QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.

Return of the Fed

update[But for Bush? Separation of words and meaning. Harry Reid did not say "but for me" but the Fed did say but for you.
{re:sabbatical timeline in question for this post}

[[But for Bush Inserted 10-31-10]
[Happy Halloween!]
[Mid-sentence construction of a comment which I will not now paraphrase, as I never finished the sentence, the term "hortatorical* injunctive" came to mind, and a quick search found this. My point is that it is just as valid to say that Reid said "but for me" as it is to say that "separation of church and state" are truly not in the constitution.]

*11-2-11 spelling corrected to "hortatorical" "but for" missing c. Meanwhile there is an important hortatorical point embedded in "this" that follows. [Weaver of hortatorical injunctive and subjunctive. The cause and effect of government, let alone the media.]

QCON: TruthOut

Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:

The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.

While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.

For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.

What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.

I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.

In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times

Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial

McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post

[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]

[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.

OH WHAT A WEB

WE UNWEAVE

In following up on the matters in the last two posts, and hearing Thom Hartmann quote Dwight Eisenhower, in just looking for a phone contact I found it.

Dwight Eisenhower was a remarkable man, and should have been listened to and still should be heard.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,

While still just a man and words are just words, there are dreams and there are nightmares, which should we work for? Now that is not to say that some of these noted items he would not say went too far, there are those that say they need to be reformed when really they mean to replace with privatization which really means corporatization, which is not a far cry from the military-industrial complex he also warned of...

A picture's worth 1000 words?

[Italics: Edited next day.]What are actions?
These are rhetorical question(s). Ones which are only the beginning of the dialogue, not that I will extend or finish it. But in relation to the issue of rhetoric and politics and the meaning of words, it might be kept in mind, that if it is so,[**] then what does a symbol or icon say that the politician can't for whatever reason say? And in many cases the participants and our freedoms, in relation to the dialogue and the media only confound this rhetoric or meaning as to the various positions of responsibility or fields of endeavor(arts if you will) they cover.

[AND...How many words is a link worth? Let alone a leap*? I say this in regards to the hopeful turning point, in regards to this walk-back. Not that I have anything to walk back, but in context to consideration of a possible change in regards to the aforementioned arts.]

* let alone a name: Tucker? But actually my intent was to note: "the value of the unexpressed thought" under "mixing it up."[see second video: Mediaite]
[Main context? Irony of what counts.]

[And I don't mean to find reason in everything, but the words and intent embedded (and parsed and paraphrased)here are for all our consideration.]

[**] the pictures worth
[1-12-11 In relation to edited above: President Obama has been accused of using violent language in regards to, in a knife fight bringing a gun. It was a metaphor. We are not in knife fights. It is even a poor metaphor. But when that causes their opponent to use stronger language, that tie in issues, misplace facts and use imagages. Then they are responsible for even worse metaphor. That does not mean it will be easy to change things. Using the original to make matters worse, is oddly justified, but only by way of extending the metaphor and being claimed victim of it and feeling their freedoms threatened. Some people apparently can't handle extending metaphors, and they are not even always meant to be extended. But again it seems that by extending them, they intend to break the original metaphor, for the battle of our ideas.]

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to the Democrats
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.

[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]

[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:

It would seem to me that Congress should be able to "get 'er done" without the 60 votes. Either as some suggest by "going nuclear" (I am against Nuclear Power but) by blowing up the filibuster or somehow utilizing a reconciliation or conference process to do it. Failing that, there are probably enough progressives to kill the bill, but that may not be necessary[or advised**]. Removing the mandate, just might put this in the category of a budget issue under reconciliation, but failing to remove the mandate, might just put this on the track for constitutional review and modification, where it is imagined that a public option just might be the only option. It just might be wise for the Republicans not to push the constitutional issue and settle for a public option now, possibly with a 10-15% buyin margin on Medicare. In the alternative, giving states an option to have a public* plan, and freeing those to sell out of state, might be another crack in the (just say no)[***] armor.

