TORTURE RULES!

OR [more heavily edited from 12-14-05]
THE SPORTS METAPHOR AND THE CHEERLEADER

They don’t govern by polls?
They don’t govern by facts either apparently.
The course is chosen and they work both facts and the polls.

Facts are not governed by polls, neither are reactions to them, nor results.
Meanwhile the hard work is done by the players and this game is about the rules.

Who is the coach here? What does it matter if winning is the only thing, leaving alone what are the rules.

Ironically, this was about supporting the authority of the U.N. but has ultimately undermined all authority.

How will rules be enforced, when the policy is that following them is for losers, not to mention, only winners make them.

BUSH'S POST-ELECTION PLAN

[only slightly edited from 12-14-05]
Iraqis need to be able to provide their own security.

They need to prevent terrorists from operating in their country.

All this from what changed on September 11th 2001, when we were unable to provide security for our own and prevent terrorists from operating in our country.
Terrorists who learned how to fly planes and bring them down with box cutters.

Meanwhile he wants to be in charge of reforming intelligence, while spending more money on keeping track of those who oppose him or have better ideas.

Now that is intelligence. Or more-of-the-same-pre-empting of intelligence.

Short Cuts

Maybe the previous post could use a hint. Democracy is a choice that relies on truth. Bush’s reasons for attacking Iraq have changed, though being policeman to the world and nation building are admittedly given short shrift or are trying to be skipped, they are where we are bogged down and where we should turn it over and where if Republicans had not been chosen may have resulted from a Democrat without the long bad trip we have taken. But given that truth is for sale, we must pay* the price. It’s not been a bad ride for some.

Some will argue that the administration could not have prevented 9-11. That is easy to assume, given that many would still do nothing different. It is assuming that nothing would have been done different by Democrats, which they certainly would not claim.

*The links are interesting tangents. "Republican"-[Bubble Boy], "they"- [News Weak] and this "we must pay"-[Pentagon roles out stealth PR] revolve around the press. We would not be on this trip if the press were truly independent, not independent of truth and dependent on buyers.

FORGOTTEN HUMANITY!

9-11
WMD
Regime Change
Democracy
Policeman to the world
Nation Building
Humanity

By adding humanity to the list, it places democracy at the center. If truth was not there, the choices are still here.

The above list may seem like a progression of reasons for us being in Iraq. Note that somewhere in there is the truth, unless it is yet to be included. Please note that if we had worked on our own democracy many of the reasons may not have been there, while others were in the first place. Note that these are all important reasons for work, but without truth, will be hard to come by. Note that they have only become more important to work on. The truth in these should be looked at before more reasons face us.

Recent Efforts.

FORCED STAND UP!
Strategy of MoveOn

[12-08-05]Eighty per cent of Iraqi's want us out, 45 % believe that harming troops is warranted. If the troops are not there to be targets, they (insurgents or what ever you call them) will only have Iraqis or others to kill, which will certainly undermine the strategy that we are only reacting to and only increase the responsibility of Iraqis to stand up and make their own choices.


NO DISCOURSE MEANS WRONG COURSE!
TELL JOE

[12-08-05] I can only imagine that you are actually calling for us to speak out and so you will see the light of true patriots and then have the courage to do your job. It is your right to support what you see fit, but to call for following blindly in any time is a great disservice to the country and it's people especially to those who are supposed to be fighting overseas for democracy.

[Headings were not included with in the above comments sent with the petitions.]


TODAY'S RHETORICAL QUESTION: Will Lieberman play the role of a third party spoiler or be a party splitter?

Of course that would be the Republicans that should be spoiled or split. Not that I am suggesting this, for we would still have to worry about being spoiled or split. But my point of discourse above would mean that it is preferrable to "staying the course"/the wrong course.

Is there anything worse than a rhetorical question?
Answering it?

[Please note: hopefully compared to my usual comments this is seen as derived from some current wild speculation and taken a little further, not in hopes that it will come to pass.]

Evolution or Devolution?

Having read a bit of the pamplet, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, it is more an argument than a plan. It has good intentions and seems like a plan, but may be flimsy in reality and based on an erroneous foundation, mainly that many of the good intentions are not demonstrated at home or in his administration's or party's behavior.

The Devolution of Iraq

9-11
WMD
Regime Change
Democracy
Policeman to the world
Nation Building

Heckuva Job,
FOR A DEMOCRAT!
The Evolution Of US.

Executive Summary: Politics is a two way street, but you gotta choose one.

NOT REALLY FLIP-FLOPPABLE, but the solution may be smack dab in the middle and then having a choice and making it.

This ties together better than I expected.

NOTE: Things came untied, just about the middle too.

Real Politics!

Politics may be a game over power, and war a game over the rules. Power is all about if you don’t give it, someone will take it. Politics is about the rules as much as the power, for it is not just about who makes the rules but it is also how we make them. If the rules are not followed, it can and will only be about breaking them to make them for others. It is not about those who follow them being the losers.

Politics?

Some see it as a game, others as a war. It is more than a game and less than a war. If you dis or distance yourself from politics, it is only natural to be closer to war. If you dis or distance yourself from the law, you will only be closer to anarchy. Note who disses or distances themselves and if you don’t find who started it you may find who at lease will keep it going.

Bureaucracy did it.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently claimed that he never told the president to attack Iraq, but that the president knew his feelings on the matter or some such. Just what is the difference, if I have that clear? Whatever the president knew or understood, is the matter. And the chain of command is still in question for the Commander-in-Chief. The president who ran as a Commander-in-Chief now leaves it in the hands of the military to decide on the strategy in Iraq? It is bad enough that handling hurricane Katrina was complicated by a new layer of bureaucracy, FEMA under Homeland Security, but Rumsfeld had his own additional Office of Special Plans, which was another layer of the object filter which Bush prefers over the so-called filter of the media, not to mention intelligence.

If this is viewed as only the game of politics and that the timing is questionable, this piece shows who as fought and who has delayed, and that there should be no shame in taking advantage of the timing, as earlier would have been better. Like before the 2004 elections. The time is now and until the 2006 election when the only solution is replacement of the whole "bigger government" that has distanced our leader from realities on several levels.

