Maybe We Should Take the North Koreans at Their Word Tikkun.org
Yet Republicans?
(Bring the moral ground back to earth, Senator Graham)
(Quibbling over meanings: Making over interpreting law and policy. *
The issue is the use of words and the foundation of our nation on the constitution for the purpose of justice for the people. After that it takes a village idiot and a dictionary. There are only three branches of government. None supreme, but they have their separations in the constitution after that "it is not a location" but it is out there. There is no department of interpretation, but the courts do decide and the rest must interpret. That all three branches make law is a valid charge in their following it or not and the process keeping up.)
* punctuation neutral but bold links have been fully read and recommended if not bluntly. It must be remembered that any justice, executive or legislator can say anything, but it is the court that answers the question of law whether it is 5-4 or 8-1 and understood or followed or not.
[ 6-2-09: Not what I meant, exactly. ]
[ 6-9-09: No. Newt ]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query three branches. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query three branches. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, June 20, 2008
Going out on a limb here.
And hoping other branches catch me.
It is all political.
The FISA deal is not as bad as it could be.
I have not dug into the roots too deep, but if there is FISA review for programs, it is a new leaf on a branch. But as far as the immunity go, the three branches of government, are all unprecedentedly political.
Immunity may be retroactive, but review and accountability are still unprecedented.
It is not the corporations that we need to worry about prosecuting in these cases, it is their cooperation. As the tree branches grow, things change, and retro-activity could be cut off or not matter unprecedentedly.
[6-30-08 Olbermann/Dean?]
It is all political.
The FISA deal is not as bad as it could be.
I have not dug into the roots too deep, but if there is FISA review for programs, it is a new leaf on a branch. But as far as the immunity go, the three branches of government, are all unprecedentedly political.
Immunity may be retroactive, but review and accountability are still unprecedented.
It is not the corporations that we need to worry about prosecuting in these cases, it is their cooperation. As the tree branches grow, things change, and retro-activity could be cut off or not matter unprecedentedly.
[6-30-08 Olbermann/Dean?]
Friday, September 06, 2002
Democrats choose not to filibuster
[On the filibuster, bipartisanship and third party involvement.]
(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.
(02-02-01) {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.}
The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. It, like the Electoral College, is rarely used for the good they were intended. However, the vote for Ashcroft does help support it as a tool to define bipartisan, if anything can. The interesting thing is that both sides claim bipartisanship. The Republicans with the idea that it was a bipartisan vote since 8 Democrats were on the side of the nominee. The Democrats with the idea that they split votes and did not vote in a block. I would like a little more on why the Republicans can make this claim though.
It really seems that the Dems have three points on their side. One, the Democrats that voted for Ashcroft, were the ones that made that decision. Two, the Republicans were unified in their support. And three, the Democrats had enough to block a cloture if they had stuck together, but chose not to waste the country's time and offered another olive branch to a white flag.
I do feel that enough white flags(whoops)olive branches were offered with the earlier Senate confirmations, and if this was not important enough to filibuster, what would be?
However there are also three important political motives for the olive branches, and one is to define the terms that Bush uses. If they are surrounded by olive branches, the Republicans will be caught up in their own words, before they can get out.
The second political motive is that it only takes one to start a filibuster, but reality is, that not enough would choose to continue it because they are not being as partisan as the other side and its nominee. Third, they will have established this record and try to use it in the next election.
More important though, is that abolishing the filibuster will do too much to drive us to majority rule. That is a bigger point you saved for last. Decisions on the process, let alone legislation, should not be made based on the convenience of those with power. But wait till a third party tries to use it. Whoops. Maybe it would be worth having a third party, if it could contribute to the proper use of a dictionary without the shifting sands of political power.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Try Angle
Here are a few pieces that intersect.
Re-Rights,
Checks,
And Balances. [^^^]
How? Well, we have the Judiary, Congress, and the Executive perspectives.
The bottom line is account ability. Yes, that is two words under three branches.
