[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query the one. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query the one. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Notes from Al-Qaeda
"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
THANK YOU DAVE ROSS!
For exposing the PVRHT act.
(Otherwise known as: H.R. 1955: for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism)
OK, I left off(or spun off) the PA (prevention act)for its Patronizing Attitude and the quip that the act itself could fall under its own spell.
[Dave Ross interviewed Alicia Mundy (1) of the Seattle Times and Chip Berlet (2) of Political Research Associates.]
[If you read nothing further: read (1) and (2), above]
Bottom Line: The Senate should hold hearings on this act! Or have the guts to act as fast in rejecting this act as premature and ill advised based on the fear it was enacted under. One major failure of this piece is the appointment process which should be balanced in favor of the majority party. The other is the need to review current intelligence gathering and its use. That is what the committee should be limited to, if not extended to the suggestions contained here.
[OTHER COMMENTS]Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security "Boondoggle"
technocrati thought police? 3 tags
The Agonist "pointed at the Republican Party"
Video from the middle (link) 1st one Kennedy
Previous Posts:
Unity in Principle July 22nd, 2004
Intelligence for Commission
Bicameral Brain
Up The Filter August 2nd, 2004
CIA our job one November 17th, 2004
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
The links that connect
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike" August 26th, 2006
Caution merited? September 26th,2006
Lastly: The words of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 seems innocuous enough, but so do the words of the [Project for the New American Century] but it must be looked into. Recommendations for any new intelligence or laws must be put on hold until investigations of old intelligence and laws have been made, not to mention the Phase II.[Apparently done, yet...]
[For more radicalized research yet more conservative as in fiscally responsible consider what is already "out there" (I do not recommend you trust, but verify? YES!)
* Patronizing Attitudes may be the cause of radicalization and terrorism as spelled out in current research. Not to mention the problem of defining ideology and intelligence: having more of it, does not mean you have enough to handle it. The process is important and it must be considered what is being done to complicate the process by those who have no faith in the process, yet want to add to it.
Bonus hit: trust but verify
It may also be worthy to study the words of Thomas Jefferson under subheadings, When Revolution is the Only Answer, Consequences of Revolution, and Prospects for Reformation, and just before these The Need for Leadership:
Speaking of "nuance" meaning nothing in this post should suggest violence is the answer, nonetheless I was surprised to find this, thinking I was reaching for something more "out there": from Goldwater
Bottom line is the people, bottom line is your job. The political spectrum is not linear but needs ones own perspective and the realization that the answer is not limited to that linear spectrum either. This should be realized by the three branches of government and the light that intelligence should shine on the process as well as the "hard work" of all people.
FURTHER: Nothing is more important than the focus on activities not words, except for the law, as proper protest must have a line to cross and confidence that there is a line to stand on and the same one to cross to suffer the consequences. And that line must be applied up and down the process and its people. And a quick search of "laws, not people" found the fog of our ways, another act that needs following up to be certain congress has done the "hard work" spelled out in their job description .
[Long Story Short: Update from Slate found after my Pre-Empting Crimes.]
(Otherwise known as: H.R. 1955: for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism)
OK, I left off(or spun off) the PA (prevention act)for its Patronizing Attitude and the quip that the act itself could fall under its own spell.
[Dave Ross interviewed Alicia Mundy (1) of the Seattle Times and Chip Berlet (2) of Political Research Associates.]
[If you read nothing further: read (1) and (2), above]
Bottom Line: The Senate should hold hearings on this act! Or have the guts to act as fast in rejecting this act as premature and ill advised based on the fear it was enacted under. One major failure of this piece is the appointment process which should be balanced in favor of the majority party. The other is the need to review current intelligence gathering and its use. That is what the committee should be limited to, if not extended to the suggestions contained here.
[OTHER COMMENTS]Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security "Boondoggle"
technocrati thought police? 3 tags
The Agonist "pointed at the Republican Party"
Video from the middle (link) 1st one Kennedy
Previous Posts:
Unity in Principle July 22nd, 2004
Intelligence for Commission
Bicameral Brain
Up The Filter August 2nd, 2004
CIA our job one November 17th, 2004
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
The links that connect
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike" August 26th, 2006
Caution merited? September 26th,2006
Lastly: The words of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 seems innocuous enough, but so do the words of the [Project for the New American Century] but it must be looked into. Recommendations for any new intelligence or laws must be put on hold until investigations of old intelligence and laws have been made, not to mention the Phase II.[Apparently done, yet...]
[For more radicalized research yet more conservative as in fiscally responsible consider what is already "out there" (I do not recommend you trust, but verify? YES!)
* Patronizing Attitudes may be the cause of radicalization and terrorism as spelled out in current research. Not to mention the problem of defining ideology and intelligence: having more of it, does not mean you have enough to handle it. The process is important and it must be considered what is being done to complicate the process by those who have no faith in the process, yet want to add to it.
