Thom Hartmann continues on the economy . Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter has evolved to the point of doing no good. Man and his government, that is, in neo-con hands or that of the truly free and amoral corporation. Evolution seems to have been demonstrated here, as well as the problem of will. For if man* determines his purpose he halts progress, for the survival of the fittest stops working as well, and corporations reach the top of the food chain. Will being, the freedom to choose between good and evil, with corporations having no responsibility.
*Not to be sexist, but just the reference is to the reality. Also the point here is that some men decide and others just need to survive, and let alone their freedom to decide.
[italics bold 6-1-07 edited and noted in next post]
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
In honor of those who died for our cause.
Just what is our cause? Is it the body of political thought arising from John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? As Thom Hartmann summarizes the alternative, that man is either basically good and merits his freedoms or that man is basically evil and needs restraint. The latter (Hobbes) wrote of this in The Leviathan about the need for a powerful state to restrain what even religion failed to check. Thom's guest, Michael D. Tanner, author of Leviathan on the Right
It is my view that The New Leviathan is actually The Corporation ** (circa Globalization * ). But the bottom line is that the nature of man (and I leave the nature of women aside)is a duality. Now the nature of woman may be the countebalance or lacking component, for are we not talking the balance of good and evil and the scale of justice depending on the notion of competition and cooperation.
Now the above may be too metaphorical. But for more to sort:
The Logic of "Leviathan": Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes.
Natural Right and History
Note: Being Memorial Day, The Thom Hartmann Show was a "best of". But this post is realtime, yet closes an interesting loop. The Leviathan in my mind was not a monster, but just a creation of man called government, while the corporation is also a creation of man and not supernatural, nor/let alone an individual. What would more honor the dead, than to know what we are fighting for?
* [the corporation / globalization loop and the part we play or don't]
[** May 25th, 2009: Corporations are only the Leviathan in terms of the fear that is implied from something big as the state is to be feared when unchecked. But they are both necessary within limits.]
[10:39 AM The Rhetoric of Leviathan led me to further summarize (rhetorically), what is the connection? "Hard work" as in "War is"... and who does it and what is the nature of the state of economics?]
Just what is our cause? Is it the body of political thought arising from John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? As Thom Hartmann summarizes the alternative, that man is either basically good and merits his freedoms or that man is basically evil and needs restraint. The latter (Hobbes) wrote of this in The Leviathan about the need for a powerful state to restrain what even religion failed to check. Thom's guest, Michael D. Tanner, author of Leviathan on the Right
It is my view that The New Leviathan is actually The Corporation ** (circa Globalization * ). But the bottom line is that the nature of man (and I leave the nature of women aside)is a duality. Now the nature of woman may be the countebalance or lacking component, for are we not talking the balance of good and evil and the scale of justice depending on the notion of competition and cooperation.
Now the above may be too metaphorical. But for more to sort:
The Logic of "Leviathan": Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes.
Natural Right and History
Note: Being Memorial Day, The Thom Hartmann Show was a "best of". But this post is realtime, yet closes an interesting loop. The Leviathan in my mind was not a monster, but just a creation of man called government, while the corporation is also a creation of man and not supernatural, nor/let alone an individual. What would more honor the dead, than to know what we are fighting for?
* [the corporation / globalization loop and the part we play or don't]
[** May 25th, 2009: Corporations are only the Leviathan in terms of the fear that is implied from something big as the state is to be feared when unchecked. But they are both necessary within limits.]
[10:39 AM The Rhetoric of Leviathan led me to further summarize (rhetorically), what is the connection? "Hard work" as in "War is"... and who does it and what is the nature of the state of economics?]
Friday, May 25, 2007
Decider Stays Course.
But I fail to see how The Decider's veto is not THE ACTION that WOULD HAVE denied funding while Democrats did send the president more than he requested. It is hard to see that this is not a win for the president and a loss for the country, but the funding is only through September and domestic aid was reinserted.
