Going “incremental” is intriguing as long as it is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It may be worth considering the “Option 5” of a 2002 Treasury Dept. study which involves lifetime savings and retirement accounts. It is thought that the administration will hold off on radical tax reform until the social security and budget are dealt with. Those are big ifs (period). (edit: 1-3-05)<em>DELETE(or rather “until”s.) [A more careful reading shows they were only ifs. ] They are also somewhat tied to any tinkering with taxes.
It may be worth giving an inch as long as we don't pay for a mile. But that is dangerous if too many hope to have their cake and eat it too.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Political Differences?
The action taken to hold up the vote on the intelligence reform bill comes from a desire to hold partisan the safety of the country. One feature raised as an issue, is the battlefield intelligence capabilities that some want to insert in the bill. This seems a bad policy given the problem with the filters our system has. It would seem to short circuit the command structure, such as it is. Another irony is that the bill is not going to be voted on since there is not a majority of the majority party in favor of it. This I guess is not an irony, since when it came to getting bills out of committee they complained that a minority had something to do with it.
Certainty out-sources faith.
[Saved from 10-18-04 10:03:00 AM]
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
CIA our job one.
I stumbled across a note to self, actually I believe from Ambassador Wilson: that Open Source is not an Intelligence Discipline. My caps but note my link below. Scroll down to Bicameral Brain and Intelligence for Commission
Point being, if the CIA’s job is to support the president, we do need another intelligence agency for the rest of us or the US proper. As Air America Radio's promo says… something about the truth requiring more than one perspective.
Note: the definition of open source is us.
Point being, if the CIA’s job is to support the president, we do need another intelligence agency for the rest of us or the US proper. As Air America Radio's promo says… something about the truth requiring more than one perspective.
Note: the definition of open source is us.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Some Hope Links.
From a procrastinator to prognosticator I almost forgot my progressive nature, but a few weeks before the election I was preparing to Kerry On, with or without Kerry.
Win or lose I will try to remain optimistic but this is a ray of hope.
Not that I did not smell a rat earlier, I Smell a Rat http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604Z.shtml, I had a feeling that others may be doing there job. See link below. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604W.shtml
Win or lose I will try to remain optimistic but this is a ray of hope.
Not that I did not smell a rat earlier, I Smell a Rat http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604Z.shtml, I had a feeling that others may be doing there job. See link below. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604W.shtml
Thinking Right In Name Only?
We must call it Hi-Johning the Truth. I would call it Hijacking the truth, but what with homeland security and all that terrorism, it may be too scary a rallying cry. Now I may need to give thanks to the right subliminally for the John reference but it really surfaced in my mind as the more formal name for Jack, not the two Johns that they think they flushed.
In the search for a new face to put on our fight or indeed a party, I thought mainly of enthroning the truth as an aim, rather than letting it go down the drain.
[Hint: I may be caught up, but this is just a few words I may link something to later. It may be too obtuse or seeminginly tongue in cheek, but the point may hold water.]
[[Not an endorsement, but some credit for the theme may go to hearing of the link below to ThirdWay.com on my local www.airamericaradio.com radio station.]]
In the search for a new face to put on our fight or indeed a party, I thought mainly of enthroning the truth as an aim, rather than letting it go down the drain.
[Hint: I may be caught up, but this is just a few words I may link something to later. It may be too obtuse or seeminginly tongue in cheek, but the point may hold water.]
[[Not an endorsement, but some credit for the theme may go to hearing of the link below to ThirdWay.com on my local www.airamericaradio.com radio station.]]
Keep Up the Faith
[11-6-04 I woke up to this thought in rough form and have not had to tweak it much.]
Some people don’t understand that faith is not knowing,
knowing is not understanding,
and freedom is not from religion.
This may seem like a cycle that some try to break out of
and some try to break into, but others can not tell them which.
There may be absolutes, there may be knowing,
but finding them together is another divide
it is no ones job to close
but which each of us may find the need to.
Some people don’t understand that faith is not knowing,
knowing is not understanding,
and freedom is not from religion.
This may seem like a cycle that some try to break out of
and some try to break into, but others can not tell them which.
There may be absolutes, there may be knowing,
but finding them together is another divide
it is no ones job to close
but which each of us may find the need to.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Keep Up the Beat
There is some ironic optimism here, or maybe not. Either optimism or ironic? I don't know, maybe later.
But in catching up, I hope to refer back.
SO HERE! AND Here's to catching up. [the link below gives post cryptic credit to a similar idea]
11-4-04 [A rougher draft was sent to others and other chronological changes are partially self contained.]
Good News! The campaign is over. But the fight will go on. How is what matters. Words matter too. For Bush and for the rest of US.
Grammar, syntax and words and deeds are all connected. Where we are going may not be that different. How we get there is all right to debate. For lack of a letter or number of letters words, can change, and changes matters. Words become works or deeds can become dead.
Anyway, faith means acting without knowing. If knowing comes first, we may get somewhere else, let alone not need faith. Faith in the process is needed, but it too, must not be assumed.
Where was I going? Optimism.
I know I wrote the first three words before beginning my editing the way I wrote it, and actually 6 words before I had to add a but. I had already written the sentiments of first paragraph and its six sentences before I found the link below. [Bush wants ‘consequential presidency’; Dems & GOP look to future] And I had only scrolled down a bit, before my eyesight landed on the following words. [See Link: Russert On Politics]
"A very important point about second terms — people forget — Ronald Reagan, in his second term, went about an arms control pact with the Soviet Union — his arch-enemy."
My second paragraph reflects where I make a tangential leap. Hopefully the rest is useful advice. We must face Bush and ourselves, with as he says, faith and confidence or was it vice versa.
Now I will read the rest of his story before rehashing my stuff.
[Italics will generally mean context notes that may have been added or hopefully help, and represent some of the evolution or editing involved in my processing, seeing has my backlog is due to reaching out closer to home.]
But in catching up, I hope to refer back.
SO HERE! AND Here's to catching up. [the link below gives post cryptic credit to a similar idea]
11-4-04 [A rougher draft was sent to others and other chronological changes are partially self contained.]
Good News! The campaign is over. But the fight will go on. How is what matters. Words matter too. For Bush and for the rest of US.
Grammar, syntax and words and deeds are all connected. Where we are going may not be that different. How we get there is all right to debate. For lack of a letter or number of letters words, can change, and changes matters. Words become works or deeds can become dead.
Anyway, faith means acting without knowing. If knowing comes first, we may get somewhere else, let alone not need faith. Faith in the process is needed, but it too, must not be assumed.
Where was I going? Optimism.
I know I wrote the first three words before beginning my editing the way I wrote it, and actually 6 words before I had to add a but. I had already written the sentiments of first paragraph and its six sentences before I found the link below. [Bush wants ‘consequential presidency’; Dems & GOP look to future] And I had only scrolled down a bit, before my eyesight landed on the following words. [See Link: Russert On Politics]
"A very important point about second terms — people forget — Ronald Reagan, in his second term, went about an arms control pact with the Soviet Union — his arch-enemy."
My second paragraph reflects where I make a tangential leap. Hopefully the rest is useful advice. We must face Bush and ourselves, with as he says, faith and confidence or was it vice versa.
Now I will read the rest of his story before rehashing my stuff.
[Italics will generally mean context notes that may have been added or hopefully help, and represent some of the evolution or editing involved in my processing, seeing has my backlog is due to reaching out closer to home.]
Friday, October 29, 2004
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality.
[The point is that I wrote this "To The Uncommitted" and probably must insist, it was before I found the link "Believe". I also feel and have felt that I was closing a loop, or getting near to going loop d'loop. (I play with words, but it is serious. Only so much has been written before the rest of this and yet all will go on anyway.]
To The Uncommitted:
Bush may seem committed and to the fearful, courageous. Reality is not that simple. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding needs a mix. An instant mix is certainly simple, and Kerry is certainly complex. But Kerry is the pudding, and the right mix. Proof is in the results, before, during and after we face what we must face. Bush’s simple certainty proves nothing but more to face and it is offensive.
Vote as if the results depend on it. In all reality they do. Especially in the sticky situation we find our selves. A good leader knows the risk of being followed. What they do will be followed in deed, whether their words can be followed or not.
Kerry has the mix. Let him bring the fix, not more of the offensive fix we are in.
To The Uncommitted:
Bush may seem committed and to the fearful, courageous. Reality is not that simple. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding needs a mix. An instant mix is certainly simple, and Kerry is certainly complex. But Kerry is the pudding, and the right mix. Proof is in the results, before, during and after we face what we must face. Bush’s simple certainty proves nothing but more to face and it is offensive.
Vote as if the results depend on it. In all reality they do. Especially in the sticky situation we find our selves. A good leader knows the risk of being followed. What they do will be followed in deed, whether their words can be followed or not.
Kerry has the mix. Let him bring the fix, not more of the offensive fix we are in.
Monday, October 25, 2004
And now a few words...
A couple days ago I wrote someone—
One may be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we may never know.
Today I refined it—
We should be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we can’t preempt.
A priori ego—[Greek to me]
or I don’t know when but recently I wrote—
The highest order of philosophy is political philosophy, the other moral philosophy. And when ever the twain shall meet is perfection or BS.
A paradigm or tangential word quibble or quiz—
Bush is the soul of solecism or the idiom of syntax, or the irony of preemption.
But he must not become the energizer bunny.
One may be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we may never know.
Today I refined it—
We should be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we can’t preempt.
A priori ego—[Greek to me]
or I don’t know when but recently I wrote—
The highest order of philosophy is political philosophy, the other moral philosophy. And when ever the twain shall meet is perfection or BS.
