Parting Words

Meaning and, not versus.

Bush:

The key to success in Iraq is to have a government that’s willing to deal with the elements that are trying to prevent this young democracy from succeeding.

That’s the whole meal deal, not the beef.

Belated words and belated farewell.

Above, Below and Betwix the Filter

Good News!
Warning: slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Iraq and Iran
Rice on Iraq:

"worth the investment"

Rice on N. Korea:

"They’re signed on to denuclearization," in an agreement last year that was never implemented. "We’ll see whether or not they follow through," Rice said.

Rice on Iran:

She said she is confident all U.N. members will enforce the sanctions once passed, no matter how they voted.

I filtered the grains of Rice that reflected some hope or catch. On Iraq it is just the choice of the word "investment", not what they actually invest. On North Korea it is "whether or not they follow through", and on Iran it hinges on "sanctions once passed".

North Korea

Here the grain is at the bottom of the filter:

American and North Korean experts had separate talks on the financial issue this week in Beijing, but made no breakthroughs and were tentatively set to meet in the United States next month.

Here is the best news for Bush yet.

Seriously.

Preempting Irony or Rerunning Cycle

Support for WMD
Historic Hoax
A link worth consideration and a rerun worth seeing.
The irony that keeps the vicious cycle not winning, not losing.
Going after the WMD.
The smoking gun in the name of prevention now in corporate hands.

No Comment.

The End of Pax Americana.

Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm

This could be referring to the trilogy of wars, but it is more about the times needed to read the article about the Google of Intelligence.[not a number]

To be more direct, the three wars I don’t mean are; Terrorism, Iraq and Iran; the final yet to be. I would have said Afghanistan, but it was more legit. Not that the war on terror is not legit, just that the definitions and terminology still need to be fought. But I did read the link three times, with some distractions, but it really does smell like a rerun.

My point is that the purpose for which the State Department sought intelligence was to prepare a list of individuals and organizations for sanctions, without providing any real link to intelligence.

Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

The bonus feature may be that if they provided the link, it may show that there is not enough to go on. So to avoid the previous problem of "flawed intelligence", the solution is to not provide any, but approve other’s intelligence which do not have a direct link.

None of the 12 Iranians that the State Department eventually singled out for potential bans on international travel and business dealings is believed by the CIA to be directly connected to Iran's most suspicious nuclear activities.

"There is nothing that proves involvement in a clandestine weapons program, and there is very little out there at all that even connects people to a clandestine weapons program," said one official familiar with the intelligence on Iran. Like others interviewed for this story, the official insisted on anonymity when discussing the use of intelligence.

The irony is that there was plenty of "open source" intelligence available before this disasterous course unfolded, much of it filtered here.

One connected dot further: intentions, preemption and their denial are the greatest hazzards to navigate, but one thing is certain, they may be connected, but they can change, and one side always knows the truth, whether it is your's or not.

Now I know it is not just me that can't be direct, but that has no bearing on the reality.

Iraq Study Group:

Bush has read?
My pre-emptive read is Bush was right.

"it will be up to future presidents"... or some sort, don't hold me to the exact words, but Bush must be held accountable.

We must not cherry pick from the recommendations but let Bush do his job, and each branch do their jobs: the legislative and the judicial.

If he cherry picks then each recommendation must be fought over, otherwise known as dialogue, or debate, and investigations must move forward as well as back.

Quick Comment On News (QCON)

Parliamentary considerations of Blair/Bush consult.

Iraq Study Group: Long Story Short

Much ado about change.

"...diplomatic offensive..."

(link corrected:12/7)
[See Comment for continuation]
(link added: 12/8)Executive Summary

Tear for Fears!

His
Mine...
Bush in 'O8?

After a quick glance at the article I was going to call this "a quick shot in the dark" but I sensibly self edited. It is not really a long shot, and the tears were probably compounded by the contrast to the Bush of '06.

It is none the less in their hearts and minds and should be in the picture of what to fear and prepare for. The Bush Legacy.

Blame to go around?

Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!

Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*

Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.

That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.

And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."

[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]

* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]

NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.

** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]

Running List '08

[2-16-07: links added Richardson,]

[2-11-07: Coarse Filtering]- Richardson
Kucinich
ObamaClark
Edwards
Clinton
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
(note: I will let the above typos speak for themselves as a filtering of sorts)
- - -
[original listing]Edwards
Clark **
Kucinich
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden {2-1-07}

[2-1-07]
This is only an order based on my obtuse criteria:
Kucinich
Richardson
Obama
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden




[added 1-18-07] I will footnote at the bottom but re-arrange the above evolving list, comment will appear in dated order below. Not that my feelings count and I have not investigated all these candidate yet but they are my current priority.

The "running list" will reflect consideration sometime of only one issue in prioritizing them, but they are probably all good. One issue alone could also put things in reverse order, for all I know Vilsack could be best. This is only an explanatory preface, hopefully not an attempt to cover myself. ***

[Original entry]
Vilsack

[added: 1-16-07 ]
Kucinich
Exploratory Committee:
Obama

[added: 1-17-07 ]
Edwards
These are in no particular order, I will comment on that later, but at this time Obama is in his exploratory phase. In the previous election I sent my first email with comments to the Kucinich camp, and continued to forward and Cc: each candidate till I arrived at my choice. Then I reviewed the candidates at Backbone Campaign * to rethink things . My choice was Howard Dean. Well it makes me want to scream as we know how that ended, but now we can scream because we know where we are, and Dean is the head of the DNC. I did not really plan to post this much now, but we have much more of a road to hoe, and I really don't want to jump on a bandwagon, and would really like a 20-mule team of great candidates so that we can sort things out even more, so that we don't have more wars and a president who is finally ready to feign dialogue while demanding a plan from the opposition. This is not a call for a plan or opposition, but to look at what each says and does. I did not really plan to go on this riff either, but just tossing things in the air, Edwards is a candidate I had enthusiasm for based on past considerations. But I look forward to processing all of these great candidates who are so good, I almost refrained from comment so far...

[added 1-18-07] Dodd a candidate long overdue, but too long?
Republicans ? **** and wannabes?

* [added 1-18-07] I will keep this * at the bottom as it will footnote here that this link does not have the presidential candidates yet, or needs to be changed.

** Obama will be left off until he declares, here Clark is inserted for Hope sake. For history sake I note the original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd

*** I will not alter footnotes, comments will be inserted just above these footnotes, link below and others will be improved with time.

**** MoveOn.Org in this link is labeled a liberal group. I do not consider that it's draw, but was the forefront of pragmatism and progress that heralded the likes of Howard Dean.

Bolton Resigns as UN Embassador!

