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"
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query three rights. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query three rights. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Friday, October 28, 2011
Dimentionalism(sic)
[sic] is another tangent or dimensionalism [!]
Dimentions?
Two* Points.
*fore, six, eight
[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...
SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?
Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)
IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.
Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.
Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?
Dimentions?
Two* Points.
*fore, six, eight
[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...
SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?
Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)
IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.
Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.
Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?
Friday, April 07, 2006
Political Football
What is worse than jumping to the conclusion that a bill has merit because both sides win some and lose some, is jumping to the conclusion that it is worth passing just because both sides compromised a little bit more. I am referring to the three separate paths of legitimate citizenship offered and the inclusion of guest worker programs. The path to legitimacy was sacrificed for some while the path to exploitation of others was left open. It is tempting to call it progress, but is it really, when the door is still open to guests that may require the same rights and needs that our citizens deserve while having little teeth in making sure that employers will not be exploiting workers rights and programs everywhere?
It just seems a shame that there is so much attention to something that is still so fluid and is actually taking a lot of their time and may get little done. Let us hope it is more than pandering and more than politics but it may be all we can get. I am embarrassed to point out that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and we can only hope that there is a lesson here to squawk about.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I’m confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
These are well chosen words, but the actual bill and bringing them to reality are another matter for debate.
It just seems a shame that there is so much attention to something that is still so fluid and is actually taking a lot of their time and may get little done. Let us hope it is more than pandering and more than politics but it may be all we can get. I am embarrassed to point out that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and we can only hope that there is a lesson here to squawk about.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I’m confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
These are well chosen words, but the actual bill and bringing them to reality are another matter for debate.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.
===========================================================
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Bane and Company
"If we keep talking about the economy we will lose."
A more anachronistically correct quote was never said.
The sentence and yes I mean (bane and Company, Inc.)
It was actually said by Presidential candidate John McCain, about their campaign, and is exactly what will doom any Republican campaign. The Democrats will want to keep talking about the economy, as well as what the solutions are.
[My apologies*** for losing which major network noted* the Romney "quote"/ad. But later...]
* a search engine found these two links
[On another front: civil disobedience and** the blue line***.]
** (correction)/update
*** actually I have two...this is a tragedy that if true, begs the question. Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights. Will there be accountability? Is it a federal concern, or based on community standards, or walking like an Egyptian. I am not advising the same pathology, but there is breaking news on that front.
*** third dimes a charm Who walks the line?
[Note the timing & *** which are recyled, and problematic: The asterisks are separated by my tangents and breaking news. There are two uses of the triple asterisks within the text, as well in footnote. This is an unhint of sorts. I wish I could bold a path.]
[The tragedy of the third footnote*** allows segue "On another front...": the line the law and military walk,(see drafts) for the people, and what makes us exceptional.]
[Now three in draft, including True Footnote.]
A more anachronistically correct quote was never said.
The sentence and yes I mean (bane and Company, Inc.)
It was actually said by Presidential candidate John McCain, about their campaign, and is exactly what will doom any Republican campaign. The Democrats will want to keep talking about the economy, as well as what the solutions are.
[My apologies*** for losing which major network noted* the Romney "quote"/ad. But later...]
* a search engine found these two links
[On another front: civil disobedience and** the blue line***.]
** (correction)/update
*** actually I have two...this is a tragedy that if true, begs the question. Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights. Will there be accountability? Is it a federal concern, or based on community standards, or walking like an Egyptian. I am not advising the same pathology, but there is breaking news on that front.
*** third dimes a charm Who walks the line?
[Note the timing & *** which are recyled, and problematic: The asterisks are separated by my tangents and breaking news. There are two uses of the triple asterisks within the text, as well in footnote. This is an unhint of sorts. I wish I could bold a path.]
[The tragedy of the third footnote*** allows segue "On another front...": the line the law and military walk,(see drafts) for the people, and what makes us exceptional.]
[Now three in draft, including True Footnote.]
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Second?
[Dug out from previous post.]
Three strikes you're out or third times a charm?
You've heard of Whitewater.
You've heard of Blackwater.
You've heard of Clearwater,
as in CCR. Creedence Clearwater Revival
Now you must hear of the latest CCR.
Center for Constitutional Rights or
Credence Clearwater Revival
[From the last post, the preemptive links refer to earlier comments regarding the link to Watergate, (Hmmm, I forgot, more water), actually a phrase from that era:
"What did the president know, and when did he know it?
Since the Neo-cons are not that dumb, but are preemptive, the questions should be:
"What did the president not know and when did he not want to know it?"
They are still going *, and we are still waiting.
* "words fly" NPR
hawking threat
"still going"
And still dancing in briefs. or thru Smoke and mirrors.
President not briefed on details he briefs Olmert on.