Often it is hard not to stoop to childish refrains that siblings banter such as "you started it", but heck if that is not their policy of pre-emption that they be the ones to actually start things, if anybody is, not to mention will. Timing is also a thing they ignore not just preemptively but when they quote Democrats who said things, the difference is that they were in the past and then actually did thing or didn't and things changed, usually for the better, despite the resistance from the those who then resisted involvement in the world or being a force for good or democracy.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Politics is the Name.

The day began with my thoughts of politics. The politics that Bush says should not be used in a time of war, but which are regularly part of their daily method of operation. The budget later.

The House is considering a non-binding resolution offered by Republican leadership.
H.Res. 571 "It is the sense of the House that deployment of U S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

The politics?

Murtha’s resolution would have called for "redeployment" as quickly as possible. Instead the Republicans pushed for a vote just to vote against something. If that is not political, I don’t know what is.

If the Republicans claim that Democrats have no plans, they are first of all lying, but second, just voting against the Republican plans is a good enough plan.

Now Democrats can even vote against plans that are so bad, even the Republican makers can’t vote for them. If that is not political and irresponsible, I don’t know what is.

On the other hand, maybe that is the only way things will work. Republicans can blame Democrats for getting the troops out of Iraq.

If we got in on false pretenses, the only way out may be on false pretenses. The only test for the use of false anything is if they work. Wrong facts and shifting reasons usually won’t.

Thanks to Eleanor Clift of this weeks McGluaghlin Group for her fiery enthusiasm about the connection between Murtha and the military. I may be missing some credit to the false pretense concept.

[Below link and this comment added 11-24-05: Note the battle of the cut-and-run 2006 campaign has just begun, as that is the likely charge, no matter the outcome. Not in an attempt to have it both ways, let us not pre-empt success by such plays, but continue the work that will prevent, the continued hard work of war.}

A Pre-emptive Comment:

Remember this next October, when it is too political now to set a timetable, but then there will be talk of a troop withdrawal when an election is at stake.

Now when giving a timetable would be to cut-and-run, closer to an election reducing troop strengths will sound better. But remember that the Democrats wanted a timetable only to get it done, when the Republicans finally flip-flop in talk it must still be done.

THANK YOU VETERANS

French Recollections?

The best defense is non recollection. Back a few posts I was connecting Bush, Blair and Berlusconi, and now are we to see the bashing of the French?

Over the weekend, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig compared the current indictments to Watergate, but not in the way we should think. Or actually in the way they think, in that it is just political. Watergate was just about a party who lost an election getting even. First VP Agnew was replaced and then Nixon. So said Haig.

Given the plan of preemption, just how far does this framing go? Are the French now to be framed as the Democrats are as just pulling stunts? But one thing should be clear is that the three "B" were eager beavers for war.

Philosophy, still in the game?

Two points need making on judicial philosophy. First a question: what happened to the judicial philosophy question? A good question would be, is it trickle down or bottoms up?

These are two points of departure here and almost a pun in that there is not really a difference with the slip of a key, but now that there is a new nominee there is still a question surrounding the philosophy or is it in the original intent of the nomination which should hinge on one question? Is a corporation a person?

Further: Is there equal protection under the law, in particular how does citizenship and homeland security come into play and more originally how do these promote the general welfare as noted in the preamble of the constitution?

Philosophy or politics? Neither are bad, neither are games. Play them. Do the hard work that will always be needed to keep the solutions from being a flip or a flop.

Going back to some other word games, I think of the forum, a battle, a debate, and 4 "M"s; money, mechanics, media and message(not in any particular order) is not just for ’em.

Yesterday was "a victory for the American people".

What Senator Frist called a stunt is probably only the first battle for which the Democrat's powder has been kept dry. The Republicans are outraged at the unprecedented use of Senate rules and leaving the public out of the process. The irony is woven so thick even my head hurts.

The charge that Democrats are criminalizing politics is an indication that it seems they feel, that all is fair in love and war. Leaving love aside, since there is no love lost, they feel that rules are only for losers. War is only an extension of politics where the rules are only for others.

The complaint that they were not consulted and that the public was left out shows that they would love others to play by their rules without questioning their war. It is laughable if it were not likely treason that somehow they make light of revealing the name of a CIA agent while being offended by a request for a closed session concerning the use of intelligence, while VP Cheney is not only at the heart of the current inquiry, but was able to keep his energy panel secret.

If this does not make your head hurt too, see my earlier baseball analogy, and the recent indictment analogy by Fitzgerald. And the next time they want the public not kept in the dark, call their bluff and put all the cards on the table.

Bush's choice.

Some quick points on the beginning of the process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito:

The president does not need to get an up or down vote as it was shown that a few outside of congress were able to prevent it in the case of Mier.

The "gang of 14" that settled on the compromise earlier, will need to refrain from preventing a filibuster other than by their individual vote for cloture, if the Senate (both parties) was not consulted on the current nomination.

Given the power of outsiders to prevent a president's choice from even getting to a vote it also should be clear that any nominee should not be a "slam dunk" . More is likely later on a litmus test.

Is the Ball Rolling?

Blowing in the "B"s.
Bad things come in threes?

First Katrina blew the lid off the bureaucracy called FEMA.
Second, the Windy City team blew away the Astros.
Third, a prosecutor from the Windy City lands a blow at the administration’s staff.

Three more blows this week, may lead to a final three "B"s
The reversal and removal of Mier and Libby and the reinstating of the Davis-Bacon Act which was rescinded in the aftermath of Katrina are blows to the power of the administration.

Where will this end?
Maybe with Bush Blair and Berlusconi.

At least two points may have been made.
Things are not black and white, they are political.
It is more than just Bush who does not know what he is talking about, but much of his bureaucracy.

Note: In most cases what is blamed is usually what is being used, i.e. politics and bureaucracy. They simultaneously provide a barrier to being accountable, and hence Bush is right in blaming everyone below him down to the people.

Note: Andrew McBride CNN 10-28-05 13:30
I do not recollect any of this coming from the above source but it was on in the background and may warrant later referencing or linking.

Speaking of cycles, here is a loop.