A Suprise?
"...at a time when the White House was making dramatic moves with respect to it's Iraq policy, this is a significant development."
Oh, the irony in parsing this. The emphasis on "significant" or the term "dramatic", are a close call.

This is not only a quick filter, but saves me the filtering of several links on the Rumsfeld memo. That ties this up, while we see what develops.

[See comments] for timing on added links:

Rumsfeld memo.
Murtha on memo.
Both videos.

Finally: Long story short: How we got here. The point: Not seeing the big picture, let alone connecting dots.
[Note: This last link not fully read, but a glance makes it my point of departure for my tangent or with my comment attached maybe truly a triagulation.]

Socially Fit?

Time is Money?

Not just?

"the definition of..."

"Proper management..."

Thanks to my MSN filter and my catching the 1st link under the following title:
Time is Money? ">Artist mends clothes on S.F. streets

My point? Work has more value than money, and may fit more needs as well.

Bush caught in Webb

Avoiding a photo op, Senator-elect Jim Webb, delivers sound bite. As noted on Countdown, Bush tracked Webb down to inquire on his son, serving in Iraq. Taking the opportunity to make a point took precedence over making small talk. Link to be added when found.

Leaking Diplomacy

Hadley memo leaks disappointment, Iraqis share blame, and meeting sunk?

Charles Krauthammer[on FOXNEWS] on suggestions that the leak of the memo was intentional to sink Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, claims conventional wisdom on the choice between something being intentional genius or bumbling, the latter is more likely. Sounds like plausible deniability under cover of plausible incompetence. The latter is more believable, but no less diabolical.

While politicians in America are lining up the Iraqis to be their excuse for failure, the irony is that al-Maliki is not seen as being strong enough, but standing up to Bush is certainly showing them up.

RE-Insurgency of Legacy

I gave earlier tips for the Bush Legacy, but now the Washington Post comes out with their's for any hopes of resurgency for Bush. There is a lot to read of the former, at least I read the latter.

My point at the top of it, was pointed out here:

Whether Bush could emulate those examples is an open question. He points to his time as Texas governor, when he worked with Democratic legislators. But since winning the White House, he has only sporadically reached out to the other side. And unlike Reagan or Clinton, he presides over an unpopular war with no end in sight.

One thing not really pointed at was that the Reagan and Clinton presidencies did have some other hurdles to leap: Reagan the Iran-Contra Affair and Clinton an impeachment over an affair, both in their second terms.

[Tack link added today on Bush Legacy]

Flip-Flop the Pyramid - \/

Waggin'... The Dog

[ LABELS ADDED: 04-08-08 and these links to krafting (03-09-08) and irony (02-10-08) ]

#1 Discipline - Philosophy

Philosophy should be the top priority for the Democrats!
It is the top priority for the Neo-Cons
and the Republicans are all too disciplined.

Philosophy is just one discipline.
Discipline is not the only philosophy.
Their philosophy is just "offensive".
Our philosophy must be "everything matters".

Not just more discipline, but more disciplines
as in "law" and "politics" "Get No Respect" as Rodney Dangerfield said.
And as I have said, hence the dangerfield we are in.

War is a "last resort", but does the President still have the "war powers" which congress gave him to fight "terrorism"?
His philosophy is that his word is the exception to every rule.

The other two points of THE POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT,
may be Physics and Psychology [*].


These should be the next two priorities, which should focus on what goes on in the world and what goes on in peoples minds,
besides the philosophy that "We are No. 1" for each and every one of us. But it must be noted how much science is devalued, at least in getting it together. Of course we know what physics has brought us in terms of the nuclear age, but the matter of which came first is still a head game.

Where does this fit into the current affairs? Some might say, it is the "Power of Intention" but it starts with trying to determine what other's intentions are while devaluing what our own intentions are or should be.

[any links will be added in due course]
[italics are additions, and bolds are for emphasis, and minor editing within 10 minutes of original post]

The above is not based on a reading of the following... yet!

The Next Act By Seymour M. Hersh Iran? Syria? [update here  ]

Kristol: ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’

These are just two links,
that are yet to be read by me.
HAVE YOU? - - NO MATTER,
if you can process and address the rest of the above.

For deeper matters see these two organizations;Center for American Progress
and
just foreign policy

[* UPDATE 04-08-08: pinnacle or tetrahedron to be added phoney or funny to political points ] as in
[1. Physical
2. Psychological
3. Philosophical
4. Political
(power loop of phony and funny or what will happen)
Hence the battle over not just temper but meant and there4 humor's another battle field, not counting Dangerfield.]

Rachell Maddow Wants You! [talking points]

[typo-alert-confession: Sorry Rachel: (She may be Liberal but with only one "L".)-
- I do not want to mess with the links I have distributed.]

First:
[Who needs to investigate if abstinence works? How much money do you want to waste finding out that pregnancies can't happen without sex?]

That was my submission to the new Fox Funny channel. But they wouldn't get it. It was probably on Fox News already.

Speaking of talking points: I have a whole FRAME to put things through.

POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT: Imagine a 3-sided pyramid, with the constitution as it's base, and the goal? The pinnacle. The base being the 3 branches of government, the aim being "of, by and for the people."

The spiritual being that it must be balanced or it is just a burden on the people.

RACHEL: I think your skills, have honed my point, at least in that I arrived at it finally with fewer words.


What started me this time was the talking points which you called for from our side.
WE ARE THE POINTS!

Another point is that The Earth is Not Flat and but this is one "aspect" of our model.

Parallel Efforts

I had only inklings of the efforts of the U.N. but their culmination seem to be parallel to my beliefs that can best be represented by an Escher world. First there is the impression that there is a reality that is represented in mainstream media, not just a perspective. Then there is the perspective that the writer takes, on Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations I don't know if his interpretation or my own of Huntington is wrong, but I prefer to have a different perspective than his take from it. I don't believe Huntington is saying only what Heitner sees him as saying, or I am choosing to pick only what I believe of it, and tweaking the rest.

No matter, maybe. Setting aside the reaction that some perspectives will have to Al Jazeera International having a perspective that is not theirs, the efforts and results that we have experienced deserve the approach that Spain, Italy and France are taking. It will have it's own reaction, which should not be part of the equation, if some persist in their own reality which does not recognize perspectives at all.

If some think this is just philosophical falderal, then they should be reminded what maybe they know, that the be all and end all has been, the Bush philosophy.

Buy Uniting, Sow Divides!

Speaker Pelosi does not get her pick.