A paradigm or tangential word quibble or quiz—
Bush is the soul of solecism or the idiom of syntax, or the irony of preemption.
But he must not become the energizer bunny.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
The American Conservative?
I may have said it different and from the opposite perspective, but not any better. (See Link)
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would 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 wakeup. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around theworld) 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.
(Archived Sept. 6th 2002.)
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would 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 wakeup. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around theworld) 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.
(Archived Sept. 6th 2002.)
Saturday, September 25, 2004
WORDS FIT
[Submission trimmed to fit needs of the New York Times: September 17th, 2004]
WORDS COUNTING
The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. It is ironic he is in the paragraph profession and a Bush supporter, but not that he misses the connection to education having something to do with it. How much education does one need to see that an equation new or old needs more than a few words and that life is more than numbers crunching? Diversity is found in those that know there is more.
WORDS COUNTING
The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. It is ironic he is in the paragraph profession and a Bush supporter, but not that he misses the connection to education having something to do with it. How much education does one need to see that an equation new or old needs more than a few words and that life is more than numbers crunching? Diversity is found in those that know there is more.
WORDS COUNTING
[Original draft--for submission to New York Times: September 16th, 2004]
The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". He appears uncomfortable with the irony that his profession is in the paragraph world and his hope lays in number crunching friends and gain. That may be why I find it hard to see his point, being more balanced.
At least he concedes there are those that don’t fit his theory, but it is ironic as well that he focuses on CEO’s and accountants that have some independence and freedom from words and education and avoided a conclusion that the world is more than just numbers. Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. Hopefully I have not been too conservative with my words, but I cannot prove that education has something to do with all this 2.
CAUTION: Editing may reduce meaning.
Roger Larson
The narrow-mindedness or lack thereof from David Brooks in "Ruling Class War" must be admired. He separates Bush and Kerry supporters into spreadsheet people and paragraph people and concludes in pundit fashion, "Class traitors of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but friends—and a world to gain". He appears uncomfortable with the irony that his profession is in the paragraph world and his hope lays in number crunching friends and gain. That may be why I find it hard to see his point, being more balanced.
At least he concedes there are those that don’t fit his theory, but it is ironic as well that he focuses on CEO’s and accountants that have some independence and freedom from words and education and avoided a conclusion that the world is more than just numbers. Besides his missing a few professions, I’m just wondering how fields that specialize in removing tongue from cheek or examining heads contribute. He should wonder if he is in the wrong profession or party. Hopefully I have not been too conservative with my words, but I cannot prove that education has something to do with all this 2.
CAUTION: Editing may reduce meaning.
Roger Larson
Voting Course Not Curse
[Submission to local paper: September 14th, 2004]
Michael Medved’s "Fringe party sickness…" brought a cringe and later pause for thought. From Bush’s imperfections as a reason to vote for him that indicates being "mature enough to understand the workings of the Republic" to the claim that conservatives "should cure themselves of the sick infatuation with pathetic fringe parties" it came together. There is concern that there are not more choices and that other parties act as spoiler, but maybe a rational look would include the Green factor in 2000. But it was the "Does any rational observer really believe President Bush is evil? That got me.
I hope for rational observers too, but does any one really believe President Bush period? They try to paint things "good and evil" and now they want nuance and rational. Bet that they know the workings of the Republic, but wonder and worry about the workings of democracy and freedom. The nuance is in choosing when to see the choice between "good and evil" as metaphor, and when you think something is real or when it is our only choice.
A vote for a fringe candidate is not a vote for Bush or Kerry. Understanding does not mean results. Voting is the only thing black and white. Voting fringe sends a message that it can’t get any worse but can have the opposite result. Vote nuance over being flippant and flopping all over the world without a map. Vote Bush for change without a course. Vote Kerry for understanding and working.
Michael Medved’s "Fringe party sickness…" brought a cringe and later pause for thought. From Bush’s imperfections as a reason to vote for him that indicates being "mature enough to understand the workings of the Republic" to the claim that conservatives "should cure themselves of the sick infatuation with pathetic fringe parties" it came together. There is concern that there are not more choices and that other parties act as spoiler, but maybe a rational look would include the Green factor in 2000. But it was the "Does any rational observer really believe President Bush is evil? That got me.
I hope for rational observers too, but does any one really believe President Bush period? They try to paint things "good and evil" and now they want nuance and rational. Bet that they know the workings of the Republic, but wonder and worry about the workings of democracy and freedom. The nuance is in choosing when to see the choice between "good and evil" as metaphor, and when you think something is real or when it is our only choice.
A vote for a fringe candidate is not a vote for Bush or Kerry. Understanding does not mean results. Voting is the only thing black and white. Voting fringe sends a message that it can’t get any worse but can have the opposite result. Vote nuance over being flippant and flopping all over the world without a map. Vote Bush for change without a course. Vote Kerry for understanding and working.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Stuart Smally Anyone?
The Hollow World of George Bush
If positive thinking works, who needs weapons?
QED or Mobius Faith?
And what the heck are we positive about?
Only the shadow knows. What about between the words and the deeds?
The future may be our only end, but the golden rule is a two way street.
* http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092504Z.shtml">original link updated
If positive thinking works, who needs weapons?
QED or Mobius Faith?
And what the heck are we positive about?
Only the shadow knows. What about between the words and the deeds?
The future may be our only end, but the golden rule is a two way street.
* http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092504Z.shtml">original link updated
Catch up.
There are a few submissions elsewhere where I will have to post later, as I am now referring to them. In the meantime I found Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/and Informed Comment which I must catch up on too if it won’t spoil me. At this post my readings on that site were limited to two, and had not found the site prior to my previous post.
Exporting Democracy
The ink is barely dry on my last post and Rumsfeld provides more clarity. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/
"Nothing’s perfect in life," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee on Thursday. "You have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
I contradicted history and vice versa when I said maybe elsewhere, the only thing black and white is a vote. Our 2000 election brings that and Rumsfelds claim into question.
"Nothing’s perfect in life," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee on Thursday. "You have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."
I contradicted history and vice versa when I said maybe elsewhere, the only thing black and white is a vote. Our 2000 election brings that and Rumsfelds claim into question.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Cherry paraphrasing.
The Seattle Times editorial today titled: Kerry's right to slam the president on Iraq.(see link) I agree when they say his Iraq vote and recent claim was "... not a 'flip-flop.' It is sensible and consistent."
However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."
Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."
The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.
We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?
It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.
* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)
Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.
However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."
Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."
The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.
We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?
It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.
* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)
Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Nation building and policeman to the world?
See previous post for background. See Link for the Secretary-General'spreemptive talk on law and order.
President Bush’s speech to the UN included admirable goals but the path is gilded with words that make it slippery.
"The proper response to difficulties is not to retreat. It is to prevail."
No one is retreating. It is how we will prevail that matters.
It is only a slight change from the only choice is between war and doing nothing, but still only words.
There was no camp or crowd for doing nothing either.
President Bush’s speech to the UN included admirable goals but the path is gilded with words that make it slippery.
"The proper response to difficulties is not to retreat. It is to prevail."
No one is retreating. It is how we will prevail that matters.
It is only a slight change from the only choice is between war and doing nothing, but still only words.
There was no camp or crowd for doing nothing either.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness.
One statement that may summarize or simplify the theme behind my writing is an old saying and an old joke:
Follow the "Golden Rule".
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
and
"Those with the gold, rule."
Both may be true, it is the extent that we apply them that matter and in modern terms it could be said that those with the oil rule. It is also to the extent that we know they are a joke, that we know anything. Or rather it is the extent that there is any truth that we we know it is a joke.
The theme is further complicated by just the trickiness of the words, rule and follow. Connections have been a sub-theme, but anybody can make them. Following may require a leader but a leader should remember that others follow what you do more than what you say. This would seem to be important whether we know what we mean or not.
It is tempting to want people to "Do as I say, not as I do." just as it is satisfying to "Have your cake and eat it too." But do people have faith in the words or math that power makes fuzzy? Do people really understand how to follow this?
This is what I have been saying in a round about way. It may be coincident that I run into the work of Philip Gold or it may be that I have been following public radio, but he has a book called "Take Back the Right." Not just that he has the right name(again) but his words echo mine and he seems to use the word right, among many, in a way that has meaning.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0786713526/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8108271-4043046#reader-page for a review of the book and see his article in Seattle Weekly at the link below.
We may not have the same destination but we need the tools to build the road and we cannot ignore as much in the planning.
Follow the "Golden Rule".
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
and
"Those with the gold, rule."
Both may be true, it is the extent that we apply them that matter and in modern terms it could be said that those with the oil rule. It is also to the extent that we know they are a joke, that we know anything. Or rather it is the extent that there is any truth that we we know it is a joke.
The theme is further complicated by just the trickiness of the words, rule and follow. Connections have been a sub-theme, but anybody can make them. Following may require a leader but a leader should remember that others follow what you do more than what you say. This would seem to be important whether we know what we mean or not.
It is tempting to want people to "Do as I say, not as I do." just as it is satisfying to "Have your cake and eat it too." But do people have faith in the words or math that power makes fuzzy? Do people really understand how to follow this?
This is what I have been saying in a round about way. It may be coincident that I run into the work of Philip Gold or it may be that I have been following public radio, but he has a book called "Take Back the Right." Not just that he has the right name(again) but his words echo mine and he seems to use the word right, among many, in a way that has meaning.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0786713526/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8108271-4043046#reader-page for a review of the book and see his article in Seattle Weekly at the link below.