Speaking of connections I take this opportunity to note a hard worker in justice and politics. Randy Gordon for Congress (8th Congressional District, Washington)


There may be an underlying frame here that could be useful or maybe I have mixed in a little reverse psychology or need more framing training, but should it read "Don't think of a vicious cycle"?

I will have to follow up, as I just midstream of production, popped over to "Sizzle or substance..."

QCON: Or JUST Quick Rant?

(Quick Comment On News)
Paraphrasing President Bush: the troops deserve unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory.

My comment: These are both fine, but out of order and missing much more. The commitment to the mission should come after a clear strategy which cannot come before the recognition of facts as well as the reality of cause and effect.

Given the emphasis on repeating propaganda and forcing not balancing wills, not to mention the fog of accountability that is the chain of command, we are a far cry from the troops getting the commitment they deserve which should come in more than just words. Words that if you look at them are more about the mission than the troops. And are more about words than actual support for the troops.

It seems a vicious cycle which of course should end, but they in so many of their own words recognize it will not. Noting this, the only answer is for the vicious cycle to return to the "hard work" cycle that others were doing before the vicious cycle thinkers took charge. Given their choice that others will do the hard work, we would think they should agree that others take the cycle back to better support the troops, let alone the people.

[Sorry only link is below]

Liberal Media?

Why cannot responsible outlets hold their journalists responsible for accuracy?
Because it would shut out all sources from the administration, except those critical.

Pundits should have a little more freedom, but if they were held accountable for not blurring the line between opinion and fact there would be even less heard from the right.
That's my opinion. The facts are out there.

Flip-Flop Link In Chain- or endless drain?

It seems that actually reading the Washington Post piece, Goss’s CIA still in turmoil: Lawmakers wonder why agency is bleeding talent during wartime, takes a bit of the wind out of my analysis. I was earlier intrigued by their piece, No disciplinary review for 9/11 failures of Tenet: CIA director bars accountability review for his predecessor, others.

But now I must recall the enthusiasm I had for my analysis with actual information.
Moral is an issue as well as accountability.(note two above links)

The agency is loosing it's experienced agents faster than al Qaeda leaders are being rounded up or eliminated. It is my opinion that not holding those responsible for failures accountable, lowers moral more than locating them.

Is it reasonable to expect Goss the former critic of the CIA to become a booster of the CIA? Not investigating how the intelligence was used, further lowers moral. Looking into these problems will probably lead up the chain of command which has actually been lengthened.

Not only is he tinkering with the collection of intelligence

Among his top priorities is getting spies in the field to work more independently and to rely less on complicated relationships with foreign intelligence services. Some veterans have interpreted that push as either a disinterest in working with others or a rejection of a collection method that is highly valued inside the clandestine service. But Goss believes the agency has leaned too heavily, sometimes to its detriment, on faulty information gleaned from others.

but had been insulated from the top by a DNI

In March, President Bush chose as DNI John D. Negroponte, a career foreign service officer and ambassador in Iraq. Negroponte's office is still taking shape, and it is unclear how much control he will exert over the CIA.

But the days of an all-powerful CIA director who reports exclusively to the president are over. Goss no longer has daily access to the Oval Office -- Negroponte is now responsible for briefing the president -- and Goss must coordinate all decisions with Negroponte's office.

The overall problems are the collection as well as the use of intelligence. Accountabiliy in the former must lead to the latter. But adding to the chain at the top will only distance the intelligence as well as accountability from the top. As if the administration was not already at great lengths from accountability or checks and balances. If intelligence is being used in the manner I feel it is, then Congress and especially the Democrats should put a clean out in this brain drain and scoop up the intelligence experience that is being lost. That would be a legitimate use of a "plumbers" unit.

See my earlier suggestion. and further comments around that post.

Big Ed Goes To Washington

Just fired from Armed Forces Radio yesterday morning before his debut congress should investigate why the adminstration cannot survive under our freedoms and depends on propaganda.

Original Intent?

Strict Constructionists?

Life begins at conception, what about right to privacy.
Yes? No?

Are either of these in the constitution? No.
But they both fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now this does nothing to make things any easier, except to prove that it is not as simple as those that have the answers think it is. Also that even their positions cannot be sustained without complicated gyrations, usually known as hypocrisy, that would be contrary to the "rights retained by the people" which are protected by powers reserved "to the people". This would stand orginal intent on it's head, while even the power of the people need to be checked.

See the link?

Preamble and ForeMost

The Constitution: Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BUT NOT PREEMPTED NOR THE END ALL.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat and Catapult.

Today the president gave an important* presidential ADDRESS, according to the administration, before the National Endowment for Democracy. Rather than primetime it was snooze time for the West coast at least. As listeners woke to their clock radios and the president's voice, it just may not be the right time of day for propaganda. As opposed to Tom DeLay’s remark about his indictments not passing a test of the shortest glance, minds may be their most keen while hitting the snooze button. One caller to the Ed Shultz Show claimed to have an epiphany during the speech. His point being that anyone who runs a successful business must lay out success metrics in order to succeed, and all Bush has is failure metrics.

The first point was embedded in the first paragraph of my comments "Intelligent Design? More Irony." The balance of it covered the endless recycling of Bush's excuses.

A further case in point, while I am uncertain if it came from the speech, is the question: Would Iraq be better off with Bin Laden in charge? While we can’t go home again,(well I don’t really know) but if Bin Laden is now an option, why not ask if Iraq is better off with Sadam? My point not being to answer that, only that the options are now even worse. So if a red herring is what we faced, we can always imagine smellier fish.

Maybe it is fertilizer but I don't imagine it will help democracy whether it is a fragile flower or a tree, whether it is homegrown or outsourced.

*Originally scheduled for September 11th. My original September 11th, 2001 probably already had it covered.

What Powder is Dry For!

[From email sent 9-12-05]
Melodrama over meaning as I see it... Melodrama over meaning? That takes the cake without even having the guts to eat it. Medved claims Hurricane Katrina will have little impact over 99% of our citizens. Even if that is not an exaggeration, it means that roughly 3 million will be affected. Unfortunately the 99% less effected "ballparking" of the figure does not apply to the fraction of these 3 million who are displaced, or with lost property or lives. The Superdome was only able to shelter almost that number or not quite the 30,000 lives that Medved must feels have little meaning or that Barbara Bush "feels" are doing well at the Astrodome. No wonder the president was into baseball, his thinking is only ballpark and his advice really comes from the outfield and we now know just what is meant by a "shutout". The people get shut out while they shutout what really should be feelings that they can have an impact on so many realities.

