Vise verses** a ... vice versa ?
Paradigm ... Paradox
Who ran off with the clock ? *
* All In w/ WolfoWits.
** Hayes Godwins Wolfowitz
NSA Melts Partisan Divide.
(FP) Neo K'antian
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wolfowitz. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wolfowitz. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Thursday, May 01, 2014
FOOTNOTES PAGE ONE- MAY 2014
5-4-14 In
Spiration: Salon-W.R. Klemm / Sch~hhh[!] ... Who started it, I finished it, it still needs sense. (Ctrl F: sense ) Everything Model? A. Para-model, B. Almost
makes me want to tweet. , C. Wittgenstein, D. The
Politics of the Table. , E. What
the Beck? (Witt Gen Stein's Buffet) Milo Wolfowitz (FP2)
5-5-14: fath: ...: gr : your : [nexus, cats, herstory, herding] 1.A. NEXUS REVIEW (Re-posted) , B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I. 2. A., B. C. D. Reigning wags and tales ... M. 3. EH? The History of B.S. 4[$]. A. B., C.Congress is Like Herding Death Panels!, D. What's good for the goose... [?] ow!
5-7-14: SkyNet published from 5-6-14. Yes link inserted, but italics added.
5-29-14 this: Nixon- Plausible Deniability / Bush 43- Plausible Incompetence / Snowden- Plausible What? Hence the word. Posting based solely on NBC link. 4Later digging/yet/to read. ...& further D'Ribble rather than G'Ribble; Plausible Disciplination asks about his education and training in law or civics or what else he was educated in that might inform his understanding of this exchange with authorities, not that we should expect constitutional scholars not to have varied opinions. Italics: not a foundation for my ainfount[><]. i.e. bu'dump ump[~]
5-5-14: fath: ...: gr : your : [nexus, cats, herstory, herding] 1.A. NEXUS REVIEW (Re-posted) , B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I. 2. A., B. C. D. Reigning wags and tales ... M. 3. EH? The History of B.S. 4[$]. A. B., C.Congress is Like Herding Death Panels!, D. What's good for the goose... [?] ow!
5-7-14: SkyNet published from 5-6-14. Yes link inserted, but italics added.
5-29-14 this: Nixon- Plausible Deniability / Bush 43- Plausible Incompetence / Snowden- Plausible What? Hence the word. Posting based solely on NBC link. 4Later digging/yet/to read. ...& further D'Ribble rather than G'Ribble; Plausible Disciplination asks about his education and training in law or civics or what else he was educated in that might inform his understanding of this exchange with authorities, not that we should expect constitutional scholars not to have varied opinions. Italics: not a foundation for my ainfount[><]. i.e. bu'dump ump[~]
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
A Plan to B-Team
[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)