We may not have the same destination but we need the tools to build the road and we cannot ignore as much in the planning.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
September Eleventh
I DID NOT FORGET!
I chose to do something different about it. I gave words a rest.
I now remember the ones I had within hours of the unspeakable.
I chose to do something different about it. I gave words a rest.
I now remember the ones I had within hours of the unspeakable.
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED. (Sept. 11, 2001)
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would 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 wakeup. 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.
[This was written before noon on that day but after doing what was much later recommended by the President: going on with our life, and I saw the flags already at half-staff as I jogged past my local fire station.]
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
MUTUAL OR CONGENITAL?
Sent 9-2-04: [Speaking of timing, this has been sent to a local paper, but not likely to see print. I can see that it assumes that the reader is informed of too many things which I do not have room for in the limit of 250 words, which is what the paper suggests and I happened to have hit. But the previous post may be a useful on this measure. ]
One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.
But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.
More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.
One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.
But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.
More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.
THE WAR OF THE WORDS!
One change Bush may want to consider is getting a new speechwriter. One who will write speeches he can’t mess up. He blames trial lawyers for Ob-gyn not being able to practice their love, with women all over this country. Structurally it may make sense if you are very careful, narrow-minded and know what is meant. But do we really want a president who stays the course, since one reason for the Iraq war was to make sure Saddam knew he meant what he says?
Maybe he is the great educator and this comedy a ploy to get the dictionary more widely read if not changed. How can we tell the jokes from the truth that may leak out? We know that leaks are a ploy and combined with increased information classification* to minimize actual truth getting out, very effective. A joke or not, is there a chance that at his first press opportunity when he said things would be easier if he were dictator that our friends let alone enemies knew what he meant?
Brace for more "catastrophic success". Which means winning what you don’t know how to win or ever will, faster. Or at least not being able to say it.
* After writing this I pursued a link that had been recommended by one of the links I have to the right by those NOTBEATING… It will be read later, but the only connection I make is to the reference on classifications not comedy. It has no link to my thinking this comical or the comedy line I pursued, as I had not followed up on it yet and don’t know if I will, follow up or find it comical. But in being preemptive or funny, timing is everything and words may be key too. This footnote while at first seemingly unnecessary actually tied up more than I expected.
Maybe he is the great educator and this comedy a ploy to get the dictionary more widely read if not changed. How can we tell the jokes from the truth that may leak out? We know that leaks are a ploy and combined with increased information classification* to minimize actual truth getting out, very effective. A joke or not, is there a chance that at his first press opportunity when he said things would be easier if he were dictator that our friends let alone enemies knew what he meant?
Brace for more "catastrophic success". Which means winning what you don’t know how to win or ever will, faster. Or at least not being able to say it.
* After writing this I pursued a link that had been recommended by one of the links I have to the right by those NOTBEATING… It will be read later, but the only connection I make is to the reference on classifications not comedy. It has no link to my thinking this comical or the comedy line I pursued, as I had not followed up on it yet and don’t know if I will, follow up or find it comical. But in being preemptive or funny, timing is everything and words may be key too. This footnote while at first seemingly unnecessary actually tied up more than I expected.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
UNITER NOT A DIVIDER
If one doesn't do nuance, everything is flip-flop or political. Cheney said it was mutual, he was close. They see it as uniting, and others as dividing. It may be the only way to see anything as united.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
They started it.
So I am getting there. It seems a talking point that it was Kerry who brought up his military record and that it is fair game. Well Mayor Juliani pointed out that after September 11th, he made the comment, something like aren't we glad Bush is president. Well that comment alone is odd that such a failure should bring the comment but at least should open the door that Bush's record be looked at. As General McPeak pointed out in an interview with Dori Monson a day ago, Kerry's service made him a hero, and his protestsupon his return, made him twice a hero.
Meanwhile the convention dishonors those with puple hearts to mock Kerry. When men and women died for the freedoms Zell Miller ranted about others abusing he dishonors them more than those who practice their freedoms.
Fair game? Debate is a fair game. Using facts that are so twisted from facts is far from fair. All the moderation and hope that was on display the day before has one more reason to be questioned. Questioned while it is still possible.
Meanwhile the convention dishonors those with puple hearts to mock Kerry. When men and women died for the freedoms Zell Miller ranted about others abusing he dishonors them more than those who practice their freedoms.
Fair game? Debate is a fair game. Using facts that are so twisted from facts is far from fair. All the moderation and hope that was on display the day before has one more reason to be questioned. Questioned while it is still possible.
They started it.
See same link... I say they started it. Two realities? Rumsfeld himself said facts change as noted here before I started providing links. You can check the archives around the time you think he may have said that. Reason enough for flip-flop. But a second reason as Cheney hit it, is mutual, sort of. Since they don't do nuance everything they can't understand has flip-flop potential. They do do French as in "pardon my French" as Cheney has been caught on a podium and the senate floor referring to a journalist and later a Senator.
Well if nuance is French, then pardon my Cheney. You would think that English is Greek to them but I won't go there. No I am not being vulgar just over my head academically.
Well if nuance is French, then pardon my Cheney. You would think that English is Greek to them but I won't go there. No I am not being vulgar just over my head academically.
Live From New York: Saturday Night Live
[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.
Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.
Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.
The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.
Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.
Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.
Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.
The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.
Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?
Thursday, August 26, 2004
TIT FOR TAT
BUSH McCAIN MAKE BAD LAW: (see Link)
It seems that Bush is truly uncoordinated. The charge being bandied about it that there is some coordination between 527s and the presidential campaigns.
While he used to put down lawyers and harp on their undeserved fees, now he sees value in them by needing them to take his own laws (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Finance Act) to court. In particular to avoid having to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth he prefers to blame the process McCain sponsored and Bush signed into law. This is after two Bush campaign workers (one a lawyer) are connected to the SBVT and the Kerry campaign has sought legal action themselves.
If the media did their job there would be no call for groups having to spend money to get issues out and straighten out the truth. Meanwhile if restrictions can be made on advertising for political speech, it will likely have to apply to corporations; they have rights and responsibilities too.
Speaking of the corporate being that Bush and Nader have trouble distinguishing there is a further tie, the media may need to fit into this concern for rights and responsibility. Free speech is one thing, but unfortunately money is often needed to get out the message. If control or limits are warranted as to the money that can flow to lawyers and media it would be only right to include the corporate spending (only free speech) as well as earnings (limiting fees) if that is their concern.
And lastly for those who support the death penalty, just where does that fit in? There may be a sense of flip-flop in this flow, but don't count on a new law to be the last flop.
Bumper sticker not seen yet:
FLIP/FLOP
or FLOP PERIOD.
It seems that Bush is truly uncoordinated. The charge being bandied about it that there is some coordination between 527s and the presidential campaigns.
While he used to put down lawyers and harp on their undeserved fees, now he sees value in them by needing them to take his own laws (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Finance Act) to court. In particular to avoid having to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth he prefers to blame the process McCain sponsored and Bush signed into law. This is after two Bush campaign workers (one a lawyer) are connected to the SBVT and the Kerry campaign has sought legal action themselves.
If the media did their job there would be no call for groups having to spend money to get issues out and straighten out the truth. Meanwhile if restrictions can be made on advertising for political speech, it will likely have to apply to corporations; they have rights and responsibilities too.
Speaking of the corporate being that Bush and Nader have trouble distinguishing there is a further tie, the media may need to fit into this concern for rights and responsibility. Free speech is one thing, but unfortunately money is often needed to get out the message. If control or limits are warranted as to the money that can flow to lawyers and media it would be only right to include the corporate spending (only free speech) as well as earnings (limiting fees) if that is their concern.
And lastly for those who support the death penalty, just where does that fit in? There may be a sense of flip-flop in this flow, but don't count on a new law to be the last flop.
Bumper sticker not seen yet:
FLIP/FLOP
or FLOP PERIOD.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Correction to Rehashing Avoidance Issues
This post is to note that I have had to make a correction for the first time(other than grammatical and format changes) to a post. GO DOWN TWO POSTS to REHASHING AVOIDANCE ISSUES changes will be in [bold brackets].
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Preemptive Prior Post
The previous post was written prior to finding these items.
These charges are false
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Z.shtml
Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Y.shtml
That does not excuse my not providing better links at the time.
The only issue I disagree with is that candidates should control what others are saying. If these 527 groups were to change their policy it would seem the charge of coordination could be made. But candidates can separate themselves from the charges they make. Kerry has made the effort, though the ads are valid, Bush has refused, though the ads mislead. This should tell us a lot about the candidates, indeed may explain the only seemingly flip-flopping of Kerry and highlight Bush's insistence to stay the course of confusion and flopping.
These charges are false
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Z.shtml
Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Y.shtml
That does not excuse my not providing better links at the time.
The only issue I disagree with is that candidates should control what others are saying. If these 527 groups were to change their policy it would seem the charge of coordination could be made. But candidates can separate themselves from the charges they make. Kerry has made the effort, though the ads are valid, Bush has refused, though the ads mislead. This should tell us a lot about the candidates, indeed may explain the only seemingly flip-flopping of Kerry and highlight Bush's insistence to stay the course of confusion and flopping.
Rehashing Avoidance Issues
Recently Senator Dole has pleaded for us to MOVE ON over the issue of Kerry's military record while not resisting throwing in a few more jabs pulling us back by suggesting that Kerry apologize for his words more than 30 years ago. He tries to step above the fray by kicking up more dirt. To top it off, the childishness is obvious in the final claim that Kerry started it.
Military records are valid topics but not the most crucial. However since the Bush administration has depended on the war on terror as an excuse to stay the course, Kerry was playing to the same minimalist thinking as counter balance.