SPEAKING OF REINSERTED:
I will pull up this...
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to 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.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
BACK TO THE PRESENT:
Bush was warned that war in Iraq would boost terrorism.
Bush twice admonished reporters that al-Qaida is "a threat to your children
Lastly I will reference a gut check.
Just before that one.
Between those.
SPEAKING OF REINSERTED:
I will pull up this...
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to 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.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
BACK TO THE PRESENT:
Bush was warned that war in Iraq would boost terrorism.
Bush twice admonished reporters that al-Qaida is "a threat to your children
Lastly I will reference a gut check.
Just before that one.
Between those.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Culture War
(Humorous side swipes.)
Bush is a character with probably a spit personality or other problem. But unfortunately the two characters are fictional. Captain Picard and Larry the cable guy. He flip flops from "Make it so" to "Get 'er done".
Of this Neo-Con administration they are certainly no borg.*
Note: Hit and Run (Label) is similar to QCON label meaning Quick Comment On the News.
Comment Two: On potential Newt Gingrich candidacy and comment by Randi Rhodes about him not getting the support of Neo-Cons or the Bush backers... He is the natural heir to the policy of Hit and Run, his comments are carefully crafted to seem to be critical yet stay the course of the War of Terror.
* [5-23-07]Just like Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy... but borg is a Startrek reference to a Being Organized or Best Organization at least in my understanding if not in the creators intentions. Now Q was another being.
Bush is a character with probably a spit personality or other problem. But unfortunately the two characters are fictional. Captain Picard and Larry the cable guy. He flip flops from "Make it so" to "Get 'er done".
Of this Neo-Con administration they are certainly no borg.*
Note: Hit and Run (Label) is similar to QCON label meaning Quick Comment On the News.
Comment Two: On potential Newt Gingrich candidacy and comment by Randi Rhodes about him not getting the support of Neo-Cons or the Bush backers... He is the natural heir to the policy of Hit and Run, his comments are carefully crafted to seem to be critical yet stay the course of the War of Terror.
* [5-23-07]Just like Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy... but borg is a Startrek reference to a Being Organized or Best Organization at least in my understanding if not in the creators intentions. Now Q was another being.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Air America Radio 2.0
celebrates with a series of interviews of 35 national leaders.
I will celebrate with a portion of an email to a local leader.
Mission Possible Or "heckuva job".
Before I had even read this * (Don't Blame Bush, by Paul Krugman), the reference in the debate came to mind,(the Jack Bauer moment) where the Republicans jumped on the idea that things are solved "above the law" as in the show "24". Just after September 11th, Bush took a swipe at the "Hollywood types" suggesting that they be more helpful with their creativity and come up with some scenarios to fight terrorism. But they are so culturally illiterate that they must not even watch the old shows that were already "out there"(X-Files) not to mentiion, Mission Impossible, and miss the fact that they are not only fiction but they rely on the presumption of having the intelligence and continuing investigations. Or are they? They are probably some of the characters in those shows. Not only is Jack Bauer just another North or Liddy, but Cheney and Rove are no "Briggs and Phelps", let alone the idea that their cast of characters are limited by loyalty to ideology over talent or principles.
I have been busy with some business of my own, ( I will have to catch up on your email later) but have not let alone work in this area which I will send under separate cover, retitled "Mission Possible".
*(not more than into the third paragraph)
I will celebrate with a portion of an email to a local leader.
Mission Possible Or "heckuva job".
Before I had even read this * (Don't Blame Bush, by Paul Krugman), the reference in the debate came to mind,(the Jack Bauer moment) where the Republicans jumped on the idea that things are solved "above the law" as in the show "24". Just after September 11th, Bush took a swipe at the "Hollywood types" suggesting that they be more helpful with their creativity and come up with some scenarios to fight terrorism. But they are so culturally illiterate that they must not even watch the old shows that were already "out there"(X-Files) not to mentiion, Mission Impossible, and miss the fact that they are not only fiction but they rely on the presumption of having the intelligence and continuing investigations. Or are they? They are probably some of the characters in those shows. Not only is Jack Bauer just another North or Liddy, but Cheney and Rove are no "Briggs and Phelps", let alone the idea that their cast of characters are limited by loyalty to ideology over talent or principles.
