Defense is Not Offensive A short analogy.
A sports analogy or Bushism: “The best defense is a good offense”, was just disproved. In the Superbowl yesterday the #1 defense whipped the #1 offense. While war may not be like sports, maybe sports is more like life. It should be played by the rules. In war the refs are generally composed of the winners so that seems to work against the sports analogy for war. Of course no body is perfect, even the refs make mistakes, but that does not mean we should throw them out or limit challenges or replays.
Life and peace are another matter. They may need power and enforcement, but without the rule book they would mean nothing. Without the rule book, refs, challenges and replays, offense would just be offensive.
It is also interesting that the winners with their defensive philosophy were from Florida and the losers with their offensive philosophy, were from what some call the Left Coast. It seems that this time the results for Florida were much clearer. While in Oakland the disturbing behavior that filled the streets may have occurred whether their team or the analogy had been successful in this case.
Monday, January 27, 2003
Thursday, January 23, 2003
Bush Boxed in Cover Up
BUSH BOXED IN COVER-UP or Democratic Ad Boxed To Go or IRONY "STILL GOING"
Within days of opening an Office of Global Communications * to declare the Iraq regime an "apparatus of lies" it looks like the president needs to focus on his local apparatus of "communications". In a blatant cover-up, right under his own nose, the president makes a mockery of his own words. Touting his economic package at a trucking warehouse in St. Louis, he wanted a stage depicting small business in America. His platform was in front of a printed backdrop of boxes stamped with "Made in USA" surrounding the words "Strengthening America’s Economy". But below the podium decorating the platform were boxes with conspicuous tape over some of the words. When reporters investigated they found the words "Made in China". A spokesperson credited the tape to White House volunteers. There may be economic lessons here too, but that is another box too full of irony.
The reporter’s quick claim of Boxgate was never so appropriate. For if his staff had destroyed the tape, they would have had to destroy the boxes which were the cover for his platform.
* [links and labels added 12-6-07]
Within days of opening an Office of Global Communications * to declare the Iraq regime an "apparatus of lies" it looks like the president needs to focus on his local apparatus of "communications". In a blatant cover-up, right under his own nose, the president makes a mockery of his own words. Touting his economic package at a trucking warehouse in St. Louis, he wanted a stage depicting small business in America. His platform was in front of a printed backdrop of boxes stamped with "Made in USA" surrounding the words "Strengthening America’s Economy". But below the podium decorating the platform were boxes with conspicuous tape over some of the words. When reporters investigated they found the words "Made in China". A spokesperson credited the tape to White House volunteers. There may be economic lessons here too, but that is another box too full of irony.
The reporter’s quick claim of Boxgate was never so appropriate. For if his staff had destroyed the tape, they would have had to destroy the boxes which were the cover for his platform.
* [links and labels added 12-6-07]
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Do as I say, not as I do.
It is more than ironic that the Bush administration opens an Office of Global Communications on the same day it declares the Iraq regime an apparatus of lies. Let’s look at some of the communications that have come from George W. Bush. “I trust the people not the government.” “I am a uniter not a divider.” His claim that he was president well before he was selected. Anyway then things get really fuzzy, running up to the “axis of evil”.
Let us be clear. There are some evil people in the world and something must be done about them. But calling them an axis gives them more credit than they deserve, not to mention leaving others out, both other evil and our allies. The most interesting thing he said lately about his problems developing a coalition to move on Iraq is that “It is like a rerun of a bad movie. I don’t want to watch anymore.” That is the problem with this administration. Not only is this worse than a rerun of any previous behavior in foreign policy it is likely to create spin-off behavior that we don’t want to watch either.
It is more than ironic that the Bush administration opens an Office of Global Communications on the same day it declares the Iraq regime an apparatus of lies. Let’s look at some of the communications that have come from George W. Bush. “I trust the people not the government.” “I am a uniter not a divider.” His claim that he was president well before he was selected. Anyway then things get really fuzzy, running up to the “axis of evil”.
Let us be clear. There are some evil people in the world and something must be done about them. But calling them an axis gives them more credit than they deserve, not to mention leaving others out, both other evil and our allies. The most interesting thing he said lately about his problems developing a coalition to move on Iraq is that “It is like a rerun of a bad movie. I don’t want to watch anymore.” That is the problem with this administration. Not only is this worse than a rerun of any previous behavior in foreign policy it is likely to create spin-off behavior that we don’t want to watch either.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Sent to King County Journal 1-17-03.
Can we be any more clear?
Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.
Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.
In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.
Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.
Can we be any more clear?
Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.
Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.
In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.
Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.
Friday, January 17, 2003
The filibuster is now in the news as a method to counter judicial nominees that have previously been rejected. My view is that it is warranted on a case by case basis now if ever.
I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.
At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]
and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]
I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.
At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]
and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]
Thursday, January 16, 2003
[Instamessage to talk-show host (TSH) sounds like an analysis.]
Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?
(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )
Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?
Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.
Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.
It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.
Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?
(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )
Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?
Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.
Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.
It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Update: Hullabaloo!
[Sent to Seattle PI, 12-23-02]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM
The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.
If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?
If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.
[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM
The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.
If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?
If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.
[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]
Ideology and Process
[Printed in the Eastside Journal 12-16-02] Edited version of 12-6 post: IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
POLITICS
Voters too impatient
A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.
These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.
The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.
There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]
POLITICS
Voters too impatient
A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.
These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.
The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.
There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)