We have the accounting of Bush v. Gore, trickle down, and the slippery slope. Juctices can't count, economics does, and they all matter. I will try not fall into the trap of the previous post with technical difficulties arising from the burden of
tangents and links, or whatever the problem*** is, but it is a matter of looking back** at where we were and how we got there, with Bush the Decider, the current economic climate of understanding Trickle-Down and Slippery-Slopes, and the Executive we are lucky to have in the face of mythical* obstructionism and obfuscation. In fact, again I have only read the first and glanced a bit at the others but they are almost a protractor or other instrument of our graphic nature and the geometry of purpose that some have. i.e. It was not my original intent but maybe there is some intelligent design, in that it is about Re-Writing our social architecture. Re-writing checks and balances, economics is the bottomline and whether there is Bane or Change, and I don't mean Bain or Boehner.
* mythical: as in monstrously huge if not fantastical.
** well they did arise so there! I mean here:
and see Lord of markets,
and values politics. Economics is not without politics and values.***
*** "convenient" link see placement(^) of asterisk "the problem" re: positive/normative "dispute" or die-manics of dynamics.
(^) (more ttdl: footnote search own comment(^^) re: economics being engineering. ...?)
Re-Rights,
Checks,
And Balances. [^^^]
How? Well, we have the Judiary, Congress, and the Executive perspectives.
The bottom line is account ability. Yes, that is two words under three branches.
We have the accounting of Bush v. Gore, trickle down, and the slippery slope. Juctices can't count, economics does, and they all matter. I will try not fall into the trap of the previous post with technical difficulties arising from the burden of
tangents and links, or whatever the problem*** is, but it is a matter of looking back** at where we were and how we got there, with Bush the Decider, the current economic climate of understanding Trickle-Down and Slippery-Slopes, and the Executive we are lucky to have in the face of mythical* obstructionism and obfuscation. In fact, again I have only read the first and glanced a bit at the others but they are almost a protractor or other instrument of our graphic nature and the geometry of purpose that some have. i.e. It was not my original intent but maybe there is some intelligent design, in that it is about Re-Writing our social architecture. Re-writing checks and balances, economics is the bottomline and whether there is Bane or Change, and I don't mean Bain or Boehner.
* mythical: as in monstrously huge if not fantastical.
** well they did arise so there! I mean here:
and see Lord of markets,
and values politics. Economics is not without politics and values.***
*** "convenient" link see placement(^) of asterisk "the problem" re: positive/normative "dispute" or die-manics of dynamics.
(^) (more ttdl: footnote search own comment(^^) re: economics being engineering. ...?)
(^^) [3-13-12 update: my ttdl(temp tech difficulty linking) is now corrected, also found my comments on economics being a field of social engineering. Featured caricature? Herbert Spencer. ALSO RE : Politics ]
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Laughter is the Best Medicine?
This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.
*on disagreement with involvment in Libya
[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]
[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]
** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.
*on disagreement with involvment in Libya
[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]
[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]
** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Tetrahedron Ramble*
What the heck** is the point? I revisit my Power Broker Mountain Project, or actually move on. What I call the prime disciplines as in fields of study, Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy form the base with Progress or their result as the point of their projection or application forming a reality or culture, as we know it, or think we know it, or feel we apply it, regardless.
The perspective that caused me to reconsider this model, or concept (as it also may be the perspective) is a proposition that Science, Religion, Politics, and Economics,(structures) have at least three things in common: Values, Ideology, and Power.(VIP) Now I don't want to be restricted to the math or geometry or insistence that there is meaning in them for some sake other than they are structures. But conceptually they are at the point of the tetrahedron and not the point of the tetrahedron any more than culture. Now to some this may have gotten nowhere, but we will get somewhere, with or without consideration of VIP and the Very Important Point of who and what we are or will become.
Is it no coincidence that there are three branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary based on the constitution and the preamble, or that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Freedom and Justice are not forces to reckon*** with, but create.
