Tuesday, January 31, 2006
On the coattails of an unpleasant prospect.
Senator Specter’s charge that the treatment of Samuel Alito was "despicable" is itself "despicable". Senator Specter’s treatment of his own office of Senator, other Senators, and the whole process was despicable. It is despicable that the particulars of his charges were totally false and that as sound bites were distributed without question.
Stay the Comity of Course
I think the president’s address could be summarized by a comparison I made the day before, but which Senator McCain reminded me of in his call for comity after the speech and which he spelled out so as not to be confused with comedy. The Senator made a reference to bygone days of cooperation across the aisle, and a plea almost of why can’t we just get along. The day before a thought had crossed my mind, that Bush is probably a cross between Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield, but you just take out the first names. Senator McCain expects that we should just get along, while Bush just gets no respect. That will be very difficult if Bush thinks he is King and we are expected to stay the course through the Dangerfield.
Filibuster survived, but for what?
There were 42 votes against Samuel Alito. That was without 4 Democrats that voted for Alito. If those 42 had voted against cloture, the debate on Alito would have continued. Maybe debate is too much work for some of them. Maybe the pressure of having to decide and wanting to get on to other work is too much of a strain. Maybe voters will get apathetic and lose their enthusiasm for carrying through on what counts. It's just an up or down vote. Next!
Alito was confirmed 58 to 42, with those 4 Democrats. Given that Democrats are less partisan, that just means that we need more Democrats. It seems that even when in the majority Democrats were independent minded or had different constituents. But it does not mean that Republicans or the Democrats that join them represent what is good for the country or even what the majority of the country supports.
Let us just hope that Alito's propensity to pad a resume was only part of an act that conned the neo-cons. It is not likely, but it is what we can only hope.
Alito was confirmed 58 to 42, with those 4 Democrats. Given that Democrats are less partisan, that just means that we need more Democrats. It seems that even when in the majority Democrats were independent minded or had different constituents. But it does not mean that Republicans or the Democrats that join them represent what is good for the country or even what the majority of the country supports.
Let us just hope that Alito's propensity to pad a resume was only part of an act that conned the neo-cons. It is not likely, but it is what we can only hope.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Fourth Estate Blowing It!
The Journal posed an interesting question in their December 20th editorial, "9/11 changes debate on electronic spying". Unfortunately by taking the President's answers they have dropped out of the debate, presuming there ever was one. The point is not whether eavesdropping would have prevented anything.
If going to war was necessary because existing policies were not working, the President should at least be required to prove not only that wiretaps prevent something but that he could not have used them under the law, both before September 11th, and after congress granted broader authority. Until congress finishes the promised and forgotten investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence, we should be very concerned whether any is being used to protect our constitution.
I don’t know if enough in congress have learned any lessons, but certainly not this editorial board. They concluded, "Once we may have joined in that debate. But that was before Sept. 11, when we were awakened to a reality we didn't see coming. If electronic spying could have stopped Mohammed Atta and his cohorts ... you should be able to finish that sentence yourself."
If it is that simple, what is the next thing we won’t see coming and what will prevent another wake-up? How much power is needed to prevent power from being grabbed, either by leaders or followers? Maybe in the Journals dreams it will all work out, but they certainly can‘t be depended upon to burst any bubbles either as a member of the fourth estate or by knowing a debate if there was one. The problem is that those who could finish the answer to the one question miss the irony in having one point of view.
[The Journal probably thinks their readers don't know that the media is the Fourth Estate, and that is just fine with the paper as they are not doing their job anyway.]
If going to war was necessary because existing policies were not working, the President should at least be required to prove not only that wiretaps prevent something but that he could not have used them under the law, both before September 11th, and after congress granted broader authority. Until congress finishes the promised and forgotten investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence, we should be very concerned whether any is being used to protect our constitution.
I don’t know if enough in congress have learned any lessons, but certainly not this editorial board. They concluded, "Once we may have joined in that debate. But that was before Sept. 11, when we were awakened to a reality we didn't see coming. If electronic spying could have stopped Mohammed Atta and his cohorts ... you should be able to finish that sentence yourself."
If it is that simple, what is the next thing we won’t see coming and what will prevent another wake-up? How much power is needed to prevent power from being grabbed, either by leaders or followers? Maybe in the Journals dreams it will all work out, but they certainly can‘t be depended upon to burst any bubbles either as a member of the fourth estate or by knowing a debate if there was one. The problem is that those who could finish the answer to the one question miss the irony in having one point of view.
[The Journal probably thinks their readers don't know that the media is the Fourth Estate, and that is just fine with the paper as they are not doing their job anyway.]
Filibuster failed. NOW UP OR DOWN.