Now that Bush has capitulated belatedly by denouncing ads by the Swift Board Veterans of a Different Opinion, we will have another chance to see if anything changes.[CORRECTION: He has apparently not disavowed them aside from smearing 527s in general] (For another ad commentary see link.) Another childish ploy is while not taking credit for the "fear and smear" campaign, he blames the process that allows money on the other side to be spent on issues that he could address by confronting.
But the final point that military honors are now deserved by only some of the veterans seems to do more injustice to veterans than Kerry’s freedom to speak his mind. The sacrifices that many veterans made for their country are very important but what they were fighting for is important to remember. Though the reasons seem disputed it must have had something to do with freedoms. If wounds can be a comparison that divides some veterans they should remember those that did not return. If opinions and words are what divide other veterans they should remember what others at least thought they died for.
Military records are valid topics but not the most crucial. However since the Bush administration has depended on the war on terror as an excuse to stay the course, Kerry was playing to the same minimalist thinking as counter balance.
Now that Bush has capitulated belatedly by denouncing ads by the Swift Board Veterans of a Different Opinion, we will have another chance to see if anything changes.[CORRECTION: He has apparently not disavowed them aside from smearing 527s in general] (For another ad commentary see link.) Another childish ploy is while not taking credit for the "fear and smear" campaign, he blames the process that allows money on the other side to be spent on issues that he could address by confronting.
But the final point that military honors are now deserved by only some of the veterans seems to do more injustice to veterans than Kerry’s freedom to speak his mind. The sacrifices that many veterans made for their country are very important but what they were fighting for is important to remember. Though the reasons seem disputed it must have had something to do with freedoms. If wounds can be a comparison that divides some veterans they should remember those that did not return. If opinions and words are what divide other veterans they should remember what others at least thought they died for.
Fear And Smear
Printed 12-05-03 (see link)
BUSH
Watch what happens next
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 until 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 Sept. 11 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 upfront 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.
BUSH
Watch what happens next
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 until 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 Sept. 11 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 upfront 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.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL
His Liberty University will open its law school next month and AP http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-falwell18.html quoted him as saying "We’ll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left".It has been in the works for some time, http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/15_Falwell.html and here is an example of the style of debate that will be their focus http://www.nljonline.com/fc/comp_homo.html .
Actually he may have a few points that on facts actually could be and were overturned. But the concept that programs on diversity and anti-discrimination should allow contrary views to be expressed based on diversity and anti-discrimination let alone free speech is beyond me and apparently him.
Actually my comment was going to be even quicker before I searched for more information than the local paper had, which is likely the AP source above. It seems that conservatives need to pick and choose their facts and have preemptive conclusions to mold them to, so it would be hard to imagine they could be any match for those that must deal with a diversity of facts and have the freedom to use them. But I can sympathize, as it is easier if I limit my facts to even a few they use and even easier if you can dictate the facts.
* QCON stands for Quick Comment On News or Questioning CONservatives
Actually he may have a few points that on facts actually could be and were overturned. But the concept that programs on diversity and anti-discrimination should allow contrary views to be expressed based on diversity and anti-discrimination let alone free speech is beyond me and apparently him.
Actually my comment was going to be even quicker before I searched for more information than the local paper had, which is likely the AP source above. It seems that conservatives need to pick and choose their facts and have preemptive conclusions to mold them to, so it would be hard to imagine they could be any match for those that must deal with a diversity of facts and have the freedom to use them. But I can sympathize, as it is easier if I limit my facts to even a few they use and even easier if you can dictate the facts.
* QCON stands for Quick Comment On News or Questioning CONservatives
Monday, August 09, 2004
Media Likely To Be Blamed
Media is likely to be blamed. It is hard to sort out the facts, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080804W.shtml (Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a U.S. Security Blunder-Experts) but with this administration it is a given. However the attention that the release of another intelligence asset will likely be played down or completely clouded before the end of the Republican convention.
The raised terror alert and other attempts to take a Democratic bounce out of the picture are seen in a different light given the results of the release of too much information. The need to explain the terror alert given the natural mistrust for the administration contradicts the campaign mantra that results count. The placing of politics above security and intelligence may have come back to bite them again.
Also see below link, Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation
The raised terror alert and other attempts to take a Democratic bounce out of the picture are seen in a different light given the results of the release of too much information. The need to explain the terror alert given the natural mistrust for the administration contradicts the campaign mantra that results count. The placing of politics above security and intelligence may have come back to bite them again.
Also see below link, Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation
Friday, August 06, 2004
NEXUS REVIEW (Re-posted)
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
NEXUS REVIEW
It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.
The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience?
This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD* to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).
* UPDATE:
MAD (Officially a defense policy of Mutually Assured Destruction) or what Bush seemed to be just to bluff. Which I thought was a good strategy if it was a bluff, but unfortunately it was not a bluff in more ways than one.
NEXUS REVIEW
It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.
The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience?
This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD* to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).
* UPDATE:
MAD (Officially a defense policy of Mutually Assured Destruction) or what Bush seemed to be just to bluff. Which I thought was a good strategy if it was a bluff, but unfortunately it was not a bluff in more ways than one.
Cutting Through the BUSH
They Knew by David Sirota and Christy Harvey does a great job of cutting through the Bush.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080604E.shtml
Its companion piece http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
serves as review of the evidence that substantiates much of what I have been filtering.
To cut to the root, if the British intelligence was the excuse for the 16 words that should not have been, why was the following ignored?
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country was helping build the case for war, admitted, "What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of [Iraq-al Qaeda connections]. And the answer is: 'I haven't.' "
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080604E.shtml
Its companion piece http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889
Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
serves as review of the evidence that substantiates much of what I have been filtering.
To cut to the root, if the British intelligence was the excuse for the 16 words that should not have been, why was the following ignored?
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country was helping build the case for war, admitted, "What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of [Iraq-al Qaeda connections]. And the answer is: 'I haven't.' "
Thursday, August 05, 2004
NADER WAS RIGHT!
Nader was right, speaking of the corporate bodies in the White House.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080504W.shtml
Kerry Denounces Special Corporate Favor
Kerry’s promise:
"My vice president of the United States will never meet secretly with polluters who want to rewrite the environmental laws," the presidential nominee told a cheering crowd packed into a hockey arena Tuesday.
Their rebuttal:
Responding to Kerry's remarks, the Bush-Cheney campaign said the comments on corporations was a personal attack on Cheney. "This is part of his bizarre, personal diatribe that he issued at the convention during his acceptance speech," said spokesman Terry Holt.
The only conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney campaign makes no distinction between corporations and their persons. And there was no report of any argument with the charge.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080504W.shtml
Kerry Denounces Special Corporate Favor
Kerry’s promise:
"My vice president of the United States will never meet secretly with polluters who want to rewrite the environmental laws," the presidential nominee told a cheering crowd packed into a hockey arena Tuesday.
Their rebuttal:
Responding to Kerry's remarks, the Bush-Cheney campaign said the comments on corporations was a personal attack on Cheney. "This is part of his bizarre, personal diatribe that he issued at the convention during his acceptance speech," said spokesman Terry Holt.
The only conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney campaign makes no distinction between corporations and their persons. And there was no report of any argument with the charge.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Up The Filter
Cheney almost got in real trouble when he suggested that he had more intelligence than the 9-11 commission, meaning he must have withheld something. However now I can’t blame him, because even I had more evidence than the 9-11 commission at least mentioned in their report.
Much of it is noted in http://www.tompaine.com/articles/sins_of_commission.php Sins of Commission. I’ve only read up to flaw four in it.
Summary: more information was available than was considered by intelligence or the committee.
I'm sure some of it may yank some chains, but it is why our enemies ended up yanking ours.
What was supposed to empower a bluff, played into their hand. A poker term that I saw through earlier in this analysis.
Much of it is noted in http://www.tompaine.com/articles/sins_of_commission.php Sins of Commission. I’ve only read up to flaw four in it.
Summary: more information was available than was considered by intelligence or the committee.
I'm sure some of it may yank some chains, but it is why our enemies ended up yanking ours.
What was supposed to empower a bluff, played into their hand. A poker term that I saw through earlier in this analysis.
Bicameral Brain
Bush is right about one thing. The new office of intelligence should not be in the White House. It is the congress that needs a new intelligence level. Given that partisanship is hard to get over, the solution should be to have a bicameral authority responsible to the congress. This office would then be responsible for coordinating the supervision of intelligence with the CIA Director.
Does this seem too unwieldy? What is the alternative to having two ways of looking at evidence?
The reality is that intelligence information may have been adequate and it was the intelligence in how you look at it that counts. Acting on the advice of intelligence or commissions is next in importance and it seems we have a long way to go in agreeing on that.
Either way the election in November should not be the end of it and we will be lucky if it is really a beginning.
Does this seem too unwieldy? What is the alternative to having two ways of looking at evidence?
The reality is that intelligence information may have been adequate and it was the intelligence in how you look at it that counts. Acting on the advice of intelligence or commissions is next in importance and it seems we have a long way to go in agreeing on that.
Either way the election in November should not be the end of it and we will be lucky if it is really a beginning.
Intelligence For Commission
…on the topic of not reading something fully before speaking up, I've done it again. Actually the following 9/11 Commission Chimera is right on that topic, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/911_commission_chimera.php
(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)
Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.
See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.
This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.
My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238
* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.
See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html
(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)
Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.
See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.
This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.
My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238
* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.
See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html
Friday, July 30, 2004
LOB
Now begins a little log of Bush (LOB) claims as presented by MSNBC.