*somewhat impromptu
** search fuzzy math and English; not to mention viscious cycle or golden rule
*** "bottom line"
The perspective that caused me to reconsider this model, or concept (as it also may be the perspective) is a proposition that Science, Religion, Politics, and Economics,(structures) have at least three things in common: Values, Ideology, and Power.(VIP) Now I don't want to be restricted to the math or geometry or insistence that there is meaning in them for some sake other than they are structures. But conceptually they are at the point of the tetrahedron and not the point of the tetrahedron any more than culture. Now to some this may have gotten nowhere, but we will get somewhere, with or without consideration of VIP and the Very Important Point of who and what we are or will become.
Is it no coincidence that there are three branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary based on the constitution and the preamble, or that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Freedom and Justice are not forces to reckon*** with, but create.
*somewhat impromptu
** search fuzzy math and English; not to mention viscious cycle or golden rule
*** "bottom line"
Friday, March 30, 2012
Rock, Paper, Scissor?
Not to make light of Justice...
or The Righteous Mind.*
Un-embedded Justice?
Three parties, three branches...
Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But it will depun'd a bit on the self-fulfilling profits.]
(to sort later...TED and TM links)
[BTW: I did not want to go one more asterisk but I will note that the last link "meet" was a bingo that just made my email bin, not to mention after this broccoli.]
[And Etch a Sketch my Bingo Card! Win or Lose for Obama Care, it may be good for Obama and Healthcare, because it is political! Not to mention business, market or no.]
Friday, July 25, 2008
An Inconvenient Quarterback.
Friday afternoon, or Monday morning.
I truly don't know what could be expanded upon, but there should be a clear contrast and comparing going on by the people and the media. There are three branches of government and then there is the press. Of course justice and the people are part of it, but it does depend upon if you are a "uniter" or a "divider" or just talk. Unfortunately just talk does not mean straight talk or talk alone.
But timing is part of all reality, let alone change.
Hence: Bring it on.
But not just counting on the press here.
I truly don't know what could be expanded upon, but there should be a clear contrast and comparing going on by the people and the media. There are three branches of government and then there is the press. Of course justice and the people are part of it, but it does depend upon if you are a "uniter" or a "divider" or just talk. Unfortunately just talk does not mean straight talk or talk alone.
But timing is part of all reality, let alone change.
Hence: Bring it on.
But not just counting on the press here.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Day the Tide Turned?
Not today but back when the U.S. Attorney scandal broke.
At least one departure has been due to the Democratic control of congress.
And this fits the pattern just dug up.
Not to mention the flip-flop of the bottom line.
Or the damage to the pinnacle of our purpose.
JUSTICE * The Rovian Touch
thanks to Center for American Progress
[* UPDATE OF SORT:
The bottom line? The people! The pinnacle? Justice!
My point? The Rovian Touch
IS THE LINK TO READ.
The flip-flop of principles, the basis of our constitution,
the three branches of government, its purpose?
A framework of justice for the people.]
[For My Touch.(short version)
and Smoking Gun.(long version)]
At least one departure has been due to the Democratic control of congress.
And this fits the pattern just dug up.
Not to mention the flip-flop of the bottom line.
Or the damage to the pinnacle of our purpose.
JUSTICE * The Rovian Touch
thanks to Center for American Progress
[* UPDATE OF SORT:
The bottom line? The people! The pinnacle? Justice!
My point? The Rovian Touch
IS THE LINK TO READ.
The flip-flop of principles, the basis of our constitution,
the three branches of government, its purpose?
A framework of justice for the people.]
[For My Touch.(short version)
and Smoking Gun.(long version)]
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Lt. Watada: "Unbecoming" Mistrial
“Very interesting" Oops, wrong accent or show.
“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.
My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .
My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."
NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?
I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.
But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...
NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.
“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.
My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .
My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."
NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?
I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.
But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...
NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Tetrahedron?
Power On Demand?
From Martin Bashir to Dylan Radigan:
From Celebrity to Cheeseheads, from Mel to NFL.
Navigation reminder:
From 4mat to GeOhMeTry,
I is the word,
II is the association with politics and culture.