I have been busy with some business of my own, ( I will have to catch up on your email later) but have not let alone work in this area which I will send under separate cover, retitled "Mission Possible".
*(not more than into the third paragraph)
Saturday, May 19, 2007
"intolerable truths"
are what Pat Buchanan called Ron Paul's "extraordinary statement" which is what Rudy Giuliani called them.
I will also note that Ed Schultz claims the possibility of more than a third party. Earlier I had noted the contrast between Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche in their coming to a party with a different approach, but Ed finds the immigration bill as a potential for break outs. Meanwhile I forgot to mention the "break ins" of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Not to mention Mr. Inconvenient Truth himself.
But I would suggest that some of the candidates talk about merging their tickets. Now that would present it's own difficulties but no more than Democrats and Republicans splitting off from their "party" for a Unity08.
Maybe the debates could be shuffled to facilitate some mixing up. Bloomberg/Sanders Hagel/Liebermann
Now I know I'm mixed up, but just in the break down. It was mainly a combination of some independents thrown in with some Unity08 potentials.
FOR ME TO READ LATER MAYBE:
The Year of the Third Force by Howard Fineman
A Third Way? by Elenor Clift
MY EARLIER TAKES
ONE (see Fourth Way)
and TWO "the voodoo that y$$ do"
I will also note that Ed Schultz claims the possibility of more than a third party. Earlier I had noted the contrast between Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche in their coming to a party with a different approach, but Ed finds the immigration bill as a potential for break outs. Meanwhile I forgot to mention the "break ins" of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Not to mention Mr. Inconvenient Truth himself.
But I would suggest that some of the candidates talk about merging their tickets. Now that would present it's own difficulties but no more than Democrats and Republicans splitting off from their "party" for a Unity08.
Maybe the debates could be shuffled to facilitate some mixing up. Bloomberg/Sanders Hagel/Liebermann
Now I know I'm mixed up, but just in the break down. It was mainly a combination of some independents thrown in with some Unity08 potentials.
FOR ME TO READ LATER MAYBE:
The Year of the Third Force by Howard Fineman
A Third Way? by Elenor Clift
MY EARLIER TAKES
ONE (see Fourth Way)
and TWO "the voodoo that y$$ do"
Friday, May 18, 2007
Real News
Media Matters
Think Progress
Reality Comedy v. Faux News
Quick Comment On News or Quick Con [QCON]
At this point NBC is the only Major Network to air the "Hospital Drama".
GE: "They bring good things to light"
That is why: "No news is good news."
But you would think someone would pick up on a Hospital/Justice/"Slasher" * Reality Show.
*[May 30th, 2007 explaination may be needed as I am now hearing Thom Hartmann play the hospital scene, that the "Slasher" reference is to the constitution.]
Think Progress
Reality Comedy v. Faux News
Quick Comment On News or Quick Con [QCON]
At this point NBC is the only Major Network to air the "Hospital Drama".
GE: "They bring good things to light"
That is why: "No news is good news."
But you would think someone would pick up on a Hospital/Justice/"Slasher" * Reality Show.
*[May 30th, 2007 explaination may be needed as I am now hearing Thom Hartmann play the hospital scene, that the "Slasher" reference is to the constitution.]
Limeny Snickers *
John Humphrys Tussles on Today with John Bolton
Listen to the 20 minute interview where Iraq and Iran and much more are more than discussed.
Iran, "up to regime change", "war as a last resort", questions indicate leftist anti-Americanism?
