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The reversal and removal of Mier and Libby and the reinstating of the Davis-Bacon Act which was rescinded in the aftermath of Katrina are blows to the power of the administration.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.