Bonus hit: trust but verify
It may also be worthy to study the words of Thomas Jefferson under subheadings, When Revolution is the Only Answer, Consequences of Revolution, and Prospects for Reformation, and just before these The Need for Leadership:
"The moderation and virtue of a single character [i.e., George Washington] have probably prevented [the American] Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. ME 4:218, Papers 7:106
Speaking of "nuance" meaning nothing in this post should suggest violence is the answer, nonetheless I was surprised to find this, thinking I was reaching for something more "out there": from Goldwater
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Bottom line is the people, bottom line is your job. The political spectrum is not linear but needs ones own perspective and the realization that the answer is not limited to that linear spectrum either. This should be realized by the three branches of government and the light that intelligence should shine on the process as well as the "hard work" of all people.
FURTHER: Nothing is more important than the focus on activities not words, except for the law, as proper protest must have a line to cross and confidence that there is a line to stand on and the same one to cross to suffer the consequences. And that line must be applied up and down the process and its people. And a quick search of "laws, not people" found the fog of our ways, another act that needs following up to be certain congress has done the "hard work" spelled out in their job description .
[Long Story Short: Update from Slate found after my Pre-Empting Crimes.]
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Live From New York: Saturday Night Live
[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.
Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.
Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.
The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.
Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.
Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.
Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.
The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.
Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS email March 20th, 2003
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)
While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.
The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.
At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.
No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)
While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.
The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.
At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.
No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]
Friday, March 06, 2009
Here We Go Again
GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz
I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.
In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.
In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?
[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]
[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]
[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]
* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...
...Financial News with a real anchor!)]
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz
I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.
In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.
In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?
[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]
[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]
[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]
* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...
...Financial News with a real anchor!)]
Friday, July 29, 2005
ONE PARTY: HOLD THE LOCKSTEP!
Maybe things would not be so bad in a dictatorship. However, Plato thought about it and passed. The main problem being finding a good dictator or one benevolent to all. But maybe we should experiment with one party rule. The Republicans have done the latest research in this field and now that we know what does not work, except for those that want to trade charges about who is holding whose breath, we can breath a sigh of resignation and just have Democratic rule.
This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.
One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.
[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson
The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?
This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.
One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.
[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson
The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]
Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.
While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.
Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).
The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.
Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]
Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!
As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.
It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Back to "The One Thing?"
It was not my intent to play on the "one thing" that Hucakbee got wrong in regards to British Imperialism, and the history as we know it.
Huckabee: "And one thing I do know is having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the Average American."
Also: "When we elect a president, we entrust to him not just our security but also our story. The two are inseparable because our security depends on the story that we believe in, that inspires us, that we teach our children, and that we, as a nation, are willing to fight for."
The one thing was the chart and spinning off from that *, all things.
[While the link might be tenuous** in these two items, Huckabee and Economic Recovery, it can be seen in the flip-side of the two-birds equation: the economy loses, Obama loses.]
*Page 17: Q27 - a combined 59% of the people support raising taxes or postponing elimination of the deficit.
[Ribble =ribbing and riddle (Embedded in Q27, is reference to "missing link" in earlier post: where thanks to someone not getting me, I got more out of it. Not to be mis-understood as a reference to "the one",but maybe win-win...for Democrats and the Economy.)]
** New RNC chair is old Wisconsin Republican State Chairman
[Speaking of original intent or missing links: it is about the story and...Stephanie Miller***. (She or a caller maybe broke the story on January 25th: a timeline of sorts)]
[On another level.]
*** earliest reference
[American Exceptionalism and three views. In my view the Obama exceptionalism is what makes America great, not what makes it the next empire.]
[3-6-11: Media Matters for Huckabee whether on book tour or campaign , but is "brain slip" really valid? Yes, his true thinking may have been outed from his hours of shilling his book. Tells US: "These people should read my book and they would know what I mean..." Well thanks for the excuse, for all artful dodgers.]
Huckabee: "And one thing I do know is having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the Average American."
Also: "When we elect a president, we entrust to him not just our security but also our story. The two are inseparable because our security depends on the story that we believe in, that inspires us, that we teach our children, and that we, as a nation, are willing to fight for."
The one thing was the chart and spinning off from that *, all things.
[While the link might be tenuous** in these two items, Huckabee and Economic Recovery, it can be seen in the flip-side of the two-birds equation: the economy loses, Obama loses.]
*Page 17: Q27 - a combined 59% of the people support raising taxes or postponing elimination of the deficit.
[Ribble =ribbing and riddle (Embedded in Q27, is reference to "missing link" in earlier post: where thanks to someone not getting me, I got more out of it. Not to be mis-understood as a reference to "the one",but maybe win-win...for Democrats and the Economy.)]
** New RNC chair is old Wisconsin Republican State Chairman
[Speaking of original intent or missing links: it is about the story and...Stephanie Miller***. (She or a caller maybe broke the story on January 25th: a timeline of sorts)]
[On another level.]
