Showing posts sorted by relevance for query prologue. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query prologue. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Anachronism

1-21-14 (no text) (saved in doc)
1-22-14 * added
1-23-14 scroll down for edit(**) comments
1-24-14

Pop Four?

Randi Rhodes:  Defender and Explainer of Obamanomics?
Norman Goldman:  Radical Middle?

Ed Schultz: Ed Head of the People?
Mike Malloy: Contrary Brin
The Less Than Pentagonal File

4 word [.]
 
==============================================

No apologies (*) to Mike Malloy, nor insult to Contrary Brin*, but maybe the mechanics(or dimanics) of the parallel points. Akin to Newton’s orbit(**). i.e. 3-body problem. And even deeper Hegelian remarks to Terral, in regard to not getting there yet.  i.e. accidental reference under Post-Doc Terral nature of the point. Parallels do not tangent.

Further ow[!]
parallels-meet-religion-and-nationalism-in-the-early
when-the-parallels-meet-and-talk
where-parallels-meet.html

1-22-14
 * Nor less regard for Thom(:) Hartmann or Rachel(:) Maddow:
Time is a funny thing.  The fourth dimension?  What about perpendicular to the 3?  But then there is the parallel of not having time to follow every tangent let alone parallels. 

**1-23-14   links titled and morphed, lines 4 and 6 added. Link(or line)5 actually read or rubric's fit ?
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[.] = lame punctuashuns[!]
i.e. prologue / foreword (^)
 
(:) more to insert and POGO [!] ~[foot note]
 
(*) the sequal? WaPo Slate?

(^)1-24-14  i.e. prologue / foreword
Also 4 links added for 4 original personalities.(Andrea Mitchell /

Thursday, September 19, 2002

Flash Back

[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]

*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link