Cheney's place as "Angler" has now been disclosed in a four-part series in the Washington Post, where "understanding" is the key word.
[note that there is a lot of hard work here, by others *]
What does the Vice-President's claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch do to earlier claims of executive privilege? I think it would fall under Unitary theory that Cheney and Bush have whatever powers Cheney has decided for them and Bush understands only that, not that it puts Cheney in charge of the whole ball of wax.
A few earlier post of mine on the loop as long as we are into geometry.
The Truth Apparent: A Mobius Lap
Running with Rhetoric
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality
Original Intent
Sorry for my own little four-part review(much shorter than the WaPo though, of which only three are out yet, and I've only read a few paragraphs), but as opposed to the "Angler" who approaches "the levers of power obliquely, skirting orderly lines of debate he once enforced as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford.", I must brink up my ealier tangents that have already visited the subjects but only touch a point on a curve.
From Randi's cite:*
House Democrats to cut funds for VP from Executive Branch. Raw Story
Senate challenge understanding as well. NY Times
Bush thinking (see above) "the law"
Press conference on "non issue" of oversight
On wire-taps by Judge
CIA of the going back to Nixon Era released.
Condemned or chosen to repeat.
GITMO A & B
HALLIBURTON A & B
Prosecutor Purge
Vote Caging: speaking of returns and locked up.
And off of AM1090 Seattle cite:
Democracy Now has Rocky Anderson as guest on the impeachment process.
Thanks to Randi Rhodes for the real "hard work", which I have not done yet by reading these, but getting them together is a start, and for you to continue the "hard work" as well. Of which, the first post indicates that Bush does not read much of what he signs from Cheney.
* This stems from a few days ago when this broke(the first link) and I was probably listening to Randi Rhodes and I thought, that if there is an EO (executive order)that Bush has signed and given their pattern of behavior, it does probably not apply to the President or whomever he choose not to appy it to, and probably didn't need to include a signing statement on his own EO as his privileges include that only he knows what he means. If that. And that is another imagined out or bunker of their mind. (I believe David Bender or Ring of Fire or a guest deserves note for the last reference.)
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
"Flat out lie..."
Ed Schultz is willing to go face to face with any of the Right.
"Right is between the middle and the left, not The Right."
Just a little bumper sticker idea I had.
But off of the Media Matters point earlier, The Right ownership of the media matters, in particular Talk Radio.
Ed Shultz throws down the challenge to Senator Inhoff to face him for a fact check.
"Right is between the middle and the left, not The Right."
Just a little bumper sticker idea I had.
But off of the Media Matters point earlier, The Right ownership of the media matters, in particular Talk Radio.
Ed Shultz throws down the challenge to Senator Inhoff to face him for a fact check.
Unity 08 / Bloomberg
NOT!
[The above is an edited version from my earlier post and I will add that the action/reactions of the candidates is a reference to not just the major party candidates, but those that choose to wander.
Of course Bloomberg was the topic of the last post. Here are a few random notes. Unity 08 has an opinion on the New York Mayor's run from the Republican party.
Local: Progressive blogging at Horsesass.org gives a perspective on Washington State issues.
National: Huffingtonpost.com must also be noted. And some media studies matter at Mediamatters.org
Hit and Run or Quick Comment on the news.
Tag! You're it.
But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the party actually gets things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner-take-all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]
[The above is an edited version from my earlier post and I will add that the action/reactions of the candidates is a reference to not just the major party candidates, but those that choose to wander.
Of course Bloomberg was the topic of the last post. Here are a few random notes. Unity 08 has an opinion on the New York Mayor's run from the Republican party.
Local: Progressive blogging at Horsesass.org gives a perspective on Washington State issues.
National: Huffingtonpost.com must also be noted. And some media studies matter at Mediamatters.org
Hit and Run or Quick Comment on the news.
Tag! You're it.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Who is running from the Bush administration?
The question was recently asked. Not Cheney, not Gonzalez, not Ashcroft, certainly not Rumsfeld.
But the serious answer is everyone. Everyone is running from the Bush administration, and now one is even running from the Republican party, if I did say so myself.
OK, he has not made it official, but a former Democrat, now former Republican, certainly fits the bill as bipartisan and his money makes him independent, but none of these alone is necessarily good.
But the serious answer is everyone. Everyone is running from the Bush administration, and now one is even running from the Republican party, if I did say so myself.
OK, he has not made it official, but a former Democrat, now former Republican, certainly fits the bill as bipartisan and his money makes him independent, but none of these alone is necessarily good.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Presently Pre-
Occupied with matters closer to home...
I don't have time for this re- search, or rather more than a glance at it.
Fukuyama on "The U.S. has basically failed in the major objective of it's foreign policy." My take, "liberal democracy" is not as he knows it. In other words, we have more "hard work" on it at home before we export it.
Recommended reading in this area...
Center for American Progress: The Fall of the Bush Empire.
I suspect the above link is not specific and I will follow this up later, with the meany embedded links in this from the Center for American Progress.
[Links now embedded,but not read.]