The selection of Representative Steny Hoyer should not be seen as a loss for Democrats. She may have seen Rep. Murtha as a proper balance and perspective to unite the Democrats and as a partner in management. But the popular selection of another may reflect a different balance that is just as needed. To have a better perspective, we have a stronger divide, that may bring better dialogue than simply management.

Michael and Me!

A Liberal's Pledge:
to Conservatives and Republicans

and if you were sensative to the humor of Michael Moore, fear not!

For I swear:
I could not have made one with less edge.

Upon reading the fine print or in this case italics,
it may not mean much, but if anyone is still hesitant
at the chance of being offended,
then they can't handle being American.

Let alone, better not see Borat!
Not that I have seen it, or endorse it,
but I don't endorse Bill O'Reilly, but have to occasionally see him.

Hint: all cultural references are not footnoted, but I hope to be a "cultural civilizer not warrior"

About the Parade

As Thom Hartmann just said:

It is not about the leaders,
it is about the parade.

That is what I was reflecting in the pervious post.

He also says: Tag, you're it!

Moving forward and looking back.

It is a two way street.
Crimes are always committed in the past.
We must address the first 100 minutes,
the first 100 days,
and we must use the "I" word and the "S" word.
"I" is for investigations.
"S" is for swearing under oath.
These two must lead to wherever they lead,
be it impeachment or supoenas,
or we will never make it forward.

In case I have not put it here,
I will repeat it from elsewhere.
The Democrats are a big tent party,
there is plenty of room for tables,now we can pull up the Chairs.
People must be pushing for the principle of law.
If the Democrats don't push for it,
the people won't push for them,
and Republicans certainly won't change.

Outgoing but divided

The irony that the most liberal Republican would lose to a Democrat with the name Whitehouse, Senator Lincoln Chafee anounced:
"The people have spoken all across America. They want the Democrats and Republicans to work together," he said. "I think the president now is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that’s going to be good for America."

Or possible good omen for Democrats as Vilsack anounces bid for White House.

I must note a distinction a caller brought out of Ed Shultz on the issue of "divided government". Although we understand that Democrats are needed in the House and Senate to balance the Republican in the White House, Ed meant that divided government to him means simply a Legislative, Judicial and Executive branch that "do their job"(I believe my words). In fact this is my paraphrase and extension, but I also add that my opinion for divided government is that Democrats represent the people and may still have more than one perspective.

When the first 100 hours and 100 days have passed there will still be hard work, because other perspectives can never be "wiped off the political landscape" as Jack Abramoff is believed to have said.

I believe Bush called the ideological war the calling of our time, it is only a snooze alarm. Perspectives must be listened to.

As Abraham Maslow is reported to have said: "Authoritarians must be converted or they must be excluded." While that may seem to apply to other categories, that would be Authoritarian. Where I was going is "War is(only) a last resort". That is my (D)evolution.

Looking Back

...over the last few days, I will check to see if it matches The Center for American Progress's Progress Report. I post this for my own convenience to look back to, myself.

The same for a few of the blogs they note,
I note here using my references:

I see one uses my style, but my words are the bucket: atrios
Actually the style may be just the nature of like minds or environment.
Their tangents: Pharma and Hewitt

Another uses what might be "olive branches" or meaning of?
Again, not my words necessarily or read.

As I noted a pledge regarding timing, I will refrain from editing, except for immediate housekeeping or noting thereof any additions. Other than this plan, I hope that I have not missed any credit to where ever my threads have come from.

DEAN SCREAM!

Before I forget...
Congratulations!
on a big tent to put all the tables in.
Go Pelosi and Reid!Now pull up the Chairs.
No dancing in the end zone,
the "hard work" has just begun.
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
For their own good they will appreciate the new divided government.
Meaning separate branches, oversight and checks and balances.
Even if the Democrats cannot unite,
together or separate they can still do their jobs.

Allen Concedes

to reality or the public good?
Nuf(f)[*] said? Need splainin?
Sorry for the tongue in cheek linguistics.

THE POINT:
Allen concedes to reality or his next project.

OR in my frame of vocabulary or discipline:
"Political Calculus"
Not that either political or calculus are necessarily wrong, they just don't tell you(or us) where to go.
Neither should a third category or duality: power or will.They are needs. They are natural. They are the reality of nuance, but not what should or could be, but sometimes flip-flop or freedom are not enough.
[*] 9-1-10 spellcheck(f), link under "Nuf(f) said", bottom link and label added

Republicans

The History: a metaphor

Republicans / Railroads
Democrats / Buses

/ corporation
/ articulation

"I think I can..."
"The wheels of the bus go round and round..."

Model Train Tracks: Vicious Cycle
Reality: what comes around, goes...

Negative ads and apologies

Please do not mistake my humor for gloating, but it is a tool of communications. The difference between Republican and Democratic ads or communications is that Democrats have so much more material. Candidates can talk about themselves and their opponents, but there is so much more negative when Democrats do this in a balanced way, but Republicans have to start with their opponents to take it off the talk about themselves. Nuance is not necessarily any more beneficial in humor than politics, but at least it minimizes my apologies.

Here I will only apologize for my haste and nuance in the last few posts, after the few prior being more well developed. The connection is that I pledge will not change them, but add to them a bit and note when I do so.
* * *

From Trickle Down

To Mandate. Just a brief note on the begining of the end of the Reagan Revolution.

Well that is not exactly what I predict, but there is some irony in the freedom that those "carrying the water" for the Bush administration feel since the hole in their bucket has washed away the middle class. Just a note that I spent most of the day with CNN and then the evening with MSNBC, just to get a taste of THE BLUE WAVE from the "trickle down machine".

Haah. More late, maybe much later as I develop other projects.

(an hour or so later) I bracket this day noting the AP as calling it 51 Democratss and 49 Republicans. Don't independents count? Sanders and Lieberman that is. But so as not to forget the partof the balance that got us here.

Is the (2nd) "honeymoon" over?

Why should we expect Bush to select anyone but someone with this experience.
The "Honeymoon" being the fine line between campaign rhetoric and "governin" rhetoric. Or the time between the two press conferences today.
The first being his last attempt at reaching across the aisle.

Bush Legacy?

A NEW TACK WITH TACT

Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.

Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.

Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".

This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.

We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.

ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.

[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}

The Mess Age is the Message!

[A POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT]

Do you want to get on the same page?
Not in the Republican
way.
Do you want to grow the pie?
Not in the way the pieces for Bush and his buddies
have.
Between "the choir" and the maddening crowd...
see www.TheLiaisonReport.com [this site]

Between rhetoric and reality,
the media and the mess age,
and the politics and the pols...
Bush has said,
"War is hard work".
After November 7th,
we have just begun to work hard.