The point is, the administration is promoting offensive behavior and misrepresetation of intelligence before the intelligence has been fully studied, and it is really probably the case that the administration does not have the intelligence (in evidence or thinking) until someone reads it to them the way they want to hear it, and the president might not hear it until it is what someone wants him to hear or they know it is what he wants to hear. But the case is that he is operating on principles and facts that he expects other to support him on, while they do not get it either. BINGO! Maybe I can get to a point. Until he is forced to come clean we will have more water works of trickle down, and I have a hunch the alernative or delay tactic will be that Cheney will be the dam or water fallguy. Boy, don't these metaphors flow like d'Nile.
Wake Up Congress! This is the intelligence the administration has. It is the National Intelligence Estimate. Bush gets the last word. "Estimate". He is the decider and he is not done having the estimate analyzed so he can decide and then it will be an estimate he will decide to act on. END OF STORY, End of His Story.
Three strikes you're out or third times a charm?
You've heard of Whitewater.
You've heard of Blackwater.
You've heard of Clearwater,
as in CCR. Creedence Clearwater Revival
Now you must hear of the latest CCR.
Center for Constitutional Rights or
Credence Clearwater Revival
[From the last post, the preemptive links refer to earlier comments regarding the link to Watergate, (Hmmm, I forgot, more water), actually a phrase from that era:
"What did the president know, and when did he know it?
Since the Neo-cons are not that dumb, but are preemptive, the questions should be:
"What did the president not know and when did he not want to know it?"
They are still going *, and we are still waiting.
* "words fly" NPR
hawking threat
"still going"
And still dancing in briefs. or thru Smoke and mirrors.
President not briefed on details he briefs Olmert on.
The point is, the administration is promoting offensive behavior and misrepresetation of intelligence before the intelligence has been fully studied, and it is really probably the case that the administration does not have the intelligence (in evidence or thinking) until someone reads it to them the way they want to hear it, and the president might not hear it until it is what someone wants him to hear or they know it is what he wants to hear. But the case is that he is operating on principles and facts that he expects other to support him on, while they do not get it either. BINGO! Maybe I can get to a point. Until he is forced to come clean we will have more water works of trickle down, and I have a hunch the alernative or delay tactic will be that Cheney will be the dam or water fallguy. Boy, don't these metaphors flow like d'Nile.
Wake Up Congress! This is the intelligence the administration has. It is the National Intelligence Estimate. Bush gets the last word. "Estimate". He is the decider and he is not done having the estimate analyzed so he can decide and then it will be an estimate he will decide to act on. END OF STORY, End of His Story.
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.
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 ]
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.
[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*
*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]
*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?
[See Asterisks here **]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*
*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]
*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?
[See Asterisks here **]
Friday, September 21, 2007
MoveOn sense of senate.
MoveOn.org was noted in a "sense of Senate" resolution passed today.
(if this is the current version)
Plus noted "...more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."
I don't know if this was removed from final passage. But if MoveOn was not mentioned...
My point is, it is nonsense if not disgusting to connect criticism of a politicized General with any disrespect for the troops. Or is that too personal? It does more harm to the troops to categorize MoveOn.org as liberal for wanting congress to do their jobs. Misleading some to think that they are not the majority and others to miss that only 2 out of 10 (00337 to 00346)legislative actions in the Senate passed all week! Rejected were the Levin, Feingold, Boxer, McCain, and Webb amendments INCLUDING two cloture votes on habeus corpus and D.C. voting rights.
Five troop related actions were rejected this week, two of which were only "sense of the Senate". How does that compare to the MoveOn.org ad?
[The above was an analysis of the Senate MoveOn.org stunt week, but for a coulda shoulda strategic preemption that could still have some merit.]
(if this is the current version)
(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.The "troops" were noted four times in that ad
"...last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."
"We may hear a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops."
"But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops."
"General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years."
Plus noted "...more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."
I don't know if this was removed from final passage. But if MoveOn was not mentioned...
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;
(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and
(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.
My point is, it is nonsense if not disgusting to connect criticism of a politicized General with any disrespect for the troops. Or is that too personal? It does more harm to the troops to categorize MoveOn.org as liberal for wanting congress to do their jobs. Misleading some to think that they are not the majority and others to miss that only 2 out of 10 (00337 to 00346)legislative actions in the Senate passed all week! Rejected were the Levin, Feingold, Boxer, McCain, and Webb amendments INCLUDING two cloture votes on habeus corpus and D.C. voting rights.
Five troop related actions were rejected this week, two of which were only "sense of the Senate". How does that compare to the MoveOn.org ad?
[The above was an analysis of the Senate MoveOn.org stunt week, but for a coulda shoulda strategic preemption that could still have some merit.]
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Intelligence is a three-way street?
Such is the right ?
(under construction began 5-19-15)
In the mean time?
There are rights, there is the right and there is right.
The Right to Rise is the inspiration or project for the new American Millenium.*
* Hoyle? A. Bin(un)Jun'Go , B. "Timing is everything.", C. Tidal Report, D. There was the 3 AM call... , E. We R all Right? , F., G., H., I., J?.
(under construction began 5-19-15)
In the mean time?