* a cultural reference to a fortunate event by play of words (A news cast had John Bolton as Chief of Staff meeting the Dems over the Iraq funding, but upon googling the error, finding it should have been Josh Bolten, found a BBC interview yesterday of John Bolton, by limey John Humphrys of Radio 4 thanks to the Guardian
Listen to the 20 minute interview where Iraq and Iran and much more are more than discussed.
Iran, "up to regime change", "war as a last resort", questions indicate leftist anti-Americanism?
* a cultural reference to a fortunate event by play of words (A news cast had John Bolton as Chief of Staff meeting the Dems over the Iraq funding, but upon googling the error, finding it should have been Josh Bolten, found a BBC interview yesterday of John Bolton, by limey John Humphrys of Radio 4 thanks to the Guardian
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Justice Steam Roller
See Video regarding wiretaps.
Card and Gonzalez pressure Ashcroft in hospital, to approve an illegal wiretap program.
My posts one month a ago yesterday:
An Important Day in History
the day before
the onset of investigations.
What will happen.
and
Earlier that week.
THE POINT? Power. Fix elections and justice.
Card and Gonzalez pressure Ashcroft in hospital, to approve an illegal wiretap program.
My posts one month a ago yesterday:
An Important Day in History
the day before
the onset of investigations.
What will happen.
and
Earlier that week.
THE POINT? Power. Fix elections and justice.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Truth Tellers
Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.
That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.
Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.
*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)
**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]
That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.
Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.
*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)
**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Senator Gravel on The Ed Schultz Show
Listen to the Senator interviewed by Ed Schultz. His campaign got a boost from the first debate and I concurr with a lot he has said. "The congress is more powerful than the president." Gravel has "the kind of toughness that they have to have..." and suggests it is the type of leadership we need.
Also on The Ed Schultz Show there is an interview with Former Major General John Batiste on some targeted ads by Vote Vets and on the "big mistake" in Iraq.
"If the president won't listen, the congress must." Major General Paul Eaton.
Also on The Ed Schultz Show there is an interview with Former Major General John Batiste on some targeted ads by Vote Vets and on the "big mistake" in Iraq.
"If the president won't listen, the congress must." Major General Paul Eaton.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Looking Back, and Moving On.
Thanks for Thom Hartmann reference to Naomi Klein Year Zero
A few years later,something I just googled up on the Unified Model of Reality which Bush violates. [America's Darwin Awards and a Philosophy Assignment
by Martin Schönfeld / Commondreams.org]
Which fits my PBMP "Power Broker Mountain Project" which is about how things work and it is not just "trickle down". The three branches of government are just one example of how things should work and what it is about. The point is progress and the people. You can't "trickle down" till you get there and try getting there without the system (structure, environment, culture) and other people.
The points of my "Tetrahedron Model of Reality" is basically the fields of physics, philosophy, and psychology which represent forces, thoughts and feelings but the point is the big project.
And now John Nichols: "Bush may have been wrong about war presidents being popular." On "The Genius of Impeachment".
Enough for now, I have my own reality to work on, for the time being.
A few years later,something I just googled up on the Unified Model of Reality which Bush violates. [America's Darwin Awards and a Philosophy Assignment
by Martin Schönfeld / Commondreams.org]
Which fits my PBMP "Power Broker Mountain Project" which is about how things work and it is not just "trickle down". The three branches of government are just one example of how things should work and what it is about. The point is progress and the people. You can't "trickle down" till you get there and try getting there without the system (structure, environment, culture) and other people.
The points of my "Tetrahedron Model of Reality" is basically the fields of physics, philosophy, and psychology which represent forces, thoughts and feelings but the point is the big project.
And now John Nichols: "Bush may have been wrong about war presidents being popular." On "The Genius of Impeachment".
