]
On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]
The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.
* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?
[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.
[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:
The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.
"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.
Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]
[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Para~graph Three!
Endo-terror~cism?
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”view , now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)