Bush slams Kerry for few ‘achievements’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5559688/
"We have turned the corner, and we’re not turning back."
We must ask, does this mean continuing to turn to the Right or just bring on the wrong?
"My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results," "Results matter"
I thought that’s what came out of the convention.
There was mention of Bush’s results, need they more?
Bush slams Kerry for few ‘achievements’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5559688/
"We have turned the corner, and we’re not turning back."
We must ask, does this mean continuing to turn to the Right or just bring on the wrong?
"My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results," "Results matter"
I thought that’s what came out of the convention.
There was mention of Bush’s results, need they more?
More Preemptive Insights
The previous posts were preemptive of the following link. Not only did Kerry seem to borrow some of my words, but those of his competitors.
In "The Composite Candidate" Chris Suellentrop does not miss the uniting of words and Democrats, though he may throw in a cheap shot at the end.It would be ironic to think that Kerry need adopt the mantle of "Compassionate Conservatism" when Bush has done such a poor job anyway.
But the dangers that Kerry would face from renewed diversity would be safer than Bush ignoring the lid on Pandora’s box not to mention what was left inside.
In "The Composite Candidate" Chris Suellentrop does not miss the uniting of words and Democrats, though he may throw in a cheap shot at the end.It would be ironic to think that Kerry need adopt the mantle of "Compassionate Conservatism" when Bush has done such a poor job anyway.
But the dangers that Kerry would face from renewed diversity would be safer than Bush ignoring the lid on Pandora’s box not to mention what was left inside.
REPORTING FOR DUTY
John Kerry struck the right tone in his most important speech to date. Foreign policy is an important area that must be addressed. I especially appreciated the tone given the use of rhetoric that will come back to haunt the current administration. Bush is a war president. He wants to be a peace president. Is that a flip-flop? In the context of these segments it may be unfair to accuse such a thing but it must be addressed.
Things are black and white.
Repeat: Things are black AND white.
A key word or emphasis may be important for those less skilled in the English language, and I am no expert. But to head off claims that we are at war and a change is unwarranted we much look at the record of words. When Kerry says we should not be opening fire houses in Iraq AND closing them here, it does not preclude opening firehouses in Iraq as long as we are not neglecting our own concerns for security and defense.
For more reasons Kerry hit the right tone see my archives in particular the link below, especially on war, patriotism and democracy.
Reporting for duty is what we all must do, paying attention on a daily basis but especially on Election Day.
Things are black and white.
Repeat: Things are black AND white.
A key word or emphasis may be important for those less skilled in the English language, and I am no expert. But to head off claims that we are at war and a change is unwarranted we much look at the record of words. When Kerry says we should not be opening fire houses in Iraq AND closing them here, it does not preclude opening firehouses in Iraq as long as we are not neglecting our own concerns for security and defense.
For more reasons Kerry hit the right tone see my archives in particular the link below, especially on war, patriotism and democracy.
Reporting for duty is what we all must do, paying attention on a daily basis but especially on Election Day.
IRONY PRESIDENT
Just to repeat, if I said it already. Bush is no Reagan. Reagan was the Teflon President and Bush is the Irony President. Meaning his own words are the best rhetoric against him. What did not stick to Reagan could splash back at Bush.
The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking. See Link for original letter.
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government
I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?
The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking. See Link for original letter.
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government
I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?
Thursday, July 22, 2004
I Don't Want To Be Right.
A Republican State Representative in Michigan has worked his way into hot water, http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/072304A.shtml and doesn’t know he has turned up the heat.
"In the context that we were talking about, I said we've got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don't know how we got them from there to "racist,"' Pappageorge said. "If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize."
A good message gets the vote down
or not voting is a good message?
Either way Republican campaigning seems to make sense now.
Not that it is Right.
"In the context that we were talking about, I said we've got to get the vote up in Oakland (County) and the vote down in Detroit. You get it down with a good message. I don't know how we got them from there to "racist,"' Pappageorge said. "If I have given offense in any way to my colleagues in Detroit or anywhere, I apologize."
A good message gets the vote down
or not voting is a good message?
Either way Republican campaigning seems to make sense now.
Not that it is Right.
If Politics Is Wrong?
If politics is wrong, what are the other options?
If politics is wrong, who will not use it?
If these questions seem difficult, image trying to change things.
If a dictator seems easier, maybe politics and questions need to get tough.
If failure is not an option, it is because it is a result.
If politics is wrong, who will not use it?
If these questions seem difficult, image trying to change things.
If a dictator seems easier, maybe politics and questions need to get tough.
If failure is not an option, it is because it is a result.
UNITY IN PRINCIPLE
Having only seen portions of the 9-11 Commission presentations, it is clear something must be done to improve the structure of government. Good people must not be hindered by it, but the key to change is not sacrificing our principles while taking a careful look at the process. People must not be placed above the law but the process does need work.
The hope that we can be united in this is admirable but to expect politics to be absent is as foolish as the expectation that the solution to terrorism is just war. There may be a few major changes that we can agree must happen, but the devil is in the details. It is not evil to discuss them and even words like unity must be used carefully.
The hope that we can be united in this is admirable but to expect politics to be absent is as foolish as the expectation that the solution to terrorism is just war. There may be a few major changes that we can agree must happen, but the devil is in the details. It is not evil to discuss them and even words like unity must be used carefully.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Senate Intelligence Committee
Last week the Senate Intelligence Committee came to similar unanimous conclusions declaring that their report on the administration's use of intelligence will be ready after the election.
The previous post is not so closely connected to its link. The post is a summary of the points this writer has noted along the way. The link below and one it contains http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18SUN3.html?pagewanted=print&position= is more pertinent to whether intelligence was properly used or as the former says "was an afterthought".
The previous post is not so closely connected to its link. The post is a summary of the points this writer has noted along the way. The link below and one it contains http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18SUN3.html?pagewanted=print&position= is more pertinent to whether intelligence was properly used or as the former says "was an afterthought".
YOU DECIDE!
The 9-11 commission will be unanimous.
They want you to decide.
There were chances to prevent it that were missed.
They won’t say that it could have been prevented.
You decide.
Bush says he is a uniter, not a divider.
You decide.
He says he trusts the people not the government.
You decide.
He joked that things would be easier if he were dictator.
You decide.
He says war is a last resort.
You decide.
He says he had bad intelligence.
You decide.
He says he is a war president, who wants to be a peace president.
You decide.
They want you to decide.
There were chances to prevent it that were missed.
They won’t say that it could have been prevented.
You decide.
Bush says he is a uniter, not a divider.
You decide.
He says he trusts the people not the government.
You decide.
He joked that things would be easier if he were dictator.
You decide.
He says war is a last resort.
You decide.
He says he had bad intelligence.
You decide.
He says he is a war president, who wants to be a peace president.
You decide.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Breaking Trojan Goat* Leaks
Sandy Berger charged with mishandling top secret documents in preparation for the 9-11 commission. I will refrain from more filtering and jump to a conclusion, except to say that if the charges pan out it is disgraceful and unacceptable. Stronger words would and will be used by others. The preemptive question or conclusion is that the timing is convenient. This happened some time ago and is just now coming out. Of course the excuse is that it is under investigation. The question should be, is if there were witnesses to the activity, what were they doing not preventing it? If the charges are false and it may be questionable as to the evidence ever being firm, then it seems that it supports the charge that there is an agenda somewhere, to politicize the control of intelligence in the form of passing the buck from the chain of command. This seems to be another distraction that will preemptively cloud the responsibilities for failure. If this seems to be an obtuse charge, it is not more obtuse than the perceptions that there was ever evidence supporting a preemptive war.
As disappointing as I will be with the possibility that charges have any validity** or even explanation, they should still be seen in the light of what the administration has done and more important what we can’t find out they have done.
This post was written with only the background that CNN was developing an prior, to the best of my attention, before anyone questioned the timing of this. I provide the following unread link.
I guess I should credit Dave Ross with some input to this thinking. He asked to compare the importance of Sandy Berger misplacing outdated notes with the administration not reading memos that were very pertinent. The link for his morning commentary is not yet available.
* Trojan Goat: A version of a scapegoat but preemptive and covert, also partisan or with another agenda than intelligence or the truth.
** Berger has admitted to some of the charges but the extent and/or intent is in question.
As disappointing as I will be with the possibility that charges have any validity** or even explanation, they should still be seen in the light of what the administration has done and more important what we can’t find out they have done.
This post was written with only the background that CNN was developing an prior, to the best of my attention, before anyone questioned the timing of this. I provide the following unread link.
I guess I should credit Dave Ross with some input to this thinking. He asked to compare the importance of Sandy Berger misplacing outdated notes with the administration not reading memos that were very pertinent. The link for his morning commentary is not yet available.
* Trojan Goat: A version of a scapegoat but preemptive and covert, also partisan or with another agenda than intelligence or the truth.
** Berger has admitted to some of the charges but the extent and/or intent is in question.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Another Filter:
Informed Talking Points from Mainstream Media
Thanks to www.michaelmoore.com see LINK, www.notbush.com
WOW! Not only is the media catching up, but this site now has active link inserts and color.
MY FILTER:
The long: Tomgram: Thomas Frank on the failure of liberalism
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=1551
The short: Re-slicing The Pie
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reslicing_the_pie.php
The ditto: A Pause For Hindsight
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html
See archive: September 19th 2002 for my original comments.
Thanks to www.michaelmoore.com see LINK, www.notbush.com
WOW! Not only is the media catching up, but this site now has active link inserts and color.