Enough for now, I have my own reality to work on, for the time being.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
"constitutionally obscene" Department
Voter Fraud over Election Fraud
THANK YOU KEITH OLBERMANN Congress Considers Broadening Justice Department Inquiry
By Greg Gordon and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
GO RACHELL MADDOW * AND
THANK YOU CONGRESS and McClatchy Newspapers
And Truthout.org
*Olbermann discusses with Rachell Maddow the McClatchy and AP articles on congressional inquiries into the Justice Department.
THANK YOU KEITH OLBERMANN Congress Considers Broadening Justice Department Inquiry
By Greg Gordon and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
GO RACHELL MADDOW * AND
THANK YOU CONGRESS and McClatchy Newspapers
And Truthout.org
*Olbermann discusses with Rachell Maddow the McClatchy and AP articles on congressional inquiries into the Justice Department.
If you investigate...
they will go.
Recent impeachment polls indicate that XX%(30 to 40 something) of the people support impeachment. That is actually down from earlier polls indicating more specific support for impeachment on wiretapping and lies about Iraq. So called "liberal media" MSNBC poll (not scientific) shows a surprising 88%. My surprise is at the total response, and that people who use that source still are. But then I looked.
MY POINT: A well* framed question about the charges should indicate stronger support for impeachment, and if investigations are started voters will come and the guilty will go.
Point two: GO PELOSI TWO!- I support the idea of supporting [ correction suing] Bush over signing statements, but why has it not been done for the 700 or 800 earlier statements, and I cannot believe that standing is required to be established to hold him accountable, if it is the case that it is political, that is the reason for the above push.
If you build a field of facts, the people will come. That is politics as it should be and the media as it hasn't been. It can work that way on any cause and those most important are changing course and holding all the administration accountable.
* well = including charges that have been admitted to, phrased as "if/then", explaining that the process is an investigation.
Recent impeachment polls indicate that XX%(30 to 40 something) of the people support impeachment. That is actually down from earlier polls indicating more specific support for impeachment on wiretapping and lies about Iraq. So called "liberal media" MSNBC poll (not scientific) shows a surprising 88%. My surprise is at the total response, and that people who use that source still are. But then I looked.
MY POINT: A well* framed question about the charges should indicate stronger support for impeachment, and if investigations are started voters will come and the guilty will go.
Point two: GO PELOSI TWO!- I support the idea of supporting [ correction suing] Bush over signing statements, but why has it not been done for the 700 or 800 earlier statements, and I cannot believe that standing is required to be established to hold him accountable, if it is the case that it is political, that is the reason for the above push.
If you build a field of facts, the people will come. That is politics as it should be and the media as it hasn't been. It can work that way on any cause and those most important are changing course and holding all the administration accountable.
* well = including charges that have been admitted to, phrased as "if/then", explaining that the process is an investigation.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
GO SPEAKER PELOSI !
"The president is wrong" again and again.
The administration must "get a clue" after 5 years of failed policy.
The administration must "get a clue" after 5 years of failed policy.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Fearnauts
There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.
So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.
Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.
Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.
Dedicated to the Praxis Peace Institute
This poem was crafted just before the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The victims to which I also dedicate this)but it did not feel right to submit at the time, with the seeming implication of the first line, however there is no good and evil, but man's nature. (This is culturally precise(CP) given the view of women's nature)
I also dedicate this to the Great White line-up at the Republican debate last night. Not that there is anything wrong with power, but force is not the only power. If any of them are even half the Roosevelt who launched the Great White Fleet, they are the half that carried the "big stick" and only half understand the other Roosevelt and "the only thing we have to fear". They are no Roosevelt, not even half of either.
[5-10-07 reference back to link Council of Nice and a new link on Kant(as in The Liaison Report Between Common Sense and Kant
but reading it is hard work, so I will add- - what is wrong with faith
in reason and criticism and a process for progress ?]
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.
So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.
Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.
Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.