To go to the likes of progressive talk,
click HERE!
And when asked if the troops get it?
Check this out, and ask if they are serious too.
[the bulk of this was sent November 6th,
to leading voices in "the choir"]

[related links]
The Council of Nice
The Dangerfield
The Golden Rule

Heavy Turn Out! 8th Congressional WA.

The ballot depot for the City of Bellevue had bulging bags, that include undoubtedly record numbers of absentee ballots returned to the polling places as well as higher than normal voter turnout. We will see who won in the GOTV race, that is in the last minute Get Out The Vote efforts that produced such a likely backlog of possibly unexpected votes.

CNN Reports: Vermont Socialist wins.

Bernard (Bernie) Sanders for Senate: a self-described Socialist?
Jeff Greenfield: Actually an Independent that will caucus with the Democrats.

109 Reasons to vote and 7 Deadly...

A history of the 109th Congress from Center for American Progress.

And more generally categorized sins.

For Religion based progress.

Cut to the Quick! Sorting B.S.

Caught between reading more and writing less, I remark on the last two posts.
WP: Rice bucks election tradition Secretary of state is expected to stay above the partisan fray The headline is flat out Right! This time as correct if only read (and written) correctly.

It is hard to stay "fair and balanced" when facts and reality are overwhelmingly NOT!
Hence it is difficult for media to retain an appearance of doing it's job, when it is so easy to just conclude. The paper did not flat out face Condoleeza Rice with the contraditions between her words or her actions, but it is at least there.

So I may need to fess up to contributing to the confusion in trying to sort it out. But then I would have to reread what I had not read before the first but before the last post.

To put it simply, Rice is not staying above the partisan fray, she is bucking that tradition. She is not above being Bush's biggest supporter, while representing Bush's own little reality and misrepresenting her own.

Finally, at no time was the "so called" liberal(or is it so-called "liberal") perspective that would have said it plainly represented.

No Apologies: but a few points.

ABOVE THE FRAY ?????

"partisan instinct surgically removed..." ? [paragraph 16]
"frankly haven't heard..." [par. 9]
"just out doing what I always do..." [par. 10]

"differs sharply..." [par. 2]

from reality
"most of them conservative..." ? [par. 3]

Yeah Right!
I should have leaped or led with "just out doing what I always do..."
or is it looped the reality.

But then again, at least Halloween and "dress-up" were in the first paragraph.
[ed. note: late addition title... Sorting the Bush or Up the Filter, or is it just "trickle" up?]

Biggest BU SH !

Much as Condi and Bush fail to read memo’s accurately or even their headings, I am jumping to conclusions as to what this means. It is all in my headline, if you read between the letters. Meaning also that I have yet to read much of it.

But hear is what the headline reads that makes me jump.

WP: Rice bucks election traditionSecretary of state is expected to be above the partisan fray
Well that is just it, the contradiction and the connection to what is Left out or may not be Right!

I will actually read the rest later and hopefully the break may do us all good. At least if I have set up wrong, I am prepared to jump back and apologize, or take another tact or tangent. For now I foresee the need for an apology just in my own title, but I am trying to point to a jump of sorts.

Note: in my transcribing the above I almost lost a point when an error crept in which made another point as well as pointed to the dilemma. Suffice it so say, the haggle be, whether to it is nobler to be or stay.

Did I see it coming?

Humor and Reality are not "Fair and Balanced".

Most Trusted Anchors: Stewart and Colbert
I did not see this coming. Or did I? After the last post, I turned to something that had caught my eye earlier on some screen.

Second Hand Wisecracks

Even Letterman.
Thank You Scarborough Country and MSNBC.

And the Today Show.
Or Leno-Just Funny?

I hope to return to actually view the above links again or for the first time, as well as find where I suggested that Comedy Central and Fox News should switch categories or names: maybe News Central and Fox Comedy.
[HERE]
March 24th, 2005 Quick Concept.

August 22nd, 2006 Reality Comedy vs. Faux News

ReCon Revisited

Enough on that tangent.
That is what the Dems are saying.
But the Olbermann "take" and Kerry the "able veteran" are great examples of what the media and leadership should be and do.
My take is that for Democrats it takes mistakes to get a message out, for Republicans there are so many more mistakes for the media to cover, they cannot fit them all in.

Here are just two that Media Matters for America present:
Bush pledge on Rumsfeld and Cheney
Republican House Majority Leader blames military

Re-Con-Texting Cain and Able

To start out with, I am behind the times a bit here and had gotten my earliest news through the filter of Air American Radio, [KPTK-1090-Seattle] and the likes of Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Al Franken. Randi Rhodes fits in there somewhere but I just may have missed her in the last few days.

So let me start at the end, as far as most recent sources first.
"Cain" a reference in a Keith Olbermann take.
Then back to Able(not a Bible reference) but as Kerry the able veteran.

Last email cut-and-paste first: This topic "...is one of the fronts that the current battle is being waged, we are taking them from the flank. I don't know the military terms, is that right? Maybe we are just giving them the shovel to keep digging."

Previous post script, as readers and friends may "...well know, I have quite a bit of experience reacting to or trying to make sense out of humor. There is a fine line between truth and the humor and it often hurts. But the reaction to this humor seems to be hiding the truth behind the troops, which is routine for this administration. 'Most people' have enough trouble making sense out of Bush, let alone the truth. When they are one and the same, 'Bush' and 'let alone the truth' it is a greater danger. All this focus on Kerry's choice of words, if the media and the Democrats had had such a machine against the Republicans, we would all be in less danger."

See link: end of this post, to be continued.

"so you don't have to"

Read? Watch Fox? Jump to conclusions?
That's the ticket. I don't. Well maybe the last one,
but with reason. You should verify.
Military.com "Ruining America"
LA Times/Truthout "Not America's Man in Iraq."

Reality is a lot of flip-flop. Especially near elections, and it depends who and where you are speaking. But normally, a closer read will explain there is nuance.
There is a difference between timetables and benchmarks, even though they are both furniture that can be moved later.

And being someone's man, is not what freedom or progress is about.

It would seem that the leader in Iraq cannot be seen tied too close to the U.S. in Iraq for him to be successful, yet the whole divide represents the dillemma that there is flip flop for political consumption and we are dining on an international menu. This does not excuse flip flop, but putting the blame on nuance is why we got where we are.

Jumping to conclusions so I don't have to read,
you may just trust, or you can verify too.
[Note: links may or may not have been read by me or never even used before.]

SEVENTEEN SCARIEST WORDS

FOR REPUBLICANS:

"I'm from the Democratic Party and we're here to help the country and the common good"

Friday Night Quarterbacking/Random thoughts

Friday night as opposed to Monday morning?
Bush loves to campaign, but press conferences?
Benchmarks or timetables at this time?
Still seems like only rhetoric.
[Answering some questions, often going in length on some not asked.]
The election is the game; the war or the plan, the football.