As I see it Medved wants Bush to really hit it out of the park with nominations to the Supreme Court. But in all reality the administration has three strikes or at least a walk, but only out of power: the investigations of the Downing Street Memo, the Plame Outing, Phase II of the investigation into the pre-war USE of intelligence, and now the FEMA reaction to Katrina. If this is not the "extraordinary circumstances" that give ample reason for Democrats to call for at least a rain delay, then America should call for new umpires if not a whole new park.

(It is ironic that I agree that more needed saying about the nomination of Roberts. However very unironic the link that deluged New Orleans. My quibble is over calling coverage of the tragedy melodrama. Again it is no melodrama that Bush uses tragedy for political gain and ducking and covering however unsuccessfully.

Separation

Of Church and State

Corporate
Personhood

Original Intent?

[Note to self: August 5th, 2005]

If things are black and white...

Which the so called original intent constitutionalists apparently think that they are, in particular as to the right of privacy. If the words are not there then the intent is not there, seems to be the standard that is used. If only we could be consistent with that.

But since often even words evolve or have interpretations, especially when they are connected together in sentences and paragraphs, and categorized numerically, and alphabetically and Roman-numeralized, not to mention with a little thing called grammar and punctuation, which can be a little tricky, well it is not exactly limited to a simple word search.

[brought forward]To the nomination of Harriet Miers:

This may be just circular logic that leaves nothing out, but lets nothing in. But if things are black and white, we must know what they are.

If conflicts of interest were addressed sufficiently with Roberts, I need to research more fully, but they pop up even more strongly with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

This would seem a plus for democratic hopes, in that Roberts and Meirs will have to recuse themselves from any decisions that pertain to events which they have participated in. The dark side is that it is not clear at whose discretion this determination will be made. It would seem that this is another circular logic that one must determine which side they are on, inside or outside of the loop.

If Roberts has already failed to recuse himself from a case while being interviewed for his nomination to the Supreme Court, can we depend on future justices recusing themselves from rendering opinions upon their own actions in their earlier career. If the primary reason for her nomination is having a judicial philosophy of the president's, then it would seem that we must examine more than just the constitution's original intent.

Hope Floats.

There may be some hope, on the water. President Bush has awoken to his responsibilities:
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

But it is already taking on water:
As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."

I wonder if he will be attacking the process "going in" then. As far as the "people saving lives", are they really federal anyway and who is really attacking them?

Regardless, it is like thanking people for their "hard work" after you have made their work harder.

Not defending the process is just short of blaming it anyway, and not blaming the people that were not there still needs looking at. It seems like there is no shortage of fingers to go around.

QCON: What next?

I recently heard Bush discusssing the idea that there was some relaxation upon having "dodged a bullet"(of Hurricane Katrina) as he claims he heard it through the media, but acknowledges that they got it wrong and much had to be investigated without "blame gaming".

If he didn't use these words, his press representatives have, but regardless, the next step is not only investigating but making changes, but he also plans will be moving forward and has mentioned concerns about preparedness for biological attacks and we are also aware that there are being comparisons to September 11th. I could almost feel the words "mushroom clouds" coming soon to his lips after "dodging a bullet" and "biological attack".

Not that I am linking (with my links), Roberts to a "mushroom cloud" but now that I think about it...

[QCON: means Quick Comment On News or as Bush leaves us: Questioning while Conned]

A lot of Revisiting of 9/11

May we now turn the tide? Many have commemorated with new words, and I will only go back to my words in the first few hours until I digest the ones that revisit it today.

Here they are: September 11th, 2001

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 wake up. 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.

PART OF A DRAFT FOR AN INVESTIGATION

The flood of investigations that have not gone anywhere, call for new leadership at the top.

Short of that I recommend a bi-partsan team with full powers consisting of Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell.

Short of that the last hope is that congress do it's job and the press work even harder.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it is clear that Congress needs to take seriously the role of the federal government in meeting the needs of its people. I am urging you as my representative in Washington to:

1. Fund the health care, housing, nutrition, employment and education needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina;

2. abandon all plans to extend or grant additional tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations; and

3. abandon the budget reconciliation plan to cut health care and nutrition programs for low-income families.

I HAVE AMENDED THIS TO ADD MY OWN CONCERN REGARDING THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE ROBERTS:

From the Editorial in the September 19th issue of THE NATION
as summarized here:

1. His conflict of interest while interviewing for his nomination.

2. His claim he would recuse himself when it came to "conflict with his private religious views.

3. His participation in the Republican remake of federalism,

4. and the release of his Solicitor General papers when he was "detailed specifically to handle the most politically sensitive materials".

JUST POINT ONE(conflict of interest during the process) should disqualify Roberts.

And to go on:
POINT 2 (recusal should really be questioned in his confirmation process)
a. He already violated that principle.
b. He must delineat his views or caseS on which he would recuse himself in the future.

POINT 3 is counter indicative of the latter and confirmation of the former
while Point 4 is further documentation being hidden.

IF THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (Under the terms of the Judicial Compromise of the Gang of 14) that there are three unfinished inquiries that need further independence and progress, (Downing Street, Plame Outing and Phase II on the Use of Pre-War Intelligence) but now a fourth continuing disaster and fiasco that (Bush will investigate Brownies Heckuva Job at FEMA)...

THEN I GUESS AS SOMEONE PUT IT --
Hurricane Katrina was only a
"NEAR CATASTROPHE".

Back-Log August 20th, Political is the Process

(Letter send to local paper, not printed.)
Bush Agenda Needs More Attention, Not Sympathy

Your view that Cindy’s Sheehan’s grief fuels the anti-Bush agenda is not as controversial as the assessment that her name stands out due to "media attention" is obvious. Both of those are just the way things work. Less obvious probably is the media’s responsibility and congress is not far behind in blame. What is missing in your piece is the reason she is there now. That is that the president is using the deaths of our service men and women in Iraq for political purposes and linking them to a "noble cause".