*** earliest reference
[American Exceptionalism and three views. In my view the Obama exceptionalism is what makes America great, not what makes it the next empire.]
[3-6-11: Media Matters for Huckabee whether on book tour or campaign , but is "brain slip" really valid? Yes, his true thinking may have been outed from his hours of shilling his book. Tells US: "These people should read my book and they would know what I mean..." Well thanks for the excuse, for all artful dodgers.]
Friday, April 27, 2007
Debate: Take One
Iraq Question
[The Debate]
Rated
Gravel / Kucinich / Richardson
Obama / Dodd / Edwards
Clinton / Biden
These are pretty much the order of my impression on this question as to how they should be listened to on this matter. The three tiers present a bit of a gap on the issue as to their history and their suggestions now.
Other QCON: McCain on Gonzalez And somewhere (WeGotEd) Senator Leahy GO SENATOR! said he is after the puppet master not the puppets, where he places the U.S. Attorney issue above the concern for the disaster which is the Iraq war. That is the proper level of concern.
QCON RETREAD:
GO SENATOR REID: (Follow up comment on Senator Reid on The Ed Schultz Show: On the Supplemental Bill, I would suggest that this was a compromise and that any new bills (DEMO PLAN B) represent more restrictions on the president, but one last compromise that would truly address one of the president's concerns and the only half way legitimate one, is on the domestic "pork". To compromise, simply split the supplemental so that the president may choose to veto them separately.(Military and Domestic) Congress would also have a choice to override them separately or follow up with plan B. That would be the most political thing to do. Politics is not wrong, it is the choice between tyranny and anarchy. It is what happens in a democracy.
My apologies for the loopiness of the last post. It will be the only one that is truly evolving if I return to it. QCON is short for Quick Comment On the News, and/or Questioning the Con. The Retread refers to the GO SENATORS and the WE GOT ED materials and comments.
[The Debate]
Rated
Gravel / Kucinich / Richardson
Obama / Dodd / Edwards
Clinton / Biden
These are pretty much the order of my impression on this question as to how they should be listened to on this matter. The three tiers present a bit of a gap on the issue as to their history and their suggestions now.
Other QCON: McCain on Gonzalez And somewhere (WeGotEd) Senator Leahy GO SENATOR! said he is after the puppet master not the puppets, where he places the U.S. Attorney issue above the concern for the disaster which is the Iraq war. That is the proper level of concern.
QCON RETREAD:
GO SENATOR REID: (Follow up comment on Senator Reid on The Ed Schultz Show: On the Supplemental Bill, I would suggest that this was a compromise and that any new bills (DEMO PLAN B) represent more restrictions on the president, but one last compromise that would truly address one of the president's concerns and the only half way legitimate one, is on the domestic "pork". To compromise, simply split the supplemental so that the president may choose to veto them separately.(Military and Domestic) Congress would also have a choice to override them separately or follow up with plan B. That would be the most political thing to do. Politics is not wrong, it is the choice between tyranny and anarchy. It is what happens in a democracy.
My apologies for the loopiness of the last post. It will be the only one that is truly evolving if I return to it. QCON is short for Quick Comment On the News, and/or Questioning the Con. The Retread refers to the GO SENATORS and the WE GOT ED materials and comments.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
This was my take
even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East
While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".
One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.
There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.
Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.
Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]
[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace
Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.
And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?
HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East
While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".
One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.
There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.
Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.
Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]
[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace
Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.
And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?
HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL
Friday, June 25, 2004
QCON that [Anonymous Interview]
Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04
QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.
Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".
The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."
NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04
QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.
Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".
The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."
NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]
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
Thursday, March 25, 2010
FAUX NEWS!
I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Brackets and the Debt Clock
[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]
The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.
The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.
Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.
Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.
But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.
[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]
*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself
[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!
[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]
Sunday, December 01, 2013
Too Random...
...Righty[!]
Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud?
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead?
A stopped clock is right...
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left.
* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over
**
knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?
But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem.
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.
12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed
** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)
Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1. The Difficulty with Hegel
2. Hegel or Anti-Hegel
Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."
"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."
References to 3D/4M@. English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.
I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's. But is Popper properly popped? Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression. The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before. I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)
In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point. I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points.
^ & ~ must be reviewed. "Dates~" note time of encounter.
12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]
12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?
But to tilt at swans?
12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough.
12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ?
Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud?
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead?
A stopped clock is right...
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left.
* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over
**knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?
But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem.
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.
12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed
** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)
Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1. The Difficulty with Hegel
2. Hegel or Anti-Hegel
Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."
"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."
References to 3D/4M@. English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.
I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's. But is Popper properly popped? Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression. The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before. I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)
In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point. I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points.
^ & ~ must be reviewed. "Dates~" note time of encounter.
12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]
12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?
But to tilt at swans?
12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough.
12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Leaking Intelligence
Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.
{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?
BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.
Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.
[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]
{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?
BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.
Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.
[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)