[Random notes and/or(sometimes both) questions on Bush's words and/or thoughts?]

Most of the terrorist have been brought to justice?
More troops to Iraq? General Casey?
Must not believe in his own rhetoric.

Feelings? Bush felt. Timetable vs. flexibility
Time table means defeat. Having plan means defeat?
Decipher the Washington Post?
Violent methods to achieve political objectives?
Child Tax credit?
Benchmarks - buy in?
Expects people to be held to account?
Rests with him?

RIGHT ON!

[ORIGINAL GAME PLAN: THE NEW ADMINISTRATION?]
Accountable to the people? Past or future plans?

[These notes(unbold, un-bracketed, un-italicized)just jotted live during Bush press conference.]
[FINAL NOTE: Will these be addressed by the media or the Democrats?]

October Surprise? Changing "Staying the Course".

Is this the October Surprise? Bush has changed the words he will use to stay the course.

Let us hope that things don't get any worse or better, depending on whether you are planning the "October Suprise"

Hint: The suprise is buried in the planning, but they won't say it.

Beyond a Lost look back again.

Somewhere today I stumbled upon a link that was worth my reading. I believe it was in this blog, yet I cannot consider it a re-read. I did finally give it a full read as well as another result of re-search of other links.
Looking Beyond Conquest and beyond laissez faire or Wealth of nations

Krugman v. Pelosi

Not that they are opposed,
I just juxtaposition
the two perspectives.

Krugman: Don't Make Nice.

Pelosi: more than "lame duck is enough" (See "Two Heartbeats..." video)

Together: Not just don't make nice, but more than just a pledge of what is on the table or not.

Spinning Hot Air?

On Friday Bush made a pretty good arguement for following my blog. While I have yet to get a link to the quote, it had to do with seeing the future and the future was offensive. With all the recent talk about changing course (not Bush words) the one thing that would not change was the offensive nature of his approach.

Another think that I need to find is my earlier reference to troop withdrawal in this blog and that itself would likely change before the election. It would be helpful to find my post, but Sunday the New York Times questions the timing of the change in the discussion.

Fooling Time & Table Turning Nuance

The New York Times has two pieces that barely need to be read, but unlike memos which the Bush administration had trouble even reading at least they are taking us somewhere. They are worth a read but obviously It's Voter-Fooling Time in America and it is no October Surprise that Tables Turned for the GOP Over Iraq Issue.

Republicans have said the Democrats have no plan.
Democrats have at least four plans:
leave,
redeploy,
do a better job,
and/or increase the level of troops.

Bush has said he is "the decider" but he is waiting for a plan, so he must not even be a planner.
He certainly doesn’t want to want to choose between "stay the course" and "cut and run", but at least he is the chooser of when he will listen to those he chooses to find a plan.

Then I hear Shields and Brooks. I must disagree that whatever the plan, it would matter how and who actually uses it, that decides whether it should be done. Nothing would be off the table after an election if everything is not on the table before the election.

* Since few of these options are absolute, actual plans may be a combination that only increases the number available, but that only explains how "tough" it will be to get anywhere when Republicans are more about just winning.

Power Broker Mountain

What is it?
The current paradigm.
Not what it should be.

"Power Broker Mountain" Copyright 2006 Roger LeRoy Larson
[If this doesn't do the job, may it at least coin the term.
May the actual bucks stop here later.]

Voting Right/Equal Treatment

California Coalition for Immigration Reform sent "Spanish-language letter that was circulated to Latino voters in Orange County" to make sure they are voting right.

America's PAC encourages African American voters to Vote Our Values with the assistance of school voucher advocate J. Patrick Rooney with "Abortion ads".

My sarcasm must be noted in that these are just more of the "fear and smear" tactics which are common to the Republican camp to outright disenfranchise and lie.

For more on recent equal treatment of local Congressional and Senate races click back on the two here.

Lastly a concern about a report on voter fraud and the lack thereof which is itself being suppressed so as not to interfere with the fear that spurs the concern that feeds the suppression.

Act now to insist that the Elections Assistance Commission release the report now.

"whatsoever a man soweth"

New "Law"

Bush v. Olbermann

"The beginning of the end of America."

"Self-afflicted wound."

My take: Bush has just signed a law that Saddam could live with.

As summarized it is not the golden rule but the worst parental metaphore that he hopes will reign.

"Do unto others... as"

"Do as I say, not as I do"

Unfortunately we may not be able to change the cause and effect relations of physics simply by what we say, but by what we do, others will follow.

Echoes of Past Presidents and Wars.

As congress has made Bush the decider with the Military Commission Act, now he has a plan to get out of Iraq, so says a Senator, he just cannot tell anyone.

Any similarity to Vietnam is just a coincidence and in the wrong order. Coverup led to war, leads to new laws, leads to plan to get out, to win an election.

October surprise? Not this time.

But the sharpest tool in the shed?
Trying to compare it to the Korean War which defined the Cold War which we won.
Let's see the Korean war was a win because we won the Cold War but now North Korea has nuclear capabilities, and so does Pakistan and how many other's during the Cold War? Just what will be the questions when we win "in a new and 'different kind of war, an insurgent war' against Islamic fascists."?

The question now should be an echo of an earlier Bush on security and the economy.
"Are we better off now than we were 6 years ago"? OK, I tweaked it a bit.

Sharpening the questions?

Are Republicans "Running Scared"? as NBC Nightly News implies?
No.
They are running on "Fear and Smear".

Sound like Cut and Run?
No.
They claim they are sharpening the questions.
So that is what they are doing, instead of sharpening the answers.

October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain"

It would be nice if the surprise were "no suprise".
It could be that it is National Character Counts Week,
but it is not the first.
Could it be that Humor Counts? Check first link.
Or could it be that there will be a National Straight Face Week.
See link again, imagining Bush reading it.
Maybe it should be National Tow The Line Week.

Just what is the connection?
When the Foley scandal first broke, I thought that
there may be one "heckuva" closet caucus.
Now it is more about what is being purged and why.

Here is the less than tenuous(That would be nine-you-us) connection to the nine little words that scared Reagan.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". He also had 3 little words that he liked but was quoting Lenin:
"Trust but verify."
The new nine:
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell".

