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!
Thursday, May 27, 2004
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)