Bottom Link records last posting, time stamp will reflect original draft.
Then there is the Declaration and the Constitution and the Three Branches, and what 4? Of, by and for.
[THIS IS POSTED AS IS ON 3-15-11]
From Martin Bashir to Dylan Radigan:
From Celebrity to Cheeseheads, from Mel to NFL.
Navigation reminder:
From 4mat to GeOhMeTry,
I is the word,
II is the association with politics and culture.
Bottom Link records last posting, time stamp will reflect original draft.
Then there is the Declaration and the Constitution and the Three Branches, and what 4? Of, by and for.
[THIS IS POSTED AS IS ON 3-15-11]
Monday, April 30, 2012
CAD (To be or not 3d)
Cause Affect Disorder* or Culturally Aided Design
[Objective / Subjective ?]
(counter point)
* Ted Nugent had a deficiency,
Romney's may be full blown disorder.
[Not to demonstrate the former...(see *)]
** yet to be linked/asterisked (see [**])
*** again who needs Republicans ?
[To cut through the CAD part...]
[**] Maybe the Title should read (3B or not 2D) As in three branches with discernible diplomacy? Except for the disorder bit. Now that is survival*** of the asterisks.
[If President Obama were half of what is feared and smeared from the Right he would be more than then Left even hoped for, and even the middle might understand they are better off. If he were the other half he would be just another empirical politician. The point is that there is only so much that a President can do, to undo what previous administrations and congresses have undone. Not to be a CAD, but computer aided discernment brings a hopeful and peaceful May Day?]
[Ryan Shrugged = more Mitt-Flop or disavowing the moral case for capitalism. Note on The Last Word. ^ Not to mention The Ed Show ?!?!]
^5-1-12
[Led Better Bill?]
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
[Objective / Subjective ?]
(counter point)
* Ted Nugent had a deficiency,
Romney's may be full blown disorder.
[Not to demonstrate the former...(see *)]
** yet to be linked/asterisked (see [**])
*** again who needs Republicans ?
[To cut through the CAD part...]
[**] Maybe the Title should read (3B or not 2D) As in three branches with discernible diplomacy? Except for the disorder bit. Now that is survival*** of the asterisks.
[If President Obama were half of what is feared and smeared from the Right he would be more than then Left even hoped for, and even the middle might understand they are better off. If he were the other half he would be just another empirical politician. The point is that there is only so much that a President can do, to undo what previous administrations and congresses have undone. Not to be a CAD, but computer aided discernment brings a hopeful and peaceful May Day?]
[Ryan Shrugged = more Mitt-Flop or disavowing the moral case for capitalism. Note on The Last Word. ^ Not to mention The Ed Show ?!?!]
^5-1-12
[Led Better Bill?]
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Stick and the Carrot? POWER OF WILL?
Let Senator Spectre speak, and Senator Feingold carry the stick. The stick is the carrot that fills the will.
THANK YOU, RACHEL MADDOW
[ a tangent from her view of Spectre, as "speaking strongly and carrying a tiny stick" and the metaphor came to my usage today, on the whole gang, but here is what may be better filter in my search, not necessarily an endorsement , but a great idea: Even the counter intelligence can leak a point, meaning you cannot sue the president, but you can Impeach, subject dropped, but you can sue departments, and they are adding a crew there now.]
There is no one decider. There are three branches of government and the law is in the hands of the legislative with the power of the purse and war. The great decider may be above, but the great interpreter is not just the judiciary. Justice and the law must be above all, and we are all under it. To heck with the geometry, but is the will of the people, despite what will has been flip flopped. Not that any people are above the law, but must be part of the higher goal than just the process, or just below the process.
So speak softly and carry a big stick, but do not speak of the stick, but consider the carrot, if you talk preemption it is too late.
GWB: Global Warning Bull [do not misread: Warning, with an NNNNNNN!] * See Comment by me.
This portion is a tangent returned to from the arc above.
Congress investigates MisLeaders[Thank you, Waxman]
Here is the "be all and end all" from a Re:Cycler (aka: Deceivers Institute).