If the media and congress would hold the president accountable for more than slogans we would likely not be in Iraq let alone be uncomfortable with his inability to face us or plan for success. Imagine that someone would use their grief to change things and imagine further that she gets support from sympathizers that are political as well as qualified. The supporters of the administration and our "struggle" could only hope for as much.

Catching Up with US.

OR WATERLOGGED (Cause and Effect/Accountability)

Just why is bureaucracy so at fault when Bush or whoever is in charge (he apparently has to investigate that) added to it by bringing FEMA under Homeland Security?

Homeland Security, and Bush, are more at fault than FEMA, unless blame is only trickle down. (For some it is the people's fault while they serve at the will of the president.)

No wonder New Orleans is flooded. For the sake of millions of bucks passed (NOT), we need billions of buckets to bail out the trickle down.

Maybe there is some sort of "rhetorical" balance in this administration. A linguistic "Tao" of sorts, or that sorts it out. Money is passed up, and "the buck" is passed down. Now I get the schizophrenic partnership between the pillars of the Republican party that are falling upon this country. Religion and the Almighty Dollar do not need to be so close or frictional, but it appears that the dollar to them is meant to rise while the moral burden is for the masses.

Wait. Is this only rhetoric? A metaphor may be more accurate. But rhetoric like money and religion are just words that need to be given meaning by how they are connected to the living and dying. And before I waste more words, I will just say that the bureaucracy is a key in providing the connections to more than just two factors.

The blame does not go to religion, money or bureaucracy which will and must change, but the actors that need to change. The PROCESS must be a two way street of ACCOUNTABILITY between many factors, rather than just the high road and the low road of survival of the "fittest" or we will continue to revolve rather than evolve.

If there is "intelligent design" it may be that I could not make any PROGRESS with a pun about removing the R and replacing the D to improve our evolution. But it also may show the "cause and effect" which is ACCOUNTABILITY that neither party nor people can escape

Now we have come full circle: He trusts the people, not the government, and now everything is on them.

Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto")

(Letter sent to local paper, unprinted.)
MEDVED'S NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY TESTED!Michael

Medved sees a "religious ghetto" where "intelligent design" is not allowed to be taught as a science. If Lance Dickie actually wrote that any "questions never come up in science class", then he was wrong. That criticism aside I would suggest that Medved is confused about the difference between questions and the rest of the discipline of science. It is demonstrated by his most relevant and telling comment that "literally hundreds of academics have endorsed questions and research at the heart of intelligent design."

Questions and research are at the heart of science as well, but it is in the conclusions and their testing which education deals with. In this Medved fails or refuses to face any "global test". He claims that "it’s Darwinist fundamentalists who want to ban any challenge to evolution." His conclusion fails because evolution and science are always about being tested, while "intelligent design" is expecting a pass to be taught as science despite it being an un-testable conclusion let alone a preemptive answer.

Imagine the "ghetto" that science would be if only having more questions was what qualified one for the field, let alone allowed them to be taught. In fact we don’t have to imagine the world if education was only ongoing questions and we are facing that test, and its failure in the real world.

If any exception proves the rule, it is probably only through the generosity of some and the theft by others that we have not seen more evolution, let alone ghettos.

I'm Bushed

and a little similar in not wanting or having to read the full thing to get the gist of it. But as I pick and choose (or scan as I am not Evelyn Wood) I do seem to hit on just more of the same I already have noted.

I'm not sure I have posted it here, but do not bet on it not getting worse for some must may know it. Actually I am certain I did not post it anywhere (as such) as I made a mid-sentence course correction. Another thing Bush does but which still does not let us know where he means to go.

The above was taking the blame for maybe not reading before I rant, but then before it's "there he goes again", me or him, we must start being accountable for holding someone accountable and it may take more than more investigations, but an independent (ha!), no partisan look at everything that gets to the President.

Are We "IN" Yet?

Can you hear me now?

Are we there yet?

Or is there more of the same? ("catastrophic success"}

The president's problems are "IN", and if it is only a choice of black or white, us or them, they must be either INcompetence * or INtentional! Is a third option there?
Oh yeah, stay the course and look back later, and when we have more to face, stay the course and look back later.

* * Why New Orleans is in deep water.[by Molly Ivans]

[My personal note] is that we really need someone to simultaneously kick butt and filter the memos or whatever is not being read to the Captain or whoever is in charge. Meanwhile if we cannot point fingers and fix things at the same time, how can we hurry into a decision on a Supreme Court Associate Justice now Chief Justice nominee? How can we depend on due diligence in that decision while we find so few holding the President accountable? All I am saying is that given the president's catastrophic successes do we really have confidence in his ability let alone meaning in making any decisions?

The President

Helps bring out the best in America!
NOTE: Alternet Link but the concept came from the Bush video below. Something about "diversity" and facing it or the bulk of it. More like putting a spin on pain or is that a smirk on the face of it. Note: this editors note obviously became more, see next post or rather ABOVE "PERSONAL NOTE".

Intelligent Design? More Irony.

Going back two posts to the reality of cause and effect that seems to be denied by Bush, it should be obvious that Cindy Sheehan's important question(What is the noble cause?)is normally addressed preemptively in order for there to be any success in a project. Just how can anyone expect to reach a goal that is shifting and undefined, not to mention prepared for properly without all the input available.

Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.

Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.

Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.

Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.

UN-REALITY AND CAMP CASEY

I must read more(On the WP "unreality" and on Camp Casey messaging), but it seems that the qualifiers or the choice of words still leave a lot of wiggle room (in the WP piece) when it comes to knowing what they really mean or when they intended it. My "pre-"cursory analysis is that we should now focus on what the noble cause "was" as it will always depend on what the definition of "is" is. Now seemingly "post-war on terror" and with the on going "struggle" a look back at what the reasons were may lay in "following the money" and not only holding the administration and its "willing" corporate sponsors(profiteers) accountable but congress and the media as Cindy Sheehan has noted many times.

Having not finished reading the following, they may deserve some credit for this line of thought:
CINDY'S MESSAGE:
HOWARD DEAN'S:
IRAN NEXT?: (Why we need to remember the unreality!)

