Congratulations to the people of Iraq and the powers that be, there is now democracy in Iraq. This is their due, despite what most sides would agree count, and that would be the results. So now the counting begins, and as a counter* myself, hopefully not where the nightmares begin.
Terrorists must know that they cannot win, but we must know that votes count. Saying so does not make it so. Having held elections is not the definition of success. Elections are a sign of progress. But progress can only be relative** and must continue. Neither progress nor success erases the past, nor avoids whatever truth is yet to come.
*As a participating observer and counter in the Washington state recount of the governnor's race.
** Of course democracy is relative too. Or as a Republican lawyer claimed who was also observing, not what we live under in this Republic. He may have been just yanking my chain, but we had what I thought was a serious and honest discussion.
Side-bar*** It is interesting that in Washington the votes of felons are not suppose to count, but they can design the machines that do the counting.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
THE MOST HONORABLE SENATOR
Senator Mark Dayton deserves keen interest and congratulations for standing up to the administration and calling liars what they are. He also stood up for the confirmation process as not just a rubber stamp. Some may argue that a president has a right to choose his own people, but the constitution says something else, or it is a waste of words which many are still wasting and making others die for. The only argument for the President having liars or incompetents as his representatives is that they truly represent him, but that does nothing to reduce the responsibility of our representatives.
Thanks also to Ed Schultz for presenting a few qoutes from Senator Dayton that I will try to link here.
Thanks also to Ed Schultz for presenting a few qoutes from Senator Dayton that I will try to link here.
Friday, January 21, 2005
A simple message.
Building a New Majority by Scott Galindez, touches on what the Democrats must do to not just win but to lead this country in a direction we can be proud of.
We must stand for social and national security and tax fairness while working for freedom at home and abroad.
But we must not take our eyes off the concerns that there will be more WMD. The proclamation of freedom in his speech must be put in perspective. It is not just that there is “no justice without freedom” but also no freedom without justice.
Which comes first, is an important question, not asked or ignored.
We must stand for social and national security and tax fairness while working for freedom at home and abroad.
But we must not take our eyes off the concerns that there will be more WMD. The proclamation of freedom in his speech must be put in perspective. It is not just that there is “no justice without freedom” but also no freedom without justice.
Which comes first, is an important question, not asked or ignored.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Who is "Lighting a Fire"?
President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.
If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.
We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.
If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.
We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Juxta-Boogey
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 11 January 2005
Let Bin Laden Stay Free, Says C.I.A. Man
By Tony Allen-Mills
The Times UK
Sunday 09 January 2005
Taken separately, they seem far fetched, yet together are they any more sensible?
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 11 January 2005
Let Bin Laden Stay Free, Says C.I.A. Man
By Tony Allen-Mills
The Times UK
Sunday 09 January 2005
Taken separately, they seem far fetched, yet together are they any more sensible?
Neo-Context
SUGGESTED READING:
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
USE THE PROCESS OR LOSE IT.
Boxer to Stand With Conyers
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
Monday, January 03, 2005
IF YOU HAVE A SENATE SEAT, STAND UP!
If you have a senate seat and voted for the Iraq war resolution
If you have a senate seat and won with a broad margin of support
If you have a senate seat and narrowly won with the support of progressives
If you intend to run for that seat or higher office, or even if you just believe in exporting democracy
You must stand up for democracy at home.
Stand up for the congressional effort to Object to Ohio Electors and investigate the violations of voter's rights in Ohio.
READ THE LINK!
This one too! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
If you have a senate seat and won with a broad margin of support
If you have a senate seat and narrowly won with the support of progressives
If you intend to run for that seat or higher office, or even if you just believe in exporting democracy
You must stand up for democracy at home.
Stand up for the congressional effort to Object to Ohio Electors and investigate the violations of voter's rights in Ohio.
READ THE LINK!
This one too! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
Anyway...
I may be slightly facetious but I like facts. I also like doing what Condoleeza Rice thinks she is good at.(see Rice Lacuna : Memo)Drawing conclusions from the titles of pieces or from only the slimmest of facts, which Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld says change anyway.
Anyway...from How Bush Really Won Quoting George Bush from November 3rd, 2004 "I have won what I call political capital and now I intend to spend it."
I guess a few million votes may merit some capital, but only compared to 2000 and given the point that it was only the Supreme Court that selected him, I guess we can still call it political. I was going to note that it was the Electoral College or rather Florida and now Florida and Ohio that gave him some capital and we have yet to see how much, let alone what he means by spending it. Are we lost yet?
Now I may read the link or just save it as a hysterical document.
[Updated: 4-1-08 top new link added]
Anyway...from How Bush Really Won Quoting George Bush from November 3rd, 2004 "I have won what I call political capital and now I intend to spend it."
I guess a few million votes may merit some capital, but only compared to 2000 and given the point that it was only the Supreme Court that selected him, I guess we can still call it political. I was going to note that it was the Electoral College or rather Florida and now Florida and Ohio that gave him some capital and we have yet to see how much, let alone what he means by spending it. Are we lost yet?
Now I may read the link or just save it as a hysterical document.
[Updated: 4-1-08 top new link added]
Cleaning House
I must edit the previous post to read "Those are big ifs(Period)."
For that is more in line with the link's point.
I must also note my negligence in not making any comment on the worlds worst disaster. But what could be said. At least I will not lay blame for the occurance nor note those that have found reasons in the past for events.
That said, it will be a blessing if a coming together in hard times results, or another disaster if the opposite occurs.
Going back another post, "Political Differences?" There may not be much to regret there, but that it did pass but with only a slight change in some wording that makes me wonder about the worth of the whole thing anyway. Let's hope that there is not reason to revisit it too soon nor a closing of the door on a wholesale reconsideration or adjustment.
For that is more in line with the link's point.
I must also note my negligence in not making any comment on the worlds worst disaster. But what could be said. At least I will not lay blame for the occurance nor note those that have found reasons in the past for events.
That said, it will be a blessing if a coming together in hard times results, or another disaster if the opposite occurs.
Going back another post, "Political Differences?" There may not be much to regret there, but that it did pass but with only a slight change in some wording that makes me wonder about the worth of the whole thing anyway. Let's hope that there is not reason to revisit it too soon nor a closing of the door on a wholesale reconsideration or adjustment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)