The point? Being. Not the end all or who peers over who.
THANK YOU, RACHEL MADDOW
[ a tangent from her view of Spectre, as "speaking strongly and carrying a tiny stick" and the metaphor came to my usage today, on the whole gang, but here is what may be better filter in my search, not necessarily an endorsement , but a great idea: Even the counter intelligence can leak a point, meaning you cannot sue the president, but you can Impeach, subject dropped, but you can sue departments, and they are adding a crew there now.]
There is no one decider. There are three branches of government and the law is in the hands of the legislative with the power of the purse and war. The great decider may be above, but the great interpreter is not just the judiciary. Justice and the law must be above all, and we are all under it. To heck with the geometry, but is the will of the people, despite what will has been flip flopped. Not that any people are above the law, but must be part of the higher goal than just the process, or just below the process.
So speak softly and carry a big stick, but do not speak of the stick, but consider the carrot, if you talk preemption it is too late.
GWB: Global Warning Bull [do not misread: Warning, with an NNNNNNN!] * See Comment by me.
This portion is a tangent returned to from the arc above.
Congress investigates MisLeaders[Thank you, Waxman]
Here is the "be all and end all" from a Re:Cycler (aka: Deceivers Institute).
The point? Being. Not the end all or who peers over who.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Throwing this out.
Cut tax breaks for advertising. That would probably make them more efficient, but it would certainly not help Palin's crusade.
As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".
* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.
As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".
* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Contempt for Courage
President Obama is taking Congress(**B) and* Romney on head-on.
Republicans are all about the politics of opposition. Democrats are all about the politics of getting things done.(*B) But there are limits, and they are in the constitution and the three branches of government. Now that is not a very satisfying thing. Congress makes the laws, and the president must follow them, and they will not change until they are broken. Republicans will take the country down while the president has all the tools at his disposal to make sure they don't succeed. Of course it is under the guise of a disagreement, but is a disguise that the people must see through.
A look back** is called for because that is where not keeping the change will take us. Has there not been enough change? Well just asking the question reminds me of the last administrations Secretary of Defense and his questioning and answering*** himself. I really don't want to go there.
But the recent Fed mention of the loss of wealth in the last 20 years, parallels the dine and dash that has been a Republican solution that has not been removed from the table. Democrats have fought wars and built the middle-class, while Republicans have cut checks and unbalanced the nation.
Is the President doing as much as some would like? As it becomes more clear that Republicans will not, now is the time that he must.
[Hardball "Two Americas" Walsh / Feerey - Romney is not on the ballot? The Act Act.]
* 6-16-12 link moved back one word(bold added)(Also [Hardball] links)
("Romney" to "and")
** Ctrl F "bite"
*** Ctrl F "Rumsfeld"
(*B) Go jump in the Lakoff(i.e. Ctrl F Lakoff)(oops)
(**B) two links added @"taking Congress"& @Romney reinsert new link
(***B) NFRY & vice verse us (or chicken or egg*c)
[UP w/ Chris Hayes(***B) Stand Your Ground and De-Policing.]
Hint: v.c.(not very crispy)
*c literally
Republicans are all about the politics of opposition. Democrats are all about the politics of getting things done.(*B) But there are limits, and they are in the constitution and the three branches of government. Now that is not a very satisfying thing. Congress makes the laws, and the president must follow them, and they will not change until they are broken. Republicans will take the country down while the president has all the tools at his disposal to make sure they don't succeed. Of course it is under the guise of a disagreement, but is a disguise that the people must see through.
A look back** is called for because that is where not keeping the change will take us. Has there not been enough change? Well just asking the question reminds me of the last administrations Secretary of Defense and his questioning and answering*** himself. I really don't want to go there.
But the recent Fed mention of the loss of wealth in the last 20 years, parallels the dine and dash that has been a Republican solution that has not been removed from the table. Democrats have fought wars and built the middle-class, while Republicans have cut checks and unbalanced the nation.