MY FILTER:
The long: Tomgram: Thomas Frank on the failure of liberalism
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=1551
The short: Re-slicing The Pie
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reslicing_the_pie.php
The ditto: A Pause For Hindsight
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html
See archive: September 19th 2002 for my original comments.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Pre-Roger this.
Unable to keep up with the sources I find, a look at a few words, like the title, leads me to the risky preemptive endorsement of the link below. I can always take it back, unlike killing or starting a war. But I say this now, and hope to read it later, I will not remove this post.
Roger That "V"
I already did. Somewhere, though I will have to find it, I have pointed out much of what even Ray McGovern is suprised and sick to his stomach over. What has long been a suspicion of mine, that more than a scape-goat, there was a Trojan-Goat in the CIA. Reminding us that Bush was more than just Kidding. .
Trust but Verify
"Trust but Verify"
Some things Reagan said were important even if they were borrowed from other countries. Verify our own democracy before exporting it.
Please see link "Not a Pretty Picture" and find the petition "Count Every Vote".
Some things Reagan said were important even if they were borrowed from other countries. Verify our own democracy before exporting it.
Please see link "Not a Pretty Picture" and find the petition "Count Every Vote".
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
FRANKNESS: SERVING US ALL? Right.
Contribution to a new level of discourse or d’Nile. (Sent to local paper, 6-29-04, Unedited, aside from the appropriate changes in connection with the additions in italics.)
Maureen Dowd sure hit the nail on the head in "Is Cheney losing it?" and I would like to tack on a few of my own. Aside from wondering if Cheney ever really had it, as the media should know he was not one for mincing words during the campaign. The candidate Bush even concurred with his ticket-mate’s aphorism for a member of the press. That is the irony that un-minced words should get out of this administration.
After all, the president did call for Hollywood to come up with some scenarios and solutions after 9-11. He just didn’t know, read or remember the works of the creative thinkers in his administration from the neo-con philosophers to the Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld who said "facts change". And for the obtuse I am not equating defense with entertainment, but only in regards to his dissemination of information duties. Then there are the history "rewriters" which they eschew but now employ memo rewriters before it is determined who read or followed them or how they fit in the chain of command. From the Cheney Energy Panel or rather the "X-Files" motto that "the truth is out there" to the "Twilight Zone’s" episode "To Serve Man", Cheney has now contributed to the language of unity, not to mention great debates.
And thanks to Maureen Dowd we should remember a useful "F" word (or few words)and when disturbed cry "FOX NEWS". Then we can finally let the French off the hook. Now those who are embarrassed after a personal faux pas or outburst can just say, "Pardon my Cheney". However, for those who are proud of their verbal and debating skills, it is just about time someone let the facts slip.
I don’t know if that means we found the leak in the ship of fools or the paddle that got us up the creek. But we can probably agree it is not all down hill from here. We just may not agree on the continual trickle or flood of denial.
[4-1-08: Is Cheney Losing It? link added ]
Maureen Dowd sure hit the nail on the head in "Is Cheney losing it?" and I would like to tack on a few of my own. Aside from wondering if Cheney ever really had it, as the media should know he was not one for mincing words during the campaign. The candidate Bush even concurred with his ticket-mate’s aphorism for a member of the press. That is the irony that un-minced words should get out of this administration.
After all, the president did call for Hollywood to come up with some scenarios and solutions after 9-11. He just didn’t know, read or remember the works of the creative thinkers in his administration from the neo-con philosophers to the Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld who said "facts change". And for the obtuse I am not equating defense with entertainment, but only in regards to his dissemination of information duties. Then there are the history "rewriters" which they eschew but now employ memo rewriters before it is determined who read or followed them or how they fit in the chain of command. From the Cheney Energy Panel or rather the "X-Files" motto that "the truth is out there" to the "Twilight Zone’s" episode "To Serve Man", Cheney has now contributed to the language of unity, not to mention great debates.
And thanks to Maureen Dowd we should remember a useful "F" word (or few words)and when disturbed cry "FOX NEWS". Then we can finally let the French off the hook. Now those who are embarrassed after a personal faux pas or outburst can just say, "Pardon my Cheney". However, for those who are proud of their verbal and debating skills, it is just about time someone let the facts slip.
I don’t know if that means we found the leak in the ship of fools or the paddle that got us up the creek. But we can probably agree it is not all down hill from here. We just may not agree on the continual trickle or flood of denial.
[4-1-08: Is Cheney Losing It? link added ]
MOORE TRUTH IN MEDIA
First I would like to thank all the critics of Michael Moore for seeing his movie. They really hyped the movie for the general public, and had little evidence for their avalanche of labels and bashing.
Second a little riddle is brought to mind. What is the difference between the media and the administration? Not much.
Actually the riddle that first came to mind and this was a fine segue: What is the difference between the administration and Michael Moore? One stretches the evidence to make it easier to believe in their truth. The other compresses the evidence to get a truth that is almost too hard to believe.
What is the difference between the media and the administration? Certainly not the quality of their work.
Second a little riddle is brought to mind. What is the difference between the media and the administration? Not much.
Actually the riddle that first came to mind and this was a fine segue: What is the difference between the administration and Michael Moore? One stretches the evidence to make it easier to believe in their truth. The other compresses the evidence to get a truth that is almost too hard to believe.
What is the difference between the media and the administration? Certainly not the quality of their work.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Let's make this clear.
Just to be clear, and I wish I could use footnotes, upside down would be nice, like the answers to puzzles, I have nowhere endorsed Sen. McCain for the Bush ticket. Only that it would be a smart move. I really should stop giving good advice to the enemy. I take that back. I am a uniter not a divider, so I will not call an opponent an enemy. Actually I take back the claim of uniting. I just give a perspective. Just because others give similar advice does not mean it is any better advice. Just because McCain would make sense to many voters, does not mean he would make sense to me.
Well anyway, they are using McCain in ads attacking
Edwards as Kerry’s second choice after McCain. Just because I was being obtuse (outgoing) I want to clarify for those who are obtuse (incoming). [Not that any of them or Bush actually read this.] I did not appreciate McCain as a presidential candidate, or as a VP candidate, and now that they have the ads we may see why. However that is not to say that there is not something to admire about McCain and we may see that opportunity too. McCain actually defended Kerry from some of the Bush attacks and has suffered some himself, so it should be interesting to see how he feels being part of them.
Well anyway, they are using McCain in ads attacking
Edwards as Kerry’s second choice after McCain. Just because I was being obtuse (outgoing) I want to clarify for those who are obtuse (incoming). [Not that any of them or Bush actually read this.] I did not appreciate McCain as a presidential candidate, or as a VP candidate, and now that they have the ads we may see why. However that is not to say that there is not something to admire about McCain and we may see that opportunity too. McCain actually defended Kerry from some of the Bush attacks and has suffered some himself, so it should be interesting to see how he feels being part of them.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Unfortunate Prediction
Possible proof that I have been preemptive in my concerns, this time the confirmation comes in the advice from former Senator Alfonse D'Amato(See today's link).
He suggests that Cheney be replaced on the ticket with either Powell or McCain. The VP’s recent outburst (see yesterday's link, which I added today) could be the preparation or additional excuse for this change.
NOTE: Yesterday's post runs contrary to the link provided today. It was meant to provide background for the VP selection process Cheney was involved in. On July 1st, Sidney Blumenthal wrote of the unlikelihood of Cheney being removed. But I did not find it until after this post.
He suggests that Cheney be replaced on the ticket with either Powell or McCain. The VP’s recent outburst (see yesterday's link, which I added today) could be the preparation or additional excuse for this change.
NOTE: Yesterday's post runs contrary to the link provided today. It was meant to provide background for the VP selection process Cheney was involved in. On July 1st, Sidney Blumenthal wrote of the unlikelihood of Cheney being removed. But I did not find it until after this post.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
KUDOS TO KERRY
John Edwards was my second choice for VP. In fact, he was my second choice for President. But if the Republicans use the issue of Edwards being second choice for Kerry, there are important questions. Was Cheney Cheney’s second choice for VP? Or more important was Bush Cheney’s second choice for President?
The real problem with McCain being courted by Kerry, is if Bush would make McCain his first choice. Of course, that would make the issue moot.
[NOTE: No link was originally provided on this day, but the next day I added the following. "When Cheney's mask slips, it reveals Bush."]
The real problem with McCain being courted by Kerry, is if Bush would make McCain his first choice. Of course, that would make the issue moot.
[NOTE: No link was originally provided on this day, but the next day I added the following. "When Cheney's mask slips, it reveals Bush."]
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
WHY DID WE INVADE AGAIN?
More disturbing than Iraq being under martial law is that they think that Saddam Hussein will have a fair trial. Even an MSNBC poll showed that 46% believe he does not deserve a fair trial. But Robert Sheers’s “Born Under a Cloud of Irony” spells out the problems for the Bush administration if he were to get a fair trial.
The irony is that we invaded Iraq for regime change, because he was unjust, undemocratic and immensely cruel, not to mention violating international laws. Oh, the last item was not really played up or the irony that we don’t recognize it would come into play.
A fair trial might question the relationship with the past U.S. administrations, namely Reagan and Bush 41. So we install a CIA sponsored car bomber to give him justice under Iraqi law rather than international law. SEE Link.
The irony is that we invaded Iraq for regime change, because he was unjust, undemocratic and immensely cruel, not to mention violating international laws. Oh, the last item was not really played up or the irony that we don’t recognize it would come into play.
A fair trial might question the relationship with the past U.S. administrations, namely Reagan and Bush 41. So we install a CIA sponsored car bomber to give him justice under Iraqi law rather than international law. SEE Link.