The current support for Alito for Supreme Court is 57 to 38. That is with 4 Democrats and 1 Republican listed in the C-Span analysis. That means that if those opposed and those undecided had made a stand against cloture we would still be filibustering or debating. Cloture passed 72-25 with 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats supporting the end of debate and a scheduled vote up or down tomorrow.
The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.
Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:
Dear Senator Conrad
Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!
If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.
Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.
But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.
The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.
Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:
Dear Senator Conrad
Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!
If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.
Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.
But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Saber Rattling
Having reviewed the previous links attached to my last few posts, the devil really is in the details. I did express some optimism in reading between the lines of the headings, (unlike some who have difficulty getting through the title of a memo)it does depend on actual changes that will be brought about.
Iran vows missile retaliation to any attack
Accuses Britain and United States of arming rebels in its south
Things have changed after September 11th, 2001, though I am not so sure they were not preempted, but that is at least the change. The whole idea of preemption depends on not saber rattling or you have preempted the action with words. If that is what has changed since 9/11, then nothing has changed for the better, except that things would be better if it were a dictatorship. And Plato in his Republic knew there was no process that could produce a benevolent dictator, so what we have is a feeling that preemption of the process is needed. Maybe the only thing left is hope and prayer, but it might really depend on not preempting them with words and having faith in the process.
Iran vows missile retaliation to any attack
Accuses Britain and United States of arming rebels in its south
Things have changed after September 11th, 2001, though I am not so sure they were not preempted, but that is at least the change. The whole idea of preemption depends on not saber rattling or you have preempted the action with words. If that is what has changed since 9/11, then nothing has changed for the better, except that things would be better if it were a dictatorship. And Plato in his Republic knew there was no process that could produce a benevolent dictator, so what we have is a feeling that preemption of the process is needed. Maybe the only thing left is hope and prayer, but it might really depend on not preempting them with words and having faith in the process.
Friday, January 27, 2006
A few notes in review:
Olmert: Israel won’t …In response to Hamas’ win, Austria, which holds the European Union’s rotating presidency, issued a statement on behalf of the 25-nation bloc stating “there is no place in a political process for groups or individuals who advocate violence.”
Bush: Hamas must…
“We’ll listen to ideas. If the attempt to write law is likely to expose the nature of the program, I’ll resist it,” the president said.
The title of the links are not in reference to my point, that the first is an interesting comment from the EU on the political process, and the second is Bush on his view of the constitution. An interesting counter balance: the take on violence and political processes.
Bush: Hamas must…
“We’ll listen to ideas. If the attempt to write law is likely to expose the nature of the program, I’ll resist it,” the president said.
The title of the links are not in reference to my point, that the first is an interesting comment from the EU on the political process, and the second is Bush on his view of the constitution. An interesting counter balance: the take on violence and political processes.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Step two in bringing it home.
...
Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas
Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said major mediating powers Thursday agreed Hamas should renounce violence.
"We reaffirmed the view that ... you can’t have one foot in terror and the other in politics," Rice told Reuters in an interview after senior officials from the so-called Quartet -- Russia, the United Nations, the European Union and the United States -- spoke by phone.
...
"A two-state solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel’s right to exist, and disarm," the statement said.
...
NOTE:
Let's not read too much between the lines, the dots, or the paragraphs, but the bold I added and that punctuation could be a stretch. But that is only all the more room to work between the lines.
These brief comments are made without a thorough read of the last few links in this area. Not that any closer read would get any closer to a reality that needs more work and punctuation anyway, but I will try to get back to them unless things unfold too fast.
Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas
Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said major mediating powers Thursday agreed Hamas should renounce violence.
"We reaffirmed the view that ... you can’t have one foot in terror and the other in politics," Rice told Reuters in an interview after senior officials from the so-called Quartet -- Russia, the United Nations, the European Union and the United States -- spoke by phone.
...
"A two-state solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel’s right to exist, and disarm," the statement said.
...
NOTE:
Let's not read too much between the lines, the dots, or the paragraphs, but the bold I added and that punctuation could be a stretch. But that is only all the more room to work between the lines.
These brief comments are made without a thorough read of the last few links in this area. Not that any closer read would get any closer to a reality that needs more work and punctuation anyway, but I will try to get back to them unless things unfold too fast.
Where's a cop when you need one?
Is this a good cop/bad cop deal or is it more of "staying the course"?
Here are a few headlines that I will comment on in the light of hope that it is the former.
Hamas' win muddles Mideast peace prospects
Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel get 76 of 132 seats in parliament
[1-27-06: editors note actual link title: Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections]
Bush: Hamas must renounce stand
Peace is never dead,’ he says when asked if he’d rule out relations
U.S. releases five Iraqi women prisoners
Official denies move is linked to demand of U.S. journalist's kidnappers
Actually I may let them speak for themselves and read them later, but I am reminded who the Secretary of State is and who the President is and with Rumsfeld and Cheney to cloud the picture I think that there could be hope that Rice is working in this area, and that with all the bad around that some good may come from the "hard work" our troops are doing, and we that politics will actually prevail over violence.