They may purge voter roles and the closet caucus but with one party control our government is in the closet.
Actually with 12 words, it is more than tenuous.
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell, that's my job."
The Unitary Executive is a theory that seems more than controversial, but which is put to rest in the Military Commisions Act.
The irony is that while Wikipedia has an article which has it's neutrality in dispute; with the Institute for Public Accuracy has two views presented; and Findlaw has quite an extensive article, if it was more than just a theory, why the new law?

And why the closet image? It is really about "Power Broker Mountain".
If this is too much to read,
(and I never saw the movie, not that there was anything wrong with that)
the shortest read is Article II, section 2, PARAGRAPH TWO
of the constitution and see how much congress is responsible for the law and presidential powers, which now must come out of the closet.
Sections 3 and 4 are even shorter and thanks to fear and smear even deeper in the closet.

Regime Change

even more "hard work",[mp3]

One of the problems involved in the discussion to Stop North Korea Now is that the administration tried to simultaneously deal with changing North Korea's behavior and regime change [see audio mp3]. It should be apparent that in dealing with North Korea these concerns work against each other, but when it comes to the behavior of our our leaders they are as close as can be. In the former case a threat of regime change leads to a reason to develop weapons for reasons given in the discussion: prestige, security and politics. For America the issues of prestige, security and even politics are what demand regime change here, but are only talk for those in power now.

Hence, another link I need to find is my earliest use of the term "fear and smear". Such tactics are the administration's only defense, and they are only offensive. The results are in, but they can only change their talk.

Democrats are the party of defense,
Republicans are the offensive party.

WARNING: Nuclear Diplomacy is "hard work".

McCain claimed that Clinton was too much carrot and no stick.
But Bush is all stick and no carrots.

In fact they are getting fat on both the sticks and the carrots. Feasting on the products of their failure to do the "hard work" to preempt wars and WMD proliferation.
[My above thoughts were from two days ago, but all links are thanks to the Center for American Progress and Eric Alterman's Think Again: Blaming Success, Upholding Failure]

The success and failure of the Clinton and Bush administrations are in that order.

As Bush has said "war is hard work", but as I have said, that is why they should have done the "hard work" needed before war was "a last resort".
Now there is even more "hard work",not just to change the course but fill the holes that have been dug.

[Finally, I am not sure where I expressed the concern quite some time ago, but the recent balking by China on "punitive" sanctions reflects the idea that some countries will not make even preemptive diplomatic "hard work" any easier. SEE above link even more "hard work" in the form of an MP3 discussion to Stop North Korea Now]

"Only talk" or "only politics"

"all options"

"only talk" in my previous post links to a Newsweek piece about just who shot progress in the foot. And Bush refers to Iraq today where stakes "couldn't be higher".

But are we better off with the "Excess of Evil".?

Hearing Jeffrey Feldman of frameshopisopen.com on Thom Hartmann helped me on the above tangent regarding the search for who is grilling the stakes? [my phrase]. And Thom reminds us that these links [my second two above] are in the International Edition.

Amidst the Pile and Piling On.

This is increasingly troubling. That John McCain is playing politics with history and world stability.

But what should give us courage are the likes of Ed Shultz who put me on the trail of hope and courage in House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

But even MORE BREAKING NEWS:
OCTOBER SUPRISE: Hopefully only politics.

Thanks to Thom Hartmann and a quick search [plausible " A and B "]
Hopefully only the talk.
But "coincidence" excuse sounds not only like "plausible deniability" but more like "plausible incompetence".

Meanwhile things are at such a pitch, I may run blog silent for periods, hopefully resulting in "plausible progress".

Could things get any worse?

October Surprise aside, when someone is digging a hole for themselves, you do not take away the shovel.

But as I said before the last election, do not bet that things cannot get worse.

For Republicans the hole they dig is only for them to shovel a pile on Democrats.

From the Foley scandal to the violence summit, to the North Korean nuclear test, are we better off than we were 6 years ago? OK, this one I borrowed with a twist from somewhere just today.

"You can't go home again" comes to mind as I review the last week or so of links which I have not revisited nor piled upon. But I will bring the latest from Keith Olbermann on the "The death of habeas corpus". But another piece that harkens back to how we got here, being the evolution of facts.
Keeping in mind that new facts will alter even current theories, but theories need unaltered facts.

The Fudging Point!

Clarity and Correction:
Doing politics and your jobs.
[Hold the line on habeas corpus, warrant-less wiretapping and torture. ] No on Sen. Resolution 3930

We owe it to our leaders and Bush and the country to provide not just courage but clarity and correction where needed.

We must give them the backbone that President Clinton showed this weekend in the below context, to face the truth and fight the propaganda, to do politics and their jobs, to uphold what should be uniting principles for the Democrats and are our founding principles.

Who will face the fudging point?
Democrats must do their job while running,
not avoid it to run like Republicans.
One can tell when one is right,
when you don't hear it on the Right.
One does not hear Thom Hartmann
or Keith Olbermann addressed by the Right.

Talking Points

Network Misinformation and GOP Talking Points
MediaMatters.org

Also:
Newsday and AP cite rebuttal not validation of Clinton
Failure to cite polls blaming Bush not Clinton for failure to get bin Laden.

Talking Points

Losing the War on Terrorist Networks
Center for American Progress

The Final Judgement?

Of the National Intelligence Estimate

[THIS IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH AND BULLET POINT:
and if I may say an interesting point to end on.]

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical
ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

-- We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.

[Do we still have the right to question what our interests are, let alone what is meant by globalization or is that too sentimental?]

Time for us to go

TO WORKThe new Un-Frame for Them?
Republicans would actually want to lose so that they can blame the Democrats so that they can return to fight at a later date? Now that is courage. NOT!

But this is the unspin. Would they really risk possible impeachment of Bush for the sake of their own power? Not that Democrats or the people would have the guts. Maybe they want the Dog to wag. But this puts a spin on politics that I have been trying to halt. My point is that governing is hard work, which Republicans do not believe in, and would rather let Democrats carry the load, while they run away to fight another day. How is that good for the country?

Is this just more to talk about, to keep us from the "hard work"? It also distracts from and should raise questions of which came first, the strategy or the words of regret (or coming to their senses) which some conservatives express. Another question: do they put themselves before facing the issues?

AND MORE: it will be TIME FOR US TO GO TO WORK.
Will they work with Democrats for those two years?
Will the Democrats be finished even reviewing let alone correcting the last six?
Will the Democrats even play "the game" that it has been for Republicans? If they play it as well, they would cut them out of it all. Demostrate that we can handle debate and division and bring issues to the fore for the coming two years not just for the next four, but for the people, our country and the world.

I must thank The Thom Hartmann Show for sending me on this tangent, or search: "Time for us to Go". We should agree, it is time for Republicans to go, and for any that survive, not to go back to the politics of either nine words or sixteen. Thanks to Garrison Keillor as well. But I would say (to Reagan's nine)
Let them not be in the government for they are there to help themselves.

