PROGRESS is also exceedingly susceptible to this same prism of interpretation.
A short segment I caught of Dave Ross on KIRO710 this morning provides a very appropriate example. He and a caller agreed that President Bush would go down as one of the most successful presidents in history if he could disarm a rogue nation without firing a shot.
One could be quick to agree but would likely already be wrong. Last point first, a few shots have been fired. Actually there are no other real points only speculations or questions. We must define a rogue nation and see if the definition works outside of “the winner makes the rules and can ignore” them scenario. In other words, how will this apply to the behavior of our own and other nations?
Thursday, November 28, 2002
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
TODAY'S THOUGHT CONTINUED:
WAR is a topic most susceptible to the prism of interpretation. One example is the prognostication of whether we will have war in Iraq. A root question is; why are we involved in Iraq? Is it terrorist threats, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, oil or just regime change? Without a clear answer to the root questions, opposing views can agree that war will be inevitable but for different reasons. Unclear reasons leave opposition to war most obvious.
WAR is a topic most susceptible to the prism of interpretation. One example is the prognostication of whether we will have war in Iraq. A root question is; why are we involved in Iraq? Is it terrorist threats, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, oil or just regime change? Without a clear answer to the root questions, opposing views can agree that war will be inevitable but for different reasons. Unclear reasons leave opposition to war most obvious.
THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?
[open letter to the Seattle area media: Aug. 29th 2002]
[LINKS UPDATED 9-28-11 Original only had UW link.]
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 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."
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. If the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media it, appears they reward those that would be 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.
[9-28-11: More updates and links needed.]
[LINKS UPDATED 9-28-11 Original only had UW link.]
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 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."
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. If the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media it, appears they reward those that would be 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.
[9-28-11: More updates and links needed.]
MY APOLOGIES for not maintaining the log. I will resume my original intent of posting previous writings that were sent but not necessarily printed anywhere.
A COMMENT: on the silence, digesting the election.
A THOUGHT: When Republicans win an election we may get a chance to be proven right, but should hope we are proven wrong.
Interpretation is the key, or the prism through which we view the actions and words of others. To be clear is a risk for both sides of the political spectrum, but being unclear is the tactic chosen by those who may prevail. If this seems hard to digest, it may at least be understood as an excuse for the gap in my log.
A COMMENT: on the silence, digesting the election.
A THOUGHT: When Republicans win an election we may get a chance to be proven right, but should hope we are proven wrong.
Interpretation is the key, or the prism through which we view the actions and words of others. To be clear is a risk for both sides of the political spectrum, but being unclear is the tactic chosen by those who may prevail. If this seems hard to digest, it may at least be understood as an excuse for the gap in my log.
Thursday, November 21, 2002
President Bush recently stated. "You cannot wage war defensively."
My reply (if I have not borrowed it from somewhere) is: You cannot wage peace offensively.
I would gladly end it there but more comes to mind. It is frequently said, "the best defense is a good offense." This refers to the game of football where there are rules. In war where the rules are declared by the victor and ignored by the participants it would seem that this would not apply. The game of football has referees that impose the penalties without bearing arms. If we do not get agreement on following rules it's hard to see where we can expect them to be followed by others. If the more fortunate among us have difficulty following rules, how can we expect those under pressure to maintain self control, let alone hope? We must work on both the rule book and the game plans.
My reply (if I have not borrowed it from somewhere) is: You cannot wage peace offensively.
I would gladly end it there but more comes to mind. It is frequently said, "the best defense is a good offense." This refers to the game of football where there are rules. In war where the rules are declared by the victor and ignored by the participants it would seem that this would not apply. The game of football has referees that impose the penalties without bearing arms. If we do not get agreement on following rules it's hard to see where we can expect them to be followed by others. If the more fortunate among us have difficulty following rules, how can we expect those under pressure to maintain self control, let alone hope? We must work on both the rule book and the game plans.
Sunday, November 17, 2002
Dubious is the word...
NOT PRINTED [a reply to Ari Fleisher's letter to the editor in the Washington Post]
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.
At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.
In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.
Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'
In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.
On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.
In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.
[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.
At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.
In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.
Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'
In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.
On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.
In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.
[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).
Friday, November 08, 2002
NO JOKE
Last night, David Letterman made fun of the Democrats for not articulating a message or rather having lost to the Bush efforts of articulation. I won’t attempt to retell the joke, but it is sad, if the opinion prevails that the Democrats could not out-articulate Bush.
Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.
Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.
[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]
Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.
Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.
[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)