Dean:
A perspective on the request to the Democratic Party that others take it easy on him. (I paraphrase based on a CNN segment that got me started again.)
CNN question: A mistake or diversion.
CNN host: A diversion is always a mistake. ( I paraphrase almost exactly, but never the less will not attribute more specifically)
My perspective on the possible mistake that Dean asks for help on the playing field. Not.
Maybe only an intentional irony in that it is a diversion. For is not the main goal to beat Bush and is not the playing field whatever it takes. For in Bush, is not diversion a close partner to “Staying on message”?
Now I do not espouse “whatever it takes”, but communications is a tricky thing. War may be also “what ever it takes” but as to the principles in getting there, there should be a difference.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Ephedra Ban Instituted
It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?
[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]
The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?
The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.
But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.
Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?
This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.
Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?
[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]
The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?
The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.
But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.
Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?
This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.
Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?
Sunday, December 14, 2003
TAKE NOTHING AWAY FROM THIS SUCCESS
Let's punctuate it.
Congratulations are in order to our forces and the administration in Iraq and here on the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is truly a great plus that he is not now free to do whatever he has been. One down and one to go and terrorism will be ended forever. Need I say not likely?
Take nothing away from this success. The anti-dichotomous nature of this statement should be obvious. We really must make the most of his capture. Where we go now is the next question. Any reduction in terrorism and tensions will be most welcome. But will we make the most of it?
For those concerned about rewriting history, that is a fallacy. We have yet to investigate it. With one down, can we now look at how we got here and where we are going? The excuse has always been something left to do that prevents the full investigation of prior events or intelligence.
With one in hand at least we no longer have two in the bush and we should begin shaking at least that tree. Find out and double check the thinking that got us here and if we will ever have reason to trust any administration again. For altering the future by one success does not change the questions about how we succeeded or failed in getting here.
Winning peace will continue to be a problem that some will see as “doing nothing” and others not even one of the only two choices. Will we get anything from success? Will we at least see the power of nuance or continue to prey on the dichotomies?
Or maybe we just have a crying need for a leader with a better combination of grammar, punctuation and anger to fuel the process.
Let's punctuate it.
Congratulations are in order to our forces and the administration in Iraq and here on the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is truly a great plus that he is not now free to do whatever he has been. One down and one to go and terrorism will be ended forever. Need I say not likely?
Take nothing away from this success. The anti-dichotomous nature of this statement should be obvious. We really must make the most of his capture. Where we go now is the next question. Any reduction in terrorism and tensions will be most welcome. But will we make the most of it?
For those concerned about rewriting history, that is a fallacy. We have yet to investigate it. With one down, can we now look at how we got here and where we are going? The excuse has always been something left to do that prevents the full investigation of prior events or intelligence.
With one in hand at least we no longer have two in the bush and we should begin shaking at least that tree. Find out and double check the thinking that got us here and if we will ever have reason to trust any administration again. For altering the future by one success does not change the questions about how we succeeded or failed in getting here.
Winning peace will continue to be a problem that some will see as “doing nothing” and others not even one of the only two choices. Will we get anything from success? Will we at least see the power of nuance or continue to prey on the dichotomies?
Or maybe we just have a crying need for a leader with a better combination of grammar, punctuation and anger to fuel the process.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
NO DOOM AND GLOOM
Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.
But skepticism should not be abandoned till he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since September 11th is questionable as long as we are fighting for “liberty, democracy and tolerance” (the president’s words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.
Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent up front about it and their critics’ patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them “gloom and doom” Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of “fear and smear”.
It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership. But let’s be honest about it.
Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.
But skepticism should not be abandoned till he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since September 11th is questionable as long as we are fighting for “liberty, democracy and tolerance” (the president’s words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.
Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent up front about it and their critics’ patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them “gloom and doom” Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of “fear and smear”.
It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership. But let’s be honest about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)