Jumping to the conclusion(with a re-read needed), in other words did we really intend to win something that was going to be ongoing and unconnected? The next project(U.N or Iran] will be a different matter but what will have changed?
[Sorry needed to rant or question/hit and run.]
But...If I may project further, that others may take more responsibility.

[NOTE: as I post this I have now read the below link.]

Dateline: August 10th, 2005

[you will just have to trust, that is the date I saved these words]

Evolution v. Quantum Philosophy: FLIP/FLOP
[Black and white or ones and zeros.]
Connections...
Changes...
Absolutes...

They have flipped and guarantee flop. Based on the concept that there may be two types of thinkers: those that deal with reality and those that think it is chosen.

The Will to Power? The power of Will? Intentions play a big role in relationships and this breaks down into the two realms of Science and Religion. Will is recognized in ourselves and the supernatural. Is there really a difference? A relatively easier question is how we relate to others, and well as the world. Maybe a better model would have it as the material and the spiritual worlds. Two realities that are hard to deny but are realms that are separate yet maybe connected. Religions are not the master of the spiritual world any more than money is the master of the material. But there is no denying that intentions play a role in manifesting some reality.

The principle that there are absolutes, and that there should not be flip flop or understanding of others to better relate in this world is the main problem with the Neo-Con or Non-Thinking administration. Bush is reported to place intuition above intellect. Others report that his intuition is flawless. That is easy when one’s intellect does not recognize flaws and hypocrisy is the height of reality in that one can choose between schools of thought that often preempt facts, not to mention cause and effect.

8-10-05
Roger Larson

[Again, trust the date, but the subject I had in mind, may be more obtuse.]

ONE PARTY: HOLD THE LOCKSTEP!

Maybe things would not be so bad in a dictatorship. However, Plato thought about it and passed. The main problem being finding a good dictator or one benevolent to all. But maybe we should experiment with one party rule. The Republicans have done the latest research in this field and now that we know what does not work, except for those that want to trade charges about who is holding whose breath, we can breath a sigh of resignation and just have Democratic rule.

This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.

One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.

[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson

The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?

OUT OF THE BLUE? NOT!

I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but questions leaping out are another matter. What about Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak? The only one not talking is Judith Miller. She chose to protect her sources. For a journalist admirable, for a pawn of the administration, what? The missing link seems to be the two sources that Robert Novak used. One Karl Rove*, the other still unknown. Another journalist? Is confirming that one heard something from an unknown source a confirmation? Is forgetting the source a defense? Is protecting bad sources or administration leaks a journalists job? Is it job security or a defense against charges of treason?

I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?

Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.

Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.

Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.] 

* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl

Reaction to Preemption of Fear by Fear Itself.

FIRE KARL ROVE!*

He is a threat not only to Democracy but possibly our liberty and our lives.

Rove's words reflect the biggest difference between the administration, not conservatives, and Americans, all of them including liberals. That is, that for the administration's political purposes, war is not the last option. And if you want to unite us, knowing what you mean, and meaning what you say, should be your top priority for the sake of America and the world.

The whole policy of preempting fear by fear itself, must be ended!

If this is not the policy, you better check in on what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are saying as well.

PEOPLE MUST SPEAK NOW! OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR WAR!

* correction Carl read Karl 6-12-14

From Pillar to Post?

Is truth really relative?
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.

The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.

Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.

BIG TENT v. MESS TENT

Do I need to explain the frame?

BUSH'S WAR

THE FRAME

REGIME CHANGE

I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.

To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)

The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.

The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.

If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.

(Below Sent to Local Papers)

It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.

Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.

Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.

Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.

Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA

More Mess Age: GO DEAN!

Repeat till it sinks in!

Leap Frog the Propaganda!

Trickle Down MESS of Truth!

DEAN MESS IS THE MESSAGE!

It is hard to react to the reactions but it all seems a lot of overreaction.

The Dean mess is the message.
A "Big Tent" versus "THE MESS" Tent.
The Bush mess is the "Mess Age".

If generalizing were a crime, there would be a lot of pundits and pols in lock-up.
If the particular truth were told, the media is much of the mess.
If context is ignored, you only have "the con" text.
If Dean is not dividing, then what would be the need for a "BIG TENT"?
If Dean is the focus, then what about the mess we are in?
If the media overreacts to Dean, at least the multiple reactions include issues that the troops are working on.

That is the dilemma of staying on message.
You may get a "Mess Age".

Liberals Rethinking? Not in their hands.

In regard to the "Gang of 14" compromise, I would like to point out the seemingly binding nature of it and the "extraordinary circumstances" pertaining to the President not seeking "advice and consent". It seems that it is in the hands or principles of the Republican 7 that they abide by Part II, B for any other nominations, given the refusal by the President and others in congress to recognize the constitutional principle of equal branches of government. Any indication to the contrary by these seven would void the agreement!

Risking fulfillment of the agreement would only be worth it if we can politically win the understanding of moderates while keeping the hearts of progressives.

Any comparison of future or pending nominations to the conceded nominees would be invalid, as that is what they were negotiated for.

Groundwork for Impeachment?

Two weeks ago Sunday, when I broached the subject of politics with a friend, I guess I was sort of laying the ground work of an I told you so, when I noted the sailor in San Diego and the Military Justice finding the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq illegal.
He had a rather firm reaction of missing the days when they shot deserters. I did not bother to say something about the worst Bush being able to get is impeachment. We are one step closer.

Evolution of a Mugging or The Revolution of Irony

Mixing metaphors, the process was taken to the woodshed on the so called compromise or "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations". It may be more of a mutual sacrifice. On one side, the three nominees that will make the cloture vote are a gift from the centrist Democrats. On the other side the "right" to end the filibuster by breaking the rules was sacrificed by the centrist Republicans. If this was done for the sake of the rules and tradition of the senate, then it seems that principles were held hostage by those republicans for the sake of getting past this or just those nominees. The only hope is that with advice and consent there will never be sent more nominees with potential to be filibustered, and that there will never be reason to vote against their principles again.