BEFORE THE INK DRIES
Before I have fully read the previous day's link, which I just corrected, a new development bears ominously on my projections. I did think that if I now have yesterday's link correct there would be information that would provide the details and legitimacy for justice so soon. That appears to be out the window anyway, and if there is anything we can learn from their process, let us hope it is not the resorting to martial law.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
OBTUSELY INSTRUMENTAL
See the Link below for MSNBC Question of the Day
Does legally turning Saddam over to the new Iraqi government change anything?
My comment on the question:
Its obtuseness was instrumental. It is ironic that Bush says freedom is an ingredient in the making of a democracy, yet somehow sovereignty can be given at the point of a gun. I find it typical that this democracy somehow has judges, not to mention laws that can try anyone so soon. While the administration is busy rewriting legal memos, somehow justice will begin in Iraq with the hand-over of documents and a prisoner it seems before there is democratic input in the creation of the branches of government.
FURTHER: Maybe we can learn something from this or maybe they have. But will the end justify the means?
Does legally turning Saddam over to the new Iraqi government change anything?
My comment on the question:
Its obtuseness was instrumental. It is ironic that Bush says freedom is an ingredient in the making of a democracy, yet somehow sovereignty can be given at the point of a gun. I find it typical that this democracy somehow has judges, not to mention laws that can try anyone so soon. While the administration is busy rewriting legal memos, somehow justice will begin in Iraq with the hand-over of documents and a prisoner it seems before there is democratic input in the creation of the branches of government.
FURTHER: Maybe we can learn something from this or maybe they have. But will the end justify the means?
Monday, June 28, 2004
SPIRIT OF THE LAW
The president has spoken recently again, about the spirit of the law. This has been his out in all of this dissembling. Good intentions somehow figure into interpretations of the law more than the actual words in the law. To cover the other end of the deal, write memos that no one reads but hope they will follow until they need to be rewritten. Who needs lawyers when you have judges? Who needs to rewrite history, when you can rewrite memos?
The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.
I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.
…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004
It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.
The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.
I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.
…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004
It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.
Friday, June 25, 2004
QCON that [Anonymous Interview]
Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04
QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.
Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".
The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."
NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04
QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.
Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".
The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."
NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]
Thursday, June 24, 2004
(QCON) Cheney v. U.S. District Court
The Supreme Court sent back to lower court the request to get documents from the Cheney Energy Panel. [SEE LINK >> QCON-Cheney Energy Panel]
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."
The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."
The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.
[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.
Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.
An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.
Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."
The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."
The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.
[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.
Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.
An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.
Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Monday, June 21, 2004
Bush Is No Reagan.
The Club For Growth will be showing Reagan at the Berlin Wall and Bush at Ground Zero. Though I would not give too much credit for the Berlin Wall falling to Reagan, some do. But comparing the two should imply that Bush gets some credit for the World Trade Center twin towers falling. Whatever credit is deserved, one represents the end of the cold war, the other the beginning of the terror war. Just how can there be a good comparison? One is the end of something that was already in trouble. The other is the beginning of trouble that sees no end. They are similar in that they selectively choose a perspective. One could see the coming fall of the Soviet Empire, the other could not see that failures or successes are not options but results.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
RONALD REAGAN: (R.I.P) RESPECTIVE IN PEACE
Much must and will be said about the passing of a great leader, President Ronald Reagan. His tragic illness in his last years is especially unfitting for a man loved by many. History will be written and rewritten. Now is not the time for trying to counter balance all the hope and inspiration he gave to many but to keep an open mind about bringing them to reality. His friends and critics alike should appreciate his skills and character, which were a most powerful weapon. [SEE LINK-- AMERICAN DREAMER: NEWSWEEK]
Thursday, May 27, 2004
ROGER THAT ! ! !
The Center for American Progress quoted leading conservative Sen. Rick Santorum "Making people struggle a little bit is not the worst thing." http://snowe.senate.gov/articles/art901703_3.htm
My thought is: Well shouldn't the wealthiest deserve the best?
Next in line, I ran into www.tompaine.com/opinion and a piece by Jonathan Rowe they summarized as "The Social Roots of Partisanship". That gets a big ROGER THAT !!! [SEE LINK !!!]
I think it is also our story and message in progress!
My thought is: Well shouldn't the wealthiest deserve the best?
Next in line, I ran into www.tompaine.com/opinion and a piece by Jonathan Rowe they summarized as "The Social Roots of Partisanship". That gets a big ROGER THAT !!! [SEE LINK !!!]
I think it is also our story and message in progress!
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
ROGER THAT ! !
[SEE LINK !!]
Thanks to THE AMERICAN PROSPECT History 101
Do I hear an echo?
We may not be all singin' in the same choir, but some try to get it together. Having too many voices is better than only having one note, and being tone deaf.
The echo? See previous post below May 10th, Bush has done more for credibility... i.e. Helping us hit bottom.
Thanks to THE AMERICAN PROSPECT History 101
Do I hear an echo?
We may not be all singin' in the same choir, but some try to get it together. Having too many voices is better than only having one note, and being tone deaf.
The echo? See previous post below May 10th, Bush has done more for credibility... i.e. Helping us hit bottom.
Hope or Heap Upon Bluster
The president had a very important speech before the War College last night. On top of the resolution proposal to the U. N. Security Council this leaves quite a bit of material to analyze. But this was the basic scope of the material: a five-point plan, the U.N. resolution and oh… the replacement of Abu Ghraib with a new high security prison presumably that will detect digital cameras.
The primary purpose was to put it all together for the American people and the world to have the persistence and patience to continue on the basic path that has been their plan for some time.
1. June 30th Iraqi sovereignty
2. Provide security for Iraqi democracy
3. Continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure
4. Build international support
5. 1st elections no later than Jan. 2005
Other than the destruction of Abu Ghraib, it sounds like we’ve heard it all before. His presentation had a clear forceful nature that could give hope to the American people. But the only thing clear is that he hoped for more meaning by saying each word so clearly as to have more force.
The primary purpose was to put it all together for the American people and the world to have the persistence and patience to continue on the basic path that has been their plan for some time.
1. June 30th Iraqi sovereignty
2. Provide security for Iraqi democracy
3. Continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure
4. Build international support
5. 1st elections no later than Jan. 2005
Other than the destruction of Abu Ghraib, it sounds like we’ve heard it all before. His presentation had a clear forceful nature that could give hope to the American people. But the only thing clear is that he hoped for more meaning by saying each word so clearly as to have more force.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
JUST CAUSE OR JUST BECAUSE?
A PARALLEL CAUSE FROM ANOTHER ANGLE.
My sympathies, NOT EXACTLY. But it is not beating around the Bush. (SEE NEW LINK: Campaign to De-Elect the President )
My sympathies, NOT EXACTLY. But it is not beating around the Bush. (SEE NEW LINK: Campaign to De-Elect the President )
Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages
THANKS TO COMMONDREAMS.ORG (SEE NEW LINK for report on administration propaganda)
Given the propensity for the administration to blame the media while manipulating it, I would suggest a campaign for truth. The fair and balanced media outlets must join together to hold those who advertise accountable. Any campaigns that distribute false information without sources should be penalized with higher costs the next time around. This would cover either the time involved correcting the erroneous information or presenting the rest of the story. In a particular candidates case triple damages would be appropriate that could cover the airtime that will be given to each opponent in a race.
Of course this would be very odious to manage and indefensible on free speech grounds but after all they are paying for it. The side that declares there are absolutes or that things are black and white should especially appreciate this campaign. The irony here is that, sure it would be difficult to asses the use of partial information. But all media should strive to uphold the Fox motto, of fair and balanced reporting. That means that every point of view is balanced by each and every aspect that can be an argument against it. It is not a simple point counter-point, for each point of darkness could need or spark a thousand points of light.
Given the propensity for the administration to blame the media while manipulating it, I would suggest a campaign for truth. The fair and balanced media outlets must join together to hold those who advertise accountable. Any campaigns that distribute false information without sources should be penalized with higher costs the next time around. This would cover either the time involved correcting the erroneous information or presenting the rest of the story. In a particular candidates case triple damages would be appropriate that could cover the airtime that will be given to each opponent in a race.
Of course this would be very odious to manage and indefensible on free speech grounds but after all they are paying for it. The side that declares there are absolutes or that things are black and white should especially appreciate this campaign. The irony here is that, sure it would be difficult to asses the use of partial information. But all media should strive to uphold the Fox motto, of fair and balanced reporting. That means that every point of view is balanced by each and every aspect that can be an argument against it. It is not a simple point counter-point, for each point of darkness could need or spark a thousand points of light.
Friday, May 14, 2004
ROGER THAT!
Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times presents a mea culpa of sorts in Dancing Alone.
ROGER THAT! Will be a new alert feature.
[SEE LINKS]
Not necessarily completely endorsing all his points, I mean it to be strongly worth reading and generally in line with my thinking. One caveat is that any change in direction by the administration should be welcomed but should not give them a second chance to learn more from failures.
If that is having your cake and eating it too, well, I don’t want to unilaterally disarm of rhetoric.
ROGER THAT! Will be a new alert feature.
[SEE LINKS]
Not necessarily completely endorsing all his points, I mean it to be strongly worth reading and generally in line with my thinking. One caveat is that any change in direction by the administration should be welcomed but should not give them a second chance to learn more from failures.
If that is having your cake and eating it too, well, I don’t want to unilaterally disarm of rhetoric.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Bush has done more for credibility and privatization than any president has ever… with irony.