There are rights, there is the right and there is right.
The Right to Rise is the inspiration or project for the new American Millenium.*
* Hoyle? A. Bin(un)Jun'Go , B. "Timing is everything.", C. Tidal Report, D. There was the 3 AM call... , E. We R all Right? , F., G., H., I., J?.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
So you don't have to?
Thanks to Stephanie Miller, for listening to Bill O’Reilly "so you don’t have to."
Approximate quote:
Three points here: 1.) It may make more sense to approximate what is said since that may be closer to reality than O’Reilly gets. 2.) We should have the right to protect ourselves. 3.) It is not absolute, but could be if the government does it’s job the way some talk.
This approximation technique really is a problem, as things would be more effective if we could depend on words and filter them properly. But this process was not intended to take the humor out of my original approach which hinged on the line, “so you don’t have to".
Actually there are a lot of fields now where people don’t have the tools to survive where they would have been dependent on their environment more than their government.*** Those fields today or job categories rest on the premise that people are specialized in the name of progress and the economy "so you don’t have to". But they would all not be possible without the changing fabric of society that requires the same (specialization) of others, and would not work without a structure called government to regulate this changing balancing act.
Bottom line...
or punch line: "Run for the hills".
* note that literary licence and formality causes me to note that I have sufficiently noted that I don't use quotation marks here.
** I thought I had a blast for O'Reilly in the past, but here are some from the more recent and yet to be read: sticking to guns on a tragedy to smear [thanks to News Hounds... they "watch FOX", dot, dot, dot]
*** in correcting the tense here, I add the Darwinian metaphor "sink or swim" but think of the music to Jaws.
Approximate quote:
Bill O'Reilly * [If there was ever proof that American’s need the right to protect themselves, it was hurricane Katrina.]Note that I don’t want to read or listen to Bill O’Reilly again ** , to get it straight, but I believe gun rights was the issue. Actually I believe Americans do have the right to protect themselves, just not the tools to do it. Am I agreeing with Bill O’Reilly? Now that is scary, but it doesn’t mean I’m right. It doesn’t even mean you can read me any better than him, but that is not the issue.
Three points here: 1.) It may make more sense to approximate what is said since that may be closer to reality than O’Reilly gets. 2.) We should have the right to protect ourselves. 3.) It is not absolute, but could be if the government does it’s job the way some talk.
This approximation technique really is a problem, as things would be more effective if we could depend on words and filter them properly. But this process was not intended to take the humor out of my original approach which hinged on the line, “so you don’t have to".
Actually there are a lot of fields now where people don’t have the tools to survive where they would have been dependent on their environment more than their government.*** Those fields today or job categories rest on the premise that people are specialized in the name of progress and the economy "so you don’t have to". But they would all not be possible without the changing fabric of society that requires the same (specialization) of others, and would not work without a structure called government to regulate this changing balancing act.
Bottom line...
or punch line: "Run for the hills".
* note that literary licence and formality causes me to note that I have sufficiently noted that I don't use quotation marks here.
** I thought I had a blast for O'Reilly in the past, but here are some from the more recent and yet to be read: sticking to guns on a tragedy to smear [thanks to News Hounds... they "watch FOX", dot, dot, dot]
*** in correcting the tense here, I add the Darwinian metaphor "sink or swim" but think of the music to Jaws.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Temporary Victory for Filibuster
Here are two titles I hope not to need:
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles
There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.
I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.
The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles
There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.
I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.
The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
MEDIA MASSAGERS
Nader and Bush: What a contrast. Nader packed with issues. Bush packed with clarity. Both can serve a beneficial purpose. Clarity in a debate. Nader has too many to be clear. But I concur with three. The parties, the media and the money are too big a factor in our democracy.
Bush? Well, clarity. The one pol who hated polls as well as government starts his campaign by using both to wedge his way into the topic of marriage or gays. The one who talks about others rewriting history, now wages a battle for clarity or the dictionary. What about giving some clarity on states rights and/or religious freedom. The New York Times has to clarify. “Putting Bias in the Constitution.” http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022604C.shtml
The benefit of both these controversial figures is to bring issues to the forefront for debate. Now who will have the guts to face the issues with clarity in debates? That aside who needs the media?
Nader and Bush: What a contrast. Nader packed with issues. Bush packed with clarity. Both can serve a beneficial purpose. Clarity in a debate. Nader has too many to be clear. But I concur with three. The parties, the media and the money are too big a factor in our democracy.
Bush? Well, clarity. The one pol who hated polls as well as government starts his campaign by using both to wedge his way into the topic of marriage or gays. The one who talks about others rewriting history, now wages a battle for clarity or the dictionary. What about giving some clarity on states rights and/or religious freedom. The New York Times has to clarify. “Putting Bias in the Constitution.” http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022604C.shtml
The benefit of both these controversial figures is to bring issues to the forefront for debate. Now who will have the guts to face the issues with clarity in debates? That aside who needs the media?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)