I don't have time for this re- search, or rather more than a glance at it.
Fukuyama on "The U.S. has basically failed in the major objective of it's foreign policy." My take, "liberal democracy" is not as he knows it. In other words, we have more "hard work" on it at home before we export it.
Recommended reading in this area...
Center for American Progress: The Fall of the Bush Empire.
"If there’s one empire I want built, it's the George Bush empire," said former Bush adviser and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman in 2005 [One Party Country, p. 102].In this effort to spawn an empire in the federal government, the White House and the RNC have opened up unprecedented lines of communications and have potentially violated federal law in doing so. In a recent investigation into the Bush administration's use and destruction of e-mails from RNC accounts, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) found there may be "extensive" violations of the Presidential Records Act, which stipulates that the President take "all steps as may be necessary to assure" that the activities of the White House "are adequately documented." "This should be a matter of grave concern for anyone who values open government and the preservation of an accurate historical record," said Waxman. Also under investigation is the White House's violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political use of federal government property. The Oversight Committee uncovered serious abuses of both laws by the White House in order to secure electoral victories.
I suspect the above link is not specific and I will follow this up later, with the meany embedded links in this from the Center for American Progress.
[Links now embedded,but not read.]
Monday, June 18, 2007
Notes from Al-Qaeda
"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Over our head.
"hortatory subjunctive" is the latest excuse. Again, I believe I saw this coming and had touched on a similar issue just recently.[A & B] The above link seems rather authoritative but a more definitive explanation is even less an excuse. But it may be in the ballpark but still an out if you look at the "deliberative subjunctive".[The definition just above "hortatory subjunctive".] The similar field I hit from may be strike one and two. OK, I am carrying a baseball field metaphor a little too far and I am not the only one swinging and missing.
But "Give 'em a break" [A] is in the area of a conditional reference in a similar manner that is not necessarily suggestive. "all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around"
But "failure is not an option" [B] is a declarative grammatical oxymoron. Still I am only doing this off the top of my head, and may just now have gotten a little closer to the field than simply a "true oxymoron" [as I had noted.]
Oh well, the point is that there seems building evidence that they [the adminstration] have couched every action and intention in confusion, even when they are at their clearest. This could be just a result of creative CTR,(covering their rear), but I am talking about their preemptive confusion and grammar.
Note that the two previous examples are not just about me or them, but some of us on the critical side [can] get lost in the rhetoric too, while sometimes their grammar is more reliable or at least carefully calculated. [The truth leaks.]
[Also the biblical preemptive excuse. "let us" does not seem to be recalled.]
[Bracketed material was added the following day, except for the preceding line.]
But "Give 'em a break" [A] is in the area of a conditional reference in a similar manner that is not necessarily suggestive. "all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around"
But "failure is not an option" [B] is a declarative grammatical oxymoron. Still I am only doing this off the top of my head, and may just now have gotten a little closer to the field than simply a "true oxymoron" [as I had noted.]
Oh well, the point is that there seems building evidence that they [the adminstration] have couched every action and intention in confusion, even when they are at their clearest. This could be just a result of creative CTR,(covering their rear), but I am talking about their preemptive confusion and grammar.
Note that the two previous examples are not just about me or them, but some of us on the critical side [can] get lost in the rhetoric too, while sometimes their grammar is more reliable or at least carefully calculated. [The truth leaks.]
[Also the biblical preemptive excuse. "let us" does not seem to be recalled.]
[Bracketed material was added the following day, except for the preceding line.]
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Happy Supoenas Day!
Embedded in the previous post is the Huffington Post piece, announcing the incremental steps being taken to hold the administration accountable.
"Our only hope."
My posts connected to this important day
Election Fixes 3-11-07[LOCAL]
SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal 3-14-07 [LOCAL]
What's going on? 3-15-07
What will happen. 3-15-07
What has happened. 3-16-07
About one week later:
Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors 3-21-07
Smoking Gun II the Smoke and Mirrors 3-26-07
Now: Listen to Rep. Linda Sanchez on The Ed Schultz Show about the subpoenas necessary to follow the bouncing U.S. Attorneys and the trail of accountability.
"Our only hope."
My posts connected to this important day
Election Fixes 3-11-07[LOCAL]
SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal 3-14-07 [LOCAL]
What's going on? 3-15-07
What will happen. 3-15-07
What has happened. 3-16-07
About one week later:
Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors 3-21-07
Smoking Gun II the Smoke and Mirrors 3-26-07
Now: Listen to Rep. Linda Sanchez on The Ed Schultz Show about the subpoenas necessary to follow the bouncing U.S. Attorneys and the trail of accountability.
GOLEFT TV
Finally: Real News Featuring video from progressive hosts. (Some from Air America Radio)
The choir grows. (The local affiliate)
[subtitled: STOP THE LOOPINESS! ]
But hold on to your seat, following these links can be challenging to your sense of peace.
Example: and this is a moderate one
Air America (select program)
The Randi Rhodes Show
Senate Democrats introduce Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
The vicious cycle completed
"as long as..."