For some reason the abuse that is so “abhorrent” to Bush and the administration is not a shock to me. I was wondering why, though I like many have not seen it all yet. For the reason one may see Molly Ivins, “Putting the ‘con’ in neo-Con” which I have not read more than a few paragraph of, but it hit a spot that had crossed my mind and the title may be sufficient. Though not in my immediate experience, there have been reports of abuses and tragedies that have occurred on or just off college campuses as well as similar abuse that occurs in the military and for some reason have even been institutionalized and rationalized to some degree. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001924049&zsection_id=268883724&slug=ivins10&date=20040510
More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.
It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294
The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.
Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.
Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.
More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.
It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294
The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.
Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.
Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
WHEN DOES THE JOKER CROSS THE LINE?
WHAT LINE?
In the Nation section of the King County Journal, 5-5-04 (AP, by Ron Fournier). “Bush uses humor to soften Kerry criticism.”
“The President must speak clearly and mean what he says.” Bush said.
But speaking clearly does not clearly mean anything if it is not clear you know what you mean. It is not even clear if this was supposed to be humor. I have heard him answer questions very clearly and in fact repeat answers even more clearly thinking it had even more meaning that way. See why he had to appear with Cheney before the 9-11 commission.
Even in cases he knows what he means the clear words have alternate interpretations. He was a uniter not a divider, so he united the Democrats and the Arab world. Separately of course, I must be clear there is no linkage. Though there is more linkage between the U.S. and Saudi leaders. He trusts the people not the government. He did not say whom he would trust when he is in the government and not the people. Let us hope he will get clearer. I at least know I may come across obtuse, ironic and/or nuanced, which he is none of.
In the Nation section of the King County Journal, 5-5-04 (AP, by Ron Fournier). “Bush uses humor to soften Kerry criticism.”
“The President must speak clearly and mean what he says.” Bush said.
But speaking clearly does not clearly mean anything if it is not clear you know what you mean. It is not even clear if this was supposed to be humor. I have heard him answer questions very clearly and in fact repeat answers even more clearly thinking it had even more meaning that way. See why he had to appear with Cheney before the 9-11 commission.
Even in cases he knows what he means the clear words have alternate interpretations. He was a uniter not a divider, so he united the Democrats and the Arab world. Separately of course, I must be clear there is no linkage. Though there is more linkage between the U.S. and Saudi leaders. He trusts the people not the government. He did not say whom he would trust when he is in the government and not the people. Let us hope he will get clearer. I at least know I may come across obtuse, ironic and/or nuanced, which he is none of.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
For reference to previous post.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001913288_chapman27.html
Seattle Times, April 27th, 2004
Seattle Times, April 27th, 2004
HISTORY A GUIDE TO LOOKING AHEAD, NOT A DISTRACTION
Bruce Chapman’s "Let's not be distracted from the dangers ahead" reminds me fighting terrorism is a priority and not booting Bush the biggest danger ahead. Chapman though distracts by laying blame that "much of the left and the media are trying to focus the public's attention…through a rear-view mirror."
Far from looking ahead, Chapman notes that chemical weapons have been found in Jordan, forgetting that was not before the fall of Baghdad. Chapman blames Iran's financial sponsorship and U. N. corruption as if the U.S. had no part in investigating or preventing them. On homeland security he is right. Yet the violin teacher’s admonition to "Play better" may be the best advice, not blaming others or existing laws and processes.
Instead Attorney General Ashcroft blamed the famous wall of the Gorelick memo, as if to say, "the dog ate my homework" while his evidence was a chewed up sports page. The memo "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations" was misread, not to mention an interpretation of Reagan and Bush I mandates. It concluded "That AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) will continue to be ‘walled off’…and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines". The bold emphasis and Italics should have been added earlier.
They fail even Monday morning quarterbacking. Showing that if the administration could read better not to mention "play better" there may never have been a 9-11 commission of the terrorist act to need a commission.
Far from looking ahead, Chapman notes that chemical weapons have been found in Jordan, forgetting that was not before the fall of Baghdad. Chapman blames Iran's financial sponsorship and U. N. corruption as if the U.S. had no part in investigating or preventing them. On homeland security he is right. Yet the violin teacher’s admonition to "Play better" may be the best advice, not blaming others or existing laws and processes.
Instead Attorney General Ashcroft blamed the famous wall of the Gorelick memo, as if to say, "the dog ate my homework" while his evidence was a chewed up sports page. The memo "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations" was misread, not to mention an interpretation of Reagan and Bush I mandates. It concluded "That AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) will continue to be ‘walled off’…and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines". The bold emphasis and Italics should have been added earlier.
They fail even Monday morning quarterbacking. Showing that if the administration could read better not to mention "play better" there may never have been a 9-11 commission of the terrorist act to need a commission.
GRID IRONY
It is ironic that the death of a football and military hero brings such glory and tribute while the photos of flag draped coffins create such controversy. Pat Tillman Jr. is remarkable for what he sacrificed just to share in the risk and responsibilities he felt he should. The many others who died may not have sacrificed as much just to go, but the truth of their ultimate sacrifice deserves no less respect or honor.
Further fuel to the irony are the depictions of flag draped coffins, if seen as political footballs, were kicked off by the fumbling or punting of the truth both preemptively and post mortem. More offensive are the claims, that those who oppose war feel any less respect or responsibility for our troops.
Further fuel to the irony are the depictions of flag draped coffins, if seen as political footballs, were kicked off by the fumbling or punting of the truth both preemptively and post mortem. More offensive are the claims, that those who oppose war feel any less respect or responsibility for our troops.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
DEFEAT BY GEORGE
Defeat By Daniel N. Nelson
Common Dreams Friday 2 April 2004
A piece I found difficult, but an echo it seems of my thoughts.
Common Dreams Friday 2 April 2004
A piece I found difficult, but an echo it seems of my thoughts.
A DEMOCRATIC WORLD?
Question mark added above.
The following article is more than some will wish to read and not what many would want to think. However, it is as I see the solution, rather than the excuse that has been used ironically and retroactively for preemption.
A DEMOCRATIC WORLD by George Packer
Can liberals take foreign policy back from the Republicans?
It gives me a cleaner perspective on my intended perspective. If my pieces have been difficult, try this. But I do not promise it will be easier.
The following article is more than some will wish to read and not what many would want to think. However, it is as I see the solution, rather than the excuse that has been used ironically and retroactively for preemption.
A DEMOCRATIC WORLD by George Packer
Can liberals take foreign policy back from the Republicans?
It gives me a cleaner perspective on my intended perspective. If my pieces have been difficult, try this. But I do not promise it will be easier.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
RUNNING WITH RHETORIC
James Baker III who fixed the vote for Bush in Florida as he himself described it speaking to Russian oil oligarchs, represents the Republican party, Exxon, the Saudi government, the governing council in Iraq and does all of this out of an office in the White House? And a caller on the Dave Ross show asks Greg Palast if they (Cheney et al cabal) are taking anything under the table? Oh and this is not about oil or having your cake and eating it too? Or do as I say not as I do?
And Bush joked in his first media appearance things would be easier if he were dictator? Question mark belongs after both the resident and his joke. All other question marks replace quotes ironically.
(Upside down) Ed. Note: I have yet to figure out how to print stuff upside down, but ala Q&A or fun-books I should give footnotes or clues upside down for those having trouble with my writing style or MO. In this case an explanation: I escape responsibilities for direct quotes by using questions instead of quotations. Much as a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical administration. (Right side up: Sometimes my clues need footnotes.) I may have crossed the mobius loop of hypocrisy or irony. A visual I will refrain from footnoting.
And Bush joked in his first media appearance things would be easier if he were dictator? Question mark belongs after both the resident and his joke. All other question marks replace quotes ironically.
(Upside down) Ed. Note: I have yet to figure out how to print stuff upside down, but ala Q&A or fun-books I should give footnotes or clues upside down for those having trouble with my writing style or MO. In this case an explanation: I escape responsibilities for direct quotes by using questions instead of quotations. Much as a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical administration. (Right side up: Sometimes my clues need footnotes.) I may have crossed the mobius loop of hypocrisy or irony. A visual I will refrain from footnoting.
Friday, April 16, 2004
United Nations- Repeat of my April 5th Post.
United Nations
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM
SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times
My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.
Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."
This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops
Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM
SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times
My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.
Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."
This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops
Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.
URLs not appearing.
{Disregard this post as on 12-17-07, I am updating the links to the adjoining posts: Memo
Set up? Walled Excuse. ]
[ORIGINAL POST: links added]
Here are the URLs for the previous two posts.
Thanks to Democrats.com Daily News update, including their headline teasers for them. The beginings of my threads.
__Ashcroft Blames Commission Member Gorelick
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
__Was Gorelick's Appointment a Set Up to Derail the Inquiry and Smear Clinton?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004
Thank you.
Set up? Walled Excuse. ]
[ORIGINAL POST: links added]
Here are the URLs for the previous two posts.
Thanks to Democrats.com Daily News update, including their headline teasers for them. The beginings of my threads.
__Ashcroft Blames Commission Member Gorelick
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
__Was Gorelick's Appointment a Set Up to Derail the Inquiry and Smear Clinton?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004
Thank you.
MEMO
Why was Gorelick appointed with this conflict of interest? It need not be a conflict of interest if it had been interpreted correctly as not a wall, but an opportunity to be organized and legal. Processes the administration has not shown too much concern for unless it is in a preemptive vein.
[12-19-07 link update]
[12-19-07 link update]
SET UP? WALLED EXCUSE.
"Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest"
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.
Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]
"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."
This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".
This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.
Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)
It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.
Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]
"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."
This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".
This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.
Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)
It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)