And I must make reference to my earlier posts.
A Pre-emptive Comment 11-15-05
Politics 11-24-05
Speaking of Running 3-18-06
Hold of Course 3-17-06

[Tangents are the nature of how things connect,
when every point is in context of the whole.] Not incidentally, quantummatter.com

Who started it?

Bill Bennett asks why would the Democrats attack Bush on his strength,[update 10-31-11 *] his war on terrorism?

Release of the NIE was bad for everybody, he claims. That is the point. Intelligence is on the Democrats side, and they want it locked up.

Matt Lauer did a surprisingly good job countering most points that Bennett made including pointing out that Bush has been on the offensive, and Bennett served his cake and ate it too, by excusing that as becuase it is Bush's strength.

Well, if it is their strength, just who is Bennett waving the white flag to (maybe a semafore, when he persists that "he brought it up" meaning Clinton started it? Is he talking to those he claims didn't blaim Clinton, didn't blame Bush or did blame the CIA? And who is he sending the message to, when he brings the war on terrorism back to Iraq, but he hopes that "chasing after Clinton on the world stage... is over"?

We must keep the truth out there, on the media stage. They will continue to misread it. Who will keep it up?

Who will be fearless? [Segue in closing] Special thanks to Stephanie Miller for waking me up (and my snooze alarm) and for having Arianna Huffington on, not that the latter is what got me started, but we are finally on the same page and in a growing choir.

In contrast or no thanks to Tucker Carlson or Matt Drudge.

[* also labels and link added]

Caution Merited?

Beware The NIE
by Robert Dreyfuss Would Intelligence agencies conspire to mislead the New York Times and the Washington Post in their interpretation of the National Intelligence Assessment? Or would Bush chose to release the NIE or rather parts of it that suit him?


Showdown Over Habeas
by Sen. Patrick Leahy is the other side of the coin.


The Terrorism Index by The Center for American Progress, however begs to differ on the former.

And on the mainstream "trickle down", shame on Newsweek if this is the case.

Speaking of articulation. of what the fudge is going on.

Clearwater muddy.

I do not know if this is the tipping point, but the gloves are certainly off, and it has only just begun.

One thing that must be kept in mind is that not only must the political fight be carried forward but the job still must be done by those already there.

The "fudging" or lack of clarity that Bush needs is the point, and the "fudging" that the country is getting must be stopped. Pardon my "Cheney", meaning the "French" they use, but not the "heckuva job" that has been done.

But to the point, see CCR-NY.org or as I like to think:
Credence Clearwater Revolution- No Yoke Dot Org.
The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York is concerned that: now this is my spin but like the legislators in Germany held responsible for war crimes, that Congress should be careful in the clarity it provides.

Above and beyond the far fetched possibility that we would face any justice on the world stage, or rather below and deeper is the Constitution itself: Habeus corpus, warrantless spying and torture must be prevented or the terrorists will be the least of our problems.

Textbook on Courage!

You know when one is right,
when you don't hear it from the Right.

COURAGE FILEDOWN: Dubya On Down:

W: Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

X: "Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?"

Y: Bush owes us an apology

Z: A textbook definition of cowardice

Definition of Courage!

Which came first? Clinton flare rallies Democrats, but does it outshine NIE?
Interview was taped, then came NIE "leak" before the broadcast. According to Jonathan Alter on Countdown with Keith Olbermann: "...that Clinton in responding had the merits on his side. Most of the points that he made were factually accurate."

Who to blame? [

Should be crazed.

They are linked. Bush to blame, before and after.
Republicans responsible and Democrats not responsible enough and media even more irresponsible, until this week.

This is The Fudging Point!

EEEEEEEEEEEYAAAAHHH!

"...not a very fruitful discussion"

Rice is right, it is not very fruitful to catapult the same propaganda, especially when you cannot be direct. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."

Missing link?

No really. A headline two posts ago is what was missing or what started me on Wag the Dog...

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat a New York Times piece by Mark Mazetti was on the front page of my Sunday local paper. Not exactly an October Surprise, but then there was the Fox appearance of Bill Clinton that topped the cake.

Democracts are stuck in pre-9/11 thinking and Republicans are thinking post-9/11. We must run with that. Pre-9/11 thinking by the Democrats may have gotten Bin Laden if the Republicans had used it. Post-9/11 thinking by Republicans, is actually no different than their pre-9/11 thinking.

This is where I think I was going, when I left off, Sunday.
This whole Liaison Report is where we have been.

We're as mad as Heck and...

we aren't going to take it any more. Bill Clinton "attacks" Fox agenda.

NIE leak? Iraq war fueled terrorism.

WAG THE DOG? Who started it?

OCTOBER SUPRISE? Not really.
Two thoughts occurred to me, or I concurred with something I had heard, that if there were an October Surprise, that finding Bin Laden or hitting Pakistan may be the likely examples. Not yet October, but the French leak that maybe Bin Laden has died and Pakistan leaks that they were threatened earlier.

At this point I will pause to reflect on further links, having included more than I have read yet and lost one.

On "Duty"

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.

They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.

He put them in the Declaration of Independence.

For those that did not get to the link in the previous post, above is one section that goes to the heart of it, but his main point was on our freedoms to think and make comparisons and to disagree:

We must know that, to you,(Mr. President) thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.

Our Patriotic "Duty"

One may wonder if I have prescience, but it is more likely what may need to become more common sense. Common sense is really only a sense of what is more common. It may take a more radical sense to detect what is real. If that is hard to follow, at least it makes sense to me why it is.

Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.

Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]

Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.

LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?


P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.

The 1st thing that went wrong.

LOYALTY

Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team
In rebuilding effort, loyalty to Bush administration was paramount

This is probably the most important piece of the failed course that will not change. It not only rules out opposing views but limits the number of available skilled staff for an administration with little faith in the government serving the people. Then it also penalizes even those in the same party with open minds that see things differently. It should be no wonder that failure is so frequent and change is so difficult. Even those with merit that chose to keep giving their input will have no effect without the administration being willing to change and risk further exposure of their failures.

As George Lakoff, points out in the book, Don't think of an Elephant Know your values, Frame the debate there are a pair of parental metaphors Strict Father vs. Nurturing Parent and I earlier joked it was about the "Golden Rule", or rather the rule vs. the joke,(Those with...etc.). However there is a much simpler and more familiar way of putting it that explains the philosophy which is behind this all. "Do as I say, not as I do." Sadly the reaction to the reality that is in the results is also familiar to the strict father metaphor. "I'll give you something to cry about."