NSPD51
But I don't have time for the ride.
An even worse ride:Plan Ready for Iran
On watch list for some time
Science Fiction or...
It might be one thing for Empire to win, but who will be the loser, even if it could? Not China or other powers, no matter what they choose. Failure is too scary to imagine, but progress is even scarier work. And with preemption on the table?
"Help me Obi-Wan///"
There is no secret message there or suggested solution, but it may not be just about "the force", but every player has a part and countries and corporations seem to play for keeps.
"As long as" who is the dictator?
"Failure is not on option..." is the most true oxymoron *. Failure is a result we must live or die with. In the case of the NSPD51, if failure is not preempted, or caused, it is at least incentivised and to some rewarded.
[apologies for a linky piece, all of which I have not read, and for any excessively creative wording *]
[It is funny how I seem to form a rather loopy cycle myself, as I had intended to insert somewhere a Huffington Post link. Not that particular one, but just the site in general. Speaking of Generals: Wesley Clark. Speaking of failures. Putin's eyes, which Bush looked into. (see paragraph before last "other powers") Our only hope.]
THANK YOU: Progressives Everywhere, in particular Huffington Post and Common Dreams
Speaking of forutituous links. The Telegraph and mine
with a search of "telegraph" and search "blows" it. Speaking of dreams. It is about the nightmare.
Democrats are about the American dream, Republicans are about keeping it that. And even the dream is a nightmare for the world.
* there is probably a better word for it, but then look at what we are dealing with.
[11:08 AM - - As I have noted, I have not read or reread all of the above links, and there are even some that I had intended to, but I must add this one,{Illiberal Moderates: The Global Swing Vote} by Amitai Etzioni - - a piece which I did just read and suggest caution in reading and sorting it out, but I do agree with it's approach. I have been familiar with his work prior to 1995, and that may have been important in my seeing the "grand misconception" even before I knew who was promoting it. Re: the misconceptions of Huntington and Fukuyama.]
The choir grows. (The local affiliate)
[subtitled: STOP THE LOOPINESS! ]
But hold on to your seat, following these links can be challenging to your sense of peace.
Example: and this is a moderate one
Air America (select program)
The Randi Rhodes Show
Senate Democrats introduce Habeus Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
The vicious cycle completed
"as long as..."
NSPD51
But I don't have time for the ride.
An even worse ride:Plan Ready for Iran
On watch list for some time
Science Fiction or...
It might be one thing for Empire to win, but who will be the loser, even if it could? Not China or other powers, no matter what they choose. Failure is too scary to imagine, but progress is even scarier work. And with preemption on the table?
"Help me Obi-Wan///"
There is no secret message there or suggested solution, but it may not be just about "the force", but every player has a part and countries and corporations seem to play for keeps.
"As long as" who is the dictator?
"Failure is not on option..." is the most true oxymoron *. Failure is a result we must live or die with. In the case of the NSPD51, if failure is not preempted, or caused, it is at least incentivised and to some rewarded.
[apologies for a linky piece, all of which I have not read, and for any excessively creative wording *]
[It is funny how I seem to form a rather loopy cycle myself, as I had intended to insert somewhere a Huffington Post link. Not that particular one, but just the site in general. Speaking of Generals: Wesley Clark. Speaking of failures. Putin's eyes, which Bush looked into. (see paragraph before last "other powers") Our only hope.]
THANK YOU: Progressives Everywhere, in particular Huffington Post and Common Dreams
Speaking of forutituous links. The Telegraph and mine
with a search of "telegraph" and search "blows" it. Speaking of dreams. It is about the nightmare.
Democrats are about the American dream, Republicans are about keeping it that. And even the dream is a nightmare for the world.
* there is probably a better word for it, but then look at what we are dealing with.
[11:08 AM - - As I have noted, I have not read or reread all of the above links, and there are even some that I had intended to, but I must add this one,{Illiberal Moderates: The Global Swing Vote} by Amitai Etzioni - - a piece which I did just read and suggest caution in reading and sorting it out, but I do agree with it's approach. I have been familiar with his work prior to 1995, and that may have been important in my seeing the "grand misconception" even before I knew who was promoting it. Re: the misconceptions of Huntington and Fukuyama.]
Friday, June 08, 2007
In Principle
the proposed cooperation (joint missile defense system) between Putin and Bush is interesting. The last word is from Bush who finds the offer "interesting", the first two are from Hillary Clinton who does not oppose missile defense "in principle". But that does not mean it is likely to proceed or advisable to move forward with or without cooperation, for cause. Just like non-proliferation has not proceeded very well along side advances in weapons research and production, missile defense will be seen as offensive, especially with preemption as a policy. If cooperation cannot succeed in diplomatic pressure, it is not likely to work well under escalation.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Give 'em a break!
New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Science Fiction Writers
Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.
But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".
Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.
If you don't go there here is the segment.
Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.
[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]
[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:
... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]
But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".
Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.
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.
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.
If you don't go there here is the segment.
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?
Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.
[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]
[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:
One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:
More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.
... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)