Dedicated to the Praxis Peace Institute
This poem was crafted just before the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The victims to which I also dedicate this)but it did not feel right to submit at the time, with the seeming implication of the first line, however there is no good and evil, but man's nature. (This is culturally precise(CP) given the view of women's nature)
I also dedicate this to the Great White line-up at the Republican debate last night. Not that there is anything wrong with power, but force is not the only power. If any of them are even half the Roosevelt who launched the Great White Fleet, they are the half that carried the "big stick" and only half understand the other Roosevelt and "the only thing we have to fear". They are no Roosevelt, not even half of either.
[5-10-07 reference back to link Council of Nice and a new link on Kant(as in The Liaison Report Between Common Sense and Kant
but reading it is hard work, so I will add- - what is wrong with faith
in reason and criticism and a process for progress ?]
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Pressure Is?
...should be on MSNBC! But...
If MSNBC wants to eject opinion into their pieces they should note which of their authors contribute such propaganda so that readers can turn elsewhere. Just because they deign to have different perspectives does not mean they are any closer or farther from "fair and balanced". To inject the opinion that it is not Bush that failed to "finance troops in a time of war" does injustice to their profession if they consider it journalism.
(further context... or Con Text?)
The pressure is on the troops and Bush is putting it there by vetoing a financing bill that was a compromise from what may come next. Options? Sending a bill back that simply separates the Military from the Domestic supplemental. Sending a tougher bill possibly with non-"artificial time-lines" or leaving the pressure on the Republicans to override the next veto. Oh, and the President did not just veto funding for the troops but for funds for addressing domestic supplemental needs.
...mainly on them (Democrats) to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.
If MSNBC wants to eject opinion into their pieces they should note which of their authors contribute such propaganda so that readers can turn elsewhere. Just because they deign to have different perspectives does not mean they are any closer or farther from "fair and balanced". To inject the opinion that it is not Bush that failed to "finance troops in a time of war" does injustice to their profession if they consider it journalism.
(further context... or Con Text?)
Lawmakers in both parties agree that a workable compromise is a huge challenge in the coming days or weeks. Because Democrats control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.
The pressure is on the troops and Bush is putting it there by vetoing a financing bill that was a compromise from what may come next. Options? Sending a bill back that simply separates the Military from the Domestic supplemental. Sending a tougher bill possibly with non-"artificial time-lines" or leaving the pressure on the Republicans to override the next veto. Oh, and the President did not just veto funding for the troops but for funds for addressing domestic supplemental needs.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
War Crimes?
Slam Dunk!
I must note that my Benched Man Award comments on Tenet was based solely on my viewing of the 60 Minutes interview, not the above link. In particular "...slam dunk, his reference was to building a case for the war."
So, Tenet was "the decider" who crafted the intelligence for "the decider", who went to war based on "conservative estimates".
This still begs many questions:
When did preemption start and when was it leaked?
More questions which should have been considered.
Given that the president was blunt about his intentions, war was not the last resort.
Stephanie Miller and several sources agreed with the take that "slam dunk" was about selling the war, while more than one source referred to "war crimes" in regards to this misuse of intelligence.
Impeachment should not be on the table to influence the president,
it should be on the table because it is the right thing to do. It is also a political thing to do, but the idea that some will not vote for impeachment is just political and is part of what must be brought to light.
I must note that my Benched Man Award comments on Tenet was based solely on my viewing of the 60 Minutes interview, not the above link. In particular "...slam dunk, his reference was to building a case for the war."
So, Tenet was "the decider" who crafted the intelligence for "the decider", who went to war based on "conservative estimates".
This still begs many questions:
When did preemption start and when was it leaked?
More questions which should have been considered.
Given that the president was blunt about his intentions, war was not the last resort.
Stephanie Miller and several sources agreed with the take that "slam dunk" was about selling the war, while more than one source referred to "war crimes" in regards to this misuse of intelligence.
Impeachment should not be on the table to influence the president,
it should be on the table because it is the right thing to do. It is also a political thing to do, but the idea that some will not vote for impeachment is just political and is part of what must be brought to light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)