[TruthOut/McClatchy -- Steve Clemons/Huffington}

* one Representative mentioned that the option would have a name other than public, and that could just be non-profit or within the caps imposed.

[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]

[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]

RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]

Obama Leaks

Some might say he reeks,
but I say that there is more to the issue than liquids or gases.
Pump out the rhyme. This is just a leed into two points which I cannot tell where they came from.
1. the debt does not matter
2. social security does not matter to the debt
3. GE I did not know I was going to stick with the meta4, but of course both matter. And the underlying points I want to make, which I cannot source particularly is that the President's plan when accepted will establish one and two. In other words, the kind of debt matters(tax cuts v. investments) and an opening of the "lock box" that makes congress accountable for social security regardless of debt. Neither are easy to say, leak of the leeds** or reek of the leads, but taxes do matter to everyone, but so do budget calculations and the big picture whether you are a person, corporation, state or fed/global.

[And please note that I have not really made much of the Wikileaks controversy, as I do not support the methods and reasons for its existence. While we do need to have better journalism and government, I am not sure it will help in the scheme of things. Rupert Murdock as a source of inspiration, now supports my feelings in this area, as well as the reference or links of reasoning to scientific journalism.* While my crack at GE hints at the $marminess of some journalism, I will cover that with this mud. The mud in this case is the subjective skills that are responsibly noted which makes raw leaks only facts not truth. Raw data(information) is not just objective but subjective itself.]

*12-9-10(comma added)Rupert Murdock does not support my feelings, him as an inspiration supports my feelings to the contrary, as well as an erroneous scientific take. And last link brackets (information is not just in the form of numbers, but even they are subject to context and formulas).

** [1-17-12 C-(sic): ledes is the intended spelling in this typo]

The Physics of the DOW

Cap^ and Trade* Mark[!]

^ not there yet
* TheTao of Physics
[!] the twain of Hegelianism

Not to pun on "Do Obama's Way", but a more dimensional perspective on Chemicals and Markets. (FP1b)

[!] to say that spirit/matters^ not Hegel per Say.

[Retrieve from Draft]

^  High8US (Knot too Say)

(Re:Labels and Images)

Not to lean over or tilt the machine:
 


Retrieved from Draft 12-18-13

Less than Swift?

Waterboarding is torture, or maybe it isn’t. But at least some say it only gets people to say what you want to hear. So waterboarding may be more like running for office, while others say it is more like trying to get into a fraternity.

So who thinks, politics is like being in a fraternity?
Oh,
yeah.

I think that means that maybe we should waterboard them. At least it may merit getting them kicked off campus, in this case the globe.

Not Nostradamus?

I cannot say I am Nostradamus, but I did say I was nostraBUSHus or some such words. At this time my search evades me.

Here though: I cannot say that I definitely did not hear any reference to Paul Krugman's suggestions,(I am pretty sure I didn't) but I take it a bit further. However, I do know it did not reach my inbox till yesterday*.

* truthout.org link a redundancy of Rollingstone's Paul Krugman's above(Reference being to Truth and Reconciliation. Not to mention cycle

[Update: a different moment and an alternative to forget: not*** (back to frame of reference or satire?) The point is the table. And bring it on the...]
[Translation to update and my way: I strongly suggest reading the Krugman Letter to Obama embedded in the above redundancy and no dis to these last two links, but they do reflect alternative theories to the economy and justice. But rather than "harbor a suspicion" I'll suspect not.]
[Put another way? I rather endorse a Rumsfeld** attitude of healthy debate, but with an open mind and eyes and ears, there is no point in a table if the heat of light is not brought there. Where there is smoke, there is fire, but that does not mean visibility will improve or that some of the information is not going up in smoke.]

** I won't footnote this but just explain it as his heated attitude he thought was healthy, yet predetermined.

*** seemingly the only alternative to Truth and Reconciliation or to Forgive and Forget and a very good bibliography

HINT: for those unfamiliar with my style I wish everyone to read Paul Krugman's Letter to Obama found twice at the first asterisk above , however the bottom "Link" below, takes us back to the epitome of chastened as well as my style of unweaving our Hamlet and sometimes maybe just scrolling over or CUTTING through THIS.