A second point, (not necessarily in order in the article)and I have not read beyond a few words in a few paragraphs, is probably the goal of privatization of government. It sounds good, but in reality it is a double edged sword that is not even half good. The two sides are either, you are on your own, and corporations will take care of what matters. It should simply be remembered that "privatization" is really "corporatization". Not that corporations are a bad thing, only that too much freedom is as much a concern for corporations as to individuals, for none of us would fair well on our own, even the ones that are trickling down.

[I will try to add links to my earlier references.]

9-11-01. Will we wake up?

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.
[written in the hour or so after the tragedy]

NEXT POINT!

To comment on negative campaign and point to inaccuracies and insufficiencies in actual records of the incumbents. The media should be responsible for monitoring both last minute campaign ads for putting them in context with actual problems and the record of the incumbent.

And what has happened to the $20 billion contract to "monitor the tone" of the media coming out of Iraq? That would seem an incursion on "freedom of the press" while at home they could be doing a better job as well. They should be looking at the "tone" of the administration and what has a better chance of changing even if it was monitored better.

The Point?

What some people call talking points are to others real points. But if ABC comes to their senses and scraps "The Path to 9/11", we have made a point or more. They will have talking points about "liberal control" of the media but the point must be that 9/11 should not be used for profit or propaganda and there is a difference between talking and reality.

Entertainment should have some freedom, but the 9/11 tragedy and it's investigation should not be used in that regard on "public" airwaves, especially on the anniversary and without comparing contrasting with work such as Orwell's "1984" and Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" both of which would be more entertaining and related to our reality, and which "Path", even with alterations would fit more as the character and subject in these works.

Phase II, finally!

WWW.WeGotEd.com
with Ed Shultz was kind enough to provide the link to a podcast of Senator Jay Rockefellor on the Senate floor.

Back to the issue of ABC and "Path to 9/11"
Thanks to People for the American Way an Open Letter to ABC: Don't Airbrush 9/11 led me to Firedog Lake weblog which provided an easy tool to reach the media

Who is the No. 2 terrorist organization in the U.S.?

I'm not sure of the network ratings,
but I think ABC is just trailing Fox news.

MSNBC is in line for the awards in the fight against terrorism,
despite Scarborough possibly being an insurgent.

Broadcasting is the field where new laws should be enacted in the fight against terrorism, and it would maybe only take bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but an investment in journalism and a divestment from other corporate entities could also be necessary to win the war on terrorism.

Battle of the networks or...

ABC and Disney have produced a "docudrama" that apparently has MSNBC on a course for bear.

How many "B" will fall?

In the weeks following September 11th, 2001 I had to make a decision whether to travel and with the help of a courageous speech by President Bush decided that terrorism was worth standing up to by living life as close to usual as possible. That decision put my wife and myself weeks later walking down a street in Rome which we had passed only hours earlier, but now barricades were up. It was the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. had just struck Afghanistan.

Being in another country at a time that the U. S. was beginning a war was a disconcerting experience yet still an attempt was made to enjoy the trip and also afforded the access to European journalism. With this introduction, one thing I recall reading gave me the impression that Tony Blair's future seemed to be bright or at least believeable as it focused on leadership of the European Union. Now 5 years later, Blair’s fortunes not to mention Berlusconi's have dimmed.

Bloggerman may repeat history anytime.

Keith Olbermann has hit another one out of the journalistic park.
"Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir? Mr. Olbermann has a keen sense in asking this of Bush and should be followed not just by the public but by his peers in the field and any politicians who care about progress.

MemoGate

Bush catches critics off guard
Weakened president still can set terms of debate
ANALYSIS: The Washington Post
Read- OPINION. TheLiaisonReport.com

Memogate has dual meaning: The weakened president could not accurately read memo headings.
The media cannot write accurate heading titles. While the former does not bother reading the full memos, this reader has at this point not finished reading the article. My point is that The Washington Post is more likely not off guard and is setting the terms of the debate for a weakened president. Even the term debate is very shaky, implying that there is: 1. an argument and 2. they will actually face a debate. The point is that we would not be in much of this mess if the media had not been his cheerleader and the administration had been able to read memos. While headings do get attention, we would not have this course or the terms of the debate without the media still blowing it.

Censorship or just Business?

A belated comment on the firing of Mike Malloy:

Dear Mike:

Here is a comment I sent Air America Radio.

"Listening to Mike Malloy's last broadcast (August 25th) on Air America Radio, I am trying to determine if it was anything he said that lost him his job, assuming that maybe he crossed a line: However having listened up to the point that he came up with the bumper sticker WWYD?, [What would you do?] I feel that he actually was mellower than I had expected not being a regular, just due to the time slot.

I don't know if he foresaw his fate, or it is just financial, but I can accept that you are not necessarily in this for anything more than financial reasons. I just hope that that is the case and not some sort of displeasure with his message. His most extreme words cannot compare to the reality of this world, that must be challenged with reason or it will only be for force."

Having finished listening your (hopefully not) last program, there may be many places where you crossed a line, but as I said above and to a friend, compared to reality "there is no line". Well that is not exactly what I said, but I progress (as opposed to digress).

Now I can send you my improved well wishes.

Roger Out.

P.S. the above format is such as I had already shared this issue with a friend from Canada. In the overall lineup of Air America, you were not (necessarily) my favorite, but it may have just been your time slot (or being too similar in "sentiment"). After all the fine talents, it was usually just too much, to get jacked up all over again so late in the day, not wanting to cross any lines myself. But I must say, I really enjoyed your "last program" and look forward to wherever you end up.[italic words added now]

P.P.S. Listening again I get to the point where Bush says "there is no point in having a philosophical discussion" ? Appointing justices it was all about philosophy. Did anyone ask what was the philosophy? Not the media or the politicians. But we have leapt to the answers.

Can things get any better?

Before the 2004 election I warned: Do not bet on things not getting worse.
They can.

But now can things get any better than this?

Thanks to Air America Radio and Raw Story : Friends of Hillary hint she may pull out of presidential race
"I would not be surprised if she were to decide that the best contribution she can make to her country is to forget about being president and become a consensus-maker in the Senate," said a leading Democratic party insider. "She believes there is no trust between the two political sides and that we can’t function as a democracy without it."

I might be surprised but encouraged.

And thanks to truthout.org and The Independent UK "Deluded": Extraordinary Attack on Blair by Cabinet
"His diminishing stock of political authority was laid bare when ministers such as Jack Straw and Douglas Alexander made clear their opposition to his hard-line stance."

And thanks to Peter Werby[Sept 1st broadcast] : worldcantwait.org

YES!