I lighted upon the following segment from the middle link:
But behind the scenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be talking to Russian, European and U.N. officials later Thursday in a bid to get them to pressure Hamas into renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel’s right to exist.
Of course, the devil may be in the details, but then the administration hasn't done a "heckuva job" with them anyway. Renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist seems like a good starting point. Maybe even politics can clean it's name and be brought home again.
Here are a few headlines that I will comment on in the light of hope that it is the former.
Hamas' win muddles Mideast peace prospects
Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel get 76 of 132 seats in parliament
[1-27-06: editors note actual link title: Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections]
Bush: Hamas must renounce stand
Peace is never dead,’ he says when asked if he’d rule out relations
U.S. releases five Iraqi women prisoners
Official denies move is linked to demand of U.S. journalist's kidnappers
Actually I may let them speak for themselves and read them later, but I am reminded who the Secretary of State is and who the President is and with Rumsfeld and Cheney to cloud the picture I think that there could be hope that Rice is working in this area, and that with all the bad around that some good may come from the "hard work" our troops are doing, and we that politics will actually prevail over violence.
I lighted upon the following segment from the middle link:
But behind the scenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be talking to Russian, European and U.N. officials later Thursday in a bid to get them to pressure Hamas into renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel’s right to exist.
Of course, the devil may be in the details, but then the administration hasn't done a "heckuva job" with them anyway. Renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist seems like a good starting point. Maybe even politics can clean it's name and be brought home again.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
ALL ABOUT THE DANGERFIELD
RAMPING UP THE POLITICS OR LEVELING IT PERIOD.
Politics is the best way to stand up for our principles and participate in the process that moves us forward. It should not be another name for sacrificing both.
If politicians and lawyers "get no respect", we must notice where it comes from. If we don't fight it here, we can't get it anywhere.
PLEASE FILIBUSTER THE RUBBER STAMP ALITO.
Politics is the best way to stand up for our principles and participate in the process that moves us forward. It should not be another name for sacrificing both.
If politicians and lawyers "get no respect", we must notice where it comes from. If we don't fight it here, we can't get it anywhere.
PLEASE FILIBUSTER THE RUBBER STAMP ALITO.
THE CHARGE OF POLITICS
Politics is the best way to stand up for our principles and participate in the process that moves us forward, it should not be another name for sacrificing both.
CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!
Filibuster Alito for Constitution's Sake
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)
(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:
A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?
I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.
Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?
Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.
* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.
THANK YOU, SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS!
It appears that the Democrats will be united against the nomination of Samual Alito for the Supreme Court. Here it seems is the con text without any context needed, from Senator Arlen Specter that he expects Alito "…to render justice without respect for persons…". Senator Linsay Graham called it political, and I would agree. He is not suprised that Bush would nominate the likes of what he likes since he won the election. And that if Democrats want to make it politcal that Republicans will clean their clock. Such talk in not very admirable in the setting he selected, but he is right that it is political. And since Bush was selected by an unprecedented Supreme Court decision and given his track record, polls aside, this is about politics, Democrats must hold the line on this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. To say that the president gets his way since he won the election is the whole reason that we have three branches and a constitution. Do not Rubber Stamp Alito, filibuster the Rubber Stamp Alito.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Bush: the Belated Preemptive
The BLAME GAME is really a preemptive excuse to be unprecedented.
Of course Bush needed to preempt in 2000 the people and was selected unprecedentedly by the Supreme Court.
One way to understand this may be to look at the jokes that are "out there".
Politicians and lawyers "get no respect"!
That is because we must respect the understanding of them first, before blaming the people that practice them. And if our goal or starting point is truth or perfection, then we do not intend to really practice them. Meanwhile we must do what it takes to stop others who's intentions we cannot be certain about.
Can we break the vicious cycle?
The question is more important than the answer.
But one answer must be that we value/respect the process, not value slash meaning from words.
Of course Bush needed to preempt in 2000 the people and was selected unprecedentedly by the Supreme Court.
One way to understand this may be to look at the jokes that are "out there".
Politicians and lawyers "get no respect"!
That is because we must respect the understanding of them first, before blaming the people that practice them. And if our goal or starting point is truth or perfection, then we do not intend to really practice them. Meanwhile we must do what it takes to stop others who's intentions we cannot be certain about.
Can we break the vicious cycle?
The question is more important than the answer.
But one answer must be that we value/respect the process, not value slash meaning from words.
TWO-WORD CULTURE
Ed Shultz referenced the two word culture.
Here is what it triggered in me. And what probably triggers Bush.
