[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.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
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 ]
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 ]
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Friday, March 18, 2005
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".
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".
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
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?
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?
TIP OF THE FLAME
Among the things that attract my attention are the various organizations that overlap in purpose. Checking the DNC petition, it seems that details were lacking in the wording * or maybe I just expect too much or need to work more myself, but I cannot help but feel that those we petition may not have it any clearer than many of us. Our own representatives may get it, but as Democratic Leader Harry Reid points out the PR problem as $3 million (that is as far as I read) we are already off on a few tangents that may be parallel.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.
===========================================================
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)