[6-2-05: Comment and final link added below]
The continued comments that nominees are due an up or down vote indicate the degree that this deal depends on the integrity of the 7 Republicans who are standing up (with the Democrats)for the rules and traditions of the U.S. Senate and the constitution.]

Memo of Understanding

It may not make good blogging, media or politics, but the more I read the Memo of Understanding.. not only the more I understand it but have hope that it is binding.
In brief:
Part I: Pending
A. on 3 nominees vote to cloture.
B. on 2 reserve right to vote cloture
Part II: Future
A. right to filibuster or cloture up to individual
B. Commit to oppose rules change in the 109th congress except by the rules, meaning not by simple majority.

Now it is back to politics, which is also media and blogging. This seems to be more binding than some of them may understand or will admit. But then again, we are back to politics and the rest.

Vaccination for our Castor Oil.

With the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, we must vaccinate ourselves from what one of the participants of the Gang of 14 called the castor oil which the compromise was. With the veto expected on the Stem Cell bill, we will see that it is not a matter of an up or down vote, or majority rule. It is not even a matter of morality. It is a matter of politics or Bush trying to reason. (Tangent later.)

The vaccination must come to the argument David Brooks made and to which Al Franken agreed was a precedent with the Owen vote, bringing down the barrier of what constitutes where “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”

In my opinion this is a risky bet but on principle the barrier has not been dropped. The three nominees were part of the compromise made as part of upholding the filibuster. These nominees should set no precedence that would change their view that the filibuster is constitutional and for the best of the country. This logic is binding to the extent that in Part II, B. they have agreed not to change the rules with a majority vote.

Temporary Victory for Filibuster

Here are two titles I hope not to need:
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles

There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.

I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.

The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.

Concern about Compromise.

(Comments in Email: 11:45 am PST.)
This is either the poorest example of journalism
or the most obvious reason we are in trouble,
but can anyone figure out a compromise that will work,
that fits the parameters McCain noted where future nominees are not blocked and current filibuster rules remain unchanged?

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE WEEK OR HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION:
“We’re having difficulty coming up with exact language which would portray that desire. It’s tough,” McCain told “Fox News Sunday.”

"Dealmakers to meet over judges standoff." See link.

Filibuster Final Draft

FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.

What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.

The Mother of All Flushes

Going back to my old style of writing I have a quick filter of the highly filtered news. On the recent scandal at Newsweek or rather “Setup”
or UN Like Rather setup: It reminds me of the old WMD falderal. How? Well it begins with what is the truth or where do we begin?. I take back my comment on old style since I seem to have evolved a bit if nothing much else has changed. But the truth about WMD as well as the facts or which came first their existence or removal? If the disrespect for the Koran exists and there has been more than one report of that occurring it is the administrations job to prove that these did not occur. The problem here is that the truth is not something that you can pick or choose nor kill the messenger for trying to get at. I certainly have no first hand knowledge, but it seems that facts are beside the issue of checking reports and proving the negative. It seems that there are many reports of the Koran landing somewhere no matter what you call it. It seems that Newsweek ran their piece by the Defense Department, with some changes made. So the farthest from this frame is to blame the messenger.

[I had to attach the link, to give some credit as it is still unread. But it is another irony or hypocrisy (depending if you or left or right brain thinking) in the UN Oil for Food scandal being a Weapon of Media Distraction from taking responsibility for our own actions.].

Preemption not Prevention but Prediction

I have yet to more than barely read the following three sites, politicalwire.com timesonline.co.uk guardian.co.uk. which I found simply by doing a search for Downing Street Memo
But it is clear to me that this information must have been filtered through what is known as open source intelligence well before the congress voted on the Iraq Resolution. Just as it may be difficult for real information to pass through the “objective filter” which the president calls his staff, there is much that is poorly strained in reaching the public as well as our representatives.
My post is evidence of my conviction at that time.

More than just filtering the facts, reading between the lines before the dots are connected seems the only way to analyze the administration. It seems that my theory that people will follow what you do whether or not they know what you mean can also be taken preemptively, and that is also a two-way street. Preemption is not just prevention, it can be prediction, unless you count on someone to know better.

Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.

[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:

WEDGE ISSUE? UNITING ISSUE: The Filibuster

Even before seeing the following, States set to fight, defy driver’s license rules
Object to new federal requirements with no funding I thought it could be a uniting issue that should also save the filibuster.

The States must sue the Federal Administration for unfunded mandates. Beyond the reasoning that drivers licenses are to make roads safe, not the airways, this must also be tied to the concern about loss of the filibuster. The Senate beyond representing the minority, it also represents the States in a form of equal representation. If there is no taxation without representation, there should be no trickle down mandates without funding. The Senate and the Supreme Court along with the filibuster must be seen as protecting “States Rights” as well as the minority.

Chicken Hawk Down? 2008 Frist-Bush?

They certainly aren't counting the Chicken Hawk down.

Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.

They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."

They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."

Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?

Let's Do the Frist: or Onward Fristian Soldiers!

After the last post, I opened my local paper and read the AP report on Justice Sunday, and Frist does seem to be out of touch with the "Agenda" of the so called "choir" to which he spoke, but that is part of the plan.

He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.

Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.

Borrow and Twist- a surfing metaphor?

Oh what a web we weave or mobius strip we ravel. I was going give a shout out earlier as a wake-up for the upcoming Justice Sunday events, but they may hopefully make it through the “so called Liberal” media filters. But cutting through the mangled message is not that difficult if you follow the borrow and twist method that has been my habit: You must simply take their statements or labels and sort out the facts. Well maybe not even that.

The so called aim of JCCCR.org is "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith". There basically is no judicial war on faith except theirs. They are actually fighting for their Truth and they are against anything else, especially Faith. Faith by definition is not Truth but actually depends on not knowing or having facts. It is even divorced from logic. Even this concept is not exactly absolute, but relative. Having knowledge, be they facts or understanding, does not rule out faith.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith. Truth is also part of the process, but understanding and faith are not strangers to it.

All links in this post were only glanced at, either during or after the process. The Al Franken Show and the mention of upcoming guests, from Andrew Sullivan.com to People for the American Way also deserve some credit for getting me rolling, but I probably missed some valuable comments while processing this and going overboard with definitions and links.