US THEM
CULTURE WAR
MESSAGE MEANING
MEAN MESS
CHOCOLATE WOE
REFERENCE SELF
FREUDIAN SLIP
FAITH MIGHT
VICIOUS CYCLE
Of course this may need explaining,
but that is really the "hard work".
But a slip of the tongue or a loose context which can be taken wrong, may be what is really needed to get any Message through the Mechanisms, the Money and the Media with any message left.
And if "advice and consent" or checks and balance or the three branches of government are not allowed to do their jobs, then this is the 4M that will do the work that was formerly the Fourth Estate.
Message not mess age.
Truth is not fair or balanced.
Here is what it triggered in me. And what probably triggers Bush.
US THEM
CULTURE WAR
MESSAGE MEANING
MEAN MESS
CHOCOLATE WOE
REFERENCE SELF
FREUDIAN SLIP
FAITH MIGHT
VICIOUS CYCLE
Of course this may need explaining,
but that is really the "hard work".
But a slip of the tongue or a loose context which can be taken wrong, may be what is really needed to get any Message through the Mechanisms, the Money and the Media with any message left.
And if "advice and consent" or checks and balance or the three branches of government are not allowed to do their jobs, then this is the 4M that will do the work that was formerly the Fourth Estate.
Message not mess age.
Truth is not fair or balanced.
Means Trumps Meaning, but can't read memos.
When you stick your foot in your mouth you best take it out. This is to indicate I hope I have two feet and they try to keep moving, as well as my mouth and keyboard.
But in regards to the last post, here is a hero which if I had heros would supplant Murtha. In fact if Gore had not been supplanted in the theft of 2000 we would be doing more than putting our foot in it. Or putting it up others.
In regards to Bush/Alito and again I hope to remain behind on my research as long as good people are standing up for principles even though we may wonder where their feet are.
What got me to the two links above were their titles of course and thanks to a www.tompaine.com Again I post them preemptively(unread), but their titles should intrigue. The Alito Hearings: The Democrats Katrina should read The Constitution's or the Peoples' Katrina. And Gore says Bush Broke the Law With Spying pertains to the same substance, where means will trump meaning.
But to put a point on it, it may seem idiotic, it may be ideological, but it may be just about them. Meaning it may not be about founding fathers but about power and one's conscience. They think conscience is one and the same as con science. A true case of one is as one does.
But in regards to the last post, here is a hero which if I had heros would supplant Murtha. In fact if Gore had not been supplanted in the theft of 2000 we would be doing more than putting our foot in it. Or putting it up others.
In regards to Bush/Alito and again I hope to remain behind on my research as long as good people are standing up for principles even though we may wonder where their feet are.
What got me to the two links above were their titles of course and thanks to a www.tompaine.com Again I post them preemptively(unread), but their titles should intrigue. The Alito Hearings: The Democrats Katrina should read The Constitution's or the Peoples' Katrina. And Gore says Bush Broke the Law With Spying pertains to the same substance, where means will trump meaning.
But to put a point on it, it may seem idiotic, it may be ideological, but it may be just about them. Meaning it may not be about founding fathers but about power and one's conscience. They think conscience is one and the same as con science. A true case of one is as one does.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Book by it's cover, memo by it's title: historical?
At the time of this posting I am several great ideas and a few good sites behind in my postings and reading. But these two I could not resist posting preemptively. That is before reading, as the concepts seem to be worth it in their titles alone. I could refer to them as my hero and my idea. The former being Murtha's latest charge, the latter being what might be to come if Alito is slipped through. I will correct or amend myself if I am wrong, but they are Murtha says elections could end war and a writer Paul Rogat Loeb in a Truthout Perspective says Filibuster Bush, Impeach Alito. Now maybe I got the cart before the horse or Bush is jumping the Shark or I have flipped the couch, and if you aren’t sure what that means ask Dori Monson or Oprah Winfrey, but my first estimate was that we must stop anything Bush does if Alito is force through. But the premise could actually be that he should be impeached after he is rejected for the Supreme Court. Of course I could have read both of them it first, but it is late and it would ruin my premise that this is urgent.
[update edit 3-12-14]
[update edit 3-12-14]
Thursday, January 05, 2006
QCON
[Quick Comment On News or Questioning the CON.]
Paraphrasing Bush, look for a discussion of troop adjustments with the new Iraqi government.
Like when congress was briefed about illegal spying and the trashing of the constitution?
And Bush denies knowing Abramoff? Being a Pioneer in the Republican Party and raising $100,000 doesn't get you known or appreciated? The price must be much higher to get in the bubble.
Links later.
Paraphrasing Bush, look for a discussion of troop adjustments with the new Iraqi government.
Like when congress was briefed about illegal spying and the trashing of the constitution?
And Bush denies knowing Abramoff? Being a Pioneer in the Republican Party and raising $100,000 doesn't get you known or appreciated? The price must be much higher to get in the bubble.
Links later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)