Is the President doing as much as some would like? As it becomes more clear that Republicans will not, now is the time that he must.
[Hardball "Two Americas" Walsh / Feerey - Romney is not on the ballot? The Act Act.]
* 6-16-12 link moved back one word(bold added)(Also [Hardball] links)
("Romney" to "and")
** Ctrl F "bite"
*** Ctrl F "Rumsfeld"
(*B) Go jump in the Lakoff(i.e. Ctrl F Lakoff)(oops)
(**B) two links added @"taking Congress"& @Romney reinsert new link
(***B) NFRY & vice verse us (or chicken or egg*c)
[UP w/ Chris Hayes(***B) Stand Your Ground and De-Policing.]
Hint: v.c.(not very crispy)
*c literally
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Crisis in Austrian Thought
The crisis in thought is a split ideology regarding who is in charge, by George[!]
Think Washington the figure, not the DC or state. A founding father for sure, but the crisis is in leadership, and perspectives on the founding documents, not to mention Democratic Character.
Alex Witt's topics cross these threads. Including an MD/rX of DC?
{"crisis in leadership" Boehner, Bain or Bane or change. Mitch Daniels, not to mention Harold Ford Jr. }
[1-30-12: adding links, crisis,(2)(3)(4)* Ford, leadership**, there is a reason there are three branches of government and one is called the legislative, and it is not the executive's job to legislate, besides they can see the legislative ideas if they bit 'em.]
**Boehner: “Last Night Was Just Another Campaign Speech.” “He [President Obama] wants to take no responsibility for his policies that have failed and made no reference last night to really stepping into the game and legislating. He has spent every day since last Labor Day campaigning - not legislating, not involved in the process of our government here. And last night was just another – another campaign speech.”
*** this comes closest (sausage grinder?)
[Bottom line: there are two Austrian perspectives that come to mind, the economic and the psychological.]
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
QCON: TruthOut
Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Summary of a Flap.
Bailout or Meltdown? [UPDATE: above expired link with likely replacement.]
Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.
LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.
* not to mention George or Will
[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.
Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.
LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.
* not to mention George or Will
[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Just: a thought.
"Fair and Balanced" does not mean having an opinion and getting a reaction, and possibly having an answer. There is the second opinion and possibly a third, that is just the start of getting somewhere which is a fourth perspective. That place is where we are going, and where we are coming from encompasses how to get there. These are the minimum vectors which are not just quadrants, for any geometry of meaning also entails a geometry of purpose, which again must be approached from at least these points. The purpose for some may be the action, for others simply the reaction.
The possible purpose at this point is that having a plan that is bad, but does not require forming another to stop it. It also points to the problem of the first plan, being simply an action or a reaction, but more honestly a pre-action that had it‘s own points that need checking. The charge that there is no plan to replace the bad plan, does not mean that the latter must move forward or will ever move us forward. That is the loop that simple action, reaction or even pre-action will not solve, without work on more points and plans and even the end point.
Just in case anyone wonders, a good starting point, has been the constitution. The three branches form an equilateral triangle, the point being the law. The press being the light needed to see their actions and all points between. Some would say, "the truth will set us free", others just "shut out the light". The purpose is freedom and the powers need balancing or the point will be what we get.
The possible purpose at this point is that having a plan that is bad, but does not require forming another to stop it. It also points to the problem of the first plan, being simply an action or a reaction, but more honestly a pre-action that had it‘s own points that need checking. The charge that there is no plan to replace the bad plan, does not mean that the latter must move forward or will ever move us forward. That is the loop that simple action, reaction or even pre-action will not solve, without work on more points and plans and even the end point.
Just in case anyone wonders, a good starting point, has been the constitution. The three branches form an equilateral triangle, the point being the law. The press being the light needed to see their actions and all points between. Some would say, "the truth will set us free", others just "shut out the light". The purpose is freedom and the powers need balancing or the point will be what we get.
Monday, June 01, 2009
"just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"
Sotomayor on the letter of the law.
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective
The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]
[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective
The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]
[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)