QCON: Bolt of Hope

Quick Concept:Questioning Conservatives

Have some from the other side seen the light?

The People's Business?

Bush today: “Sometimes politics gets in the way of the people's business.” Speaking of “on the one hand” or “on the other hand”, I was torn between thinking of it as the nadir or zenith, but it seems the core of his logic.

He wants his nominee and he wants it now.

So much for "strict father", sounds like pre-tantrum baby.

Further comment would have to rely on the “cause and effect” of whatever he means. And which comes first? People or business. Not to mention whatever the alternative to politics is. This seems the epitome or Dao(Dow) of cutting through and being full of it.

I could have done without a link, but there is possilby some link to the question of which comes first.

Don’t count your Chicken Hawks before they splat!

On the apparent success in getting further consideration of John Bolton’s nomination to U. N. Ambassador , I would like to give the CIA (Counter Intuitive Associating) analysis or as I would describe the purpose of The Liaison Report as walking the line between "on the one hand", and "on the other hand".

On the one hand Bolton has some undesirable behaviors. On the other hand he represents the administration’s principles. On the one hand that is not the way a diplomat should work. On the other hand he is honest about how the administration does work.

There is something fresh about this honesty in the grander scheme of things, it is only on closer look that the principle and particulars of honesty fall apart. If this is (not?) the principle that moves America forward, it is at least the principle that the administration operates under.

As encouraging or intriguing as the links here prove to be, replacing Bolton will not replace the behavior and policies of the administration without more "hard work".

Spreading Irony and Con Text

President Bush will become know as the Irony President. I believe I have noted that before.

But the previous post was in haste, and the context intentionally left open.

It was brought to mind by the ironic use of President Roosevelt's words by the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration.

FLIP-FLOP

FEAR

Editor's note: [Link added below 4-19-05]

THE TAO OF DUB-YA

THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF GEORGE DUB-YA BUSH:

“I trust the people not the government”

“I am a uniter not a divider.”

I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.

Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.

It is very simple.

He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,

so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.

And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,

in not trusting government.

Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.

If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.

He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.

The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.

My Take:

[editor's note: 4-7-05 Schiavo link added below and here]
Those who depart from party dogma may deserve some credit, but it also may be political. Hopefully the kind of political that represents having some principles and actually standing up for them, though these may be divorced from the relevant facts, not that facts are partisan or dogmatic either. On the other hand it does not mean that they have stood up for a principle if they are just considering their own political skin.

My prediction is that there will be a backing off by the administration in the face of reality and politics. This is about the 2006 election, as well as “activist judges” whatever they are. My further prediction is that the difference will be told in whether it is a matter of their holding their powder for later. We must remain activist on principles and further the debate.

They will have other "talking points" that must not distract us from ours.

QCON: In this case Quick CONcept!

TALKING POINTS:*

OURS: Things we should talk about.

THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.

Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.

What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.

Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?

Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.

Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?

*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.

[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]

Stop grandstanding on the Schiavo tragedy

Please sign the MoveOn Petition

I did, with my added comments:

Also stop spending money on fake news PERIOD!
Stop producing news or using public relations firms.

The press would be glad* to report if you show up and answer questions.

And stop lying on the floors of the House and Senate.
Hold members of congress responsible for their words, their source of information and make sure they and the American public get reliable news.

THANK YOU

* I am not so sure I believe this, but it would be nice if the only reporting came from actual opportunities to ask questions from both sides and actual investigating, without simply taking it straight from the mouths of pols or their shills.

BU--SH-- v. Legalese

The previous post needs more filtering or at least a few more words. It may be just ironic that the links contained too many words and you had to do the “hard work” that the Center for American Progress did in their filtering of the following words.

Scott McClellan, 3/21/05:
"The legislation he [Bush] signed is consistent with his views.... The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."

Texas Law, Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
“If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment.... The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day.”

Having yet to fully read both of the previous links, it would be like sorting out Bu--Sh-- and Legalese.

THE WORD

FROM ON HIGH:
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
TEXAS JUSTICE: HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 166. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES

Can we say "Flip-Flop"?
Can we say "a uniter not a divider"?
Or is it simply the forked tongue of a Texas Rattler?
It's NOT JUST political. It's the whole ball game, or is it shooting match?
Where is that liberal media and where are the DubYa-Blamed filters now?
Who knows better now?

[I file the below LINK for adumbrative procrastination.]
Translation: I may have heard of it, there may be some connection, but I have yet to read much of it.

QCON: Politics?

Yes! QCON: [Quick Comment On the News] or Question Con, or Question Context, Question Content.

Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.

"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.

Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.

The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.

Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.

In Honor of "Hard Work"

For those who are currently wavering or wondering about the issue of Iraq, here is a piece "Why Iraq Withdrawal Makes Sense" by Norman Solomon , which I recommend for the courage needed to do the hard work that must come before war becomes the only "hard work" worth doing.

For those who may have missed it, President Bush used these words "hard work" several times in one of his most inspiring speeches. But it is not too much to ask as in (House Concurrent Resolution 35) to develop and implement a plan for "immediate withdrawal". Then we, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can get back to the "hard work" we will always have and should have done before the "war as a last resort".

While I would not encourage too much reliance on polls, it is part of a democracy. While Bush disavowed polls, he did say he trusts "the people not the government". Despite the embedded nature of government in journalism both here and in Iraq it is ironic and fortunate that polls do not reflect what the President wishes and what many, even progressives fall for: which is that in the current case, we and a continued military presence are the solution.

At least we must begin the "hard work" of discussion and hope that democracy here and abroad, and a trust of the people will mean the government will do the "hard work" of being open to debate. We got into this war with less than ideal candor. We will not end it without a greater degree of open mindedness and real "hard work".

Democracy Battle Going Unclear

QCON- [Quick Comment On the News]

I.e. My take: Here are a few links that I have only glanced at that seem to paint the picture.

Democracy battles by George going uNclear

Democracy- by George by Juan Cole

Senate Votes to Allow Artic Drilling by Josef Hebert Associated Press

Budget Tug of War by Joel Havemann -- The Los Angeles Times

Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist /Preserving Checks and Balance

Bush budget drilling... the iceberg or the Titanic?