May I call you Sarah?

Say it ain't so, Sarah.
Speaking of bars...

Palin-Biden Transcript

Obama-McCain Transcript (First debate)
Say it ain't so, Jack.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

An imagined zinger embedded in the reality of diplomacy and nuance.
AKA: McCain Debates (or Tickles) Self.

Speaking of Straight Talk Express... or links
Or not?

What the Beck?

[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.

My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.

I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.

Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.

[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]

* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]

[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]

[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]


** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus

The links that connect

The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine

...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.

Maybe I heard something like this:

In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]

Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]

Or maybe what I failed to say:

This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]

* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.

Cherry paraphrasing.

The Seattle Times editorial today titled: Kerry's right to slam the president on Iraq.(see link) I agree when they say his Iraq vote and recent claim was "... not a 'flip-flop.' It is sensible and consistent."

However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."

Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."

The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.

We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?

It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.

* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)

Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.

Nader Stunned[While the selection of the President was what really cost Gore the election, Nader's voters and election violations were what allowed it turn on a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. My criticism of Clinton in the following piece may be harsh and unjust, I really did understand much of his moderation, but would only lament that more progress on many issues was not achieved. In addition my intention was to blame him for the fact that Bush is what follows and progress will become regression.]

Dear Ralph Nader: (01-31-01)

In a brief recap online, of a USAToday article, I read that you were stunned by the backlash regarding your blame for costing Gore the election. While I have much more to say, I would just like to say that I am surprised that you are stunned. I would have expected that an intelligent person would have expected it.
Surely many of those who voted for you may never have voted anyway, or came from other than the two parties. However, given the closeness and irregularities of the election, I wonder if you really think that a small percentage of those, would not have voted for Gore and turned the election results around. There may be other possible rational for being stunned, and maybe further information will set me straight.
I am trying to figure out whether it was worth having a moderate like Clinton win the White House or go back to supporting Liberals whether they can make it or not. Judging by the actions of the new administration, we may soon wish Clinton had never been in, since so many of the things are only an extension of what Clinton allowed to happen, if not started himself. While I will probably continue to support progressive candidates, I am deeply concerned about the future and will look closely at those who are moderating their rhetoric as well as those who inflame.
It has been a little over a week, so it is too early to add up the pros and cons of the new administration. But it is not too late to keep score. My optimism leads me to try to take people and what they say at face value, but other traits will lead me to find the flaws. I will try to remain balanced and not refrain from contributing to anyone for the general good.

With hopes for our enlightenment,

Roger Larson

Incomplete Geometry

In the process of investigating the genome piece there was a podcast of it which included a prior segment.

[Very Rough Thinking In Progress]

In a bit of preemptive* positing, I note the potential significance of 8 and 24 dimension.

Could it be that it is related to the fact that 2 cubed is eight and 8x3 is 24. 

I say that without quibbling** over the definition of dimensions, but to say they are using it too purely mathematical. 

But now that I have spelled it out, might it represent 3 dimensions in each of the 8 quadrants of standard x-y-z grid.  Or am I just putting into words what it actually means in their math?

* having listened to the podcast but not done the math
** @ t we already have a different definition or do we?  (x,y,z, & t)
then there are the dimentions[!] of Arthur Young, and by golly was that 8 or v/7?***
[!]= irony or (sic) that I found him with that spelling

Filing purposes:
Or round file of clean desktop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion


https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160419-string-inflation-triangles/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160330-sphere-packing-solved-in-higher-dimensions/


*** I was not aware of Young when I developed my own tetrahedron
(I credit a parsing of Einstein and a recreation of The Republic for my structure.)

BTW:
What is living?

5-4-16 
May the Fourth be with you!
Quantum Bookmarks:  3:40, 5:16, 5:4, 6:50, ...

5-5-16  OW / VP  (need more labels)

Clog Alert!

Not to Ribble, but regarding two points here:
The tenor of Bane Or. 
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)

A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.

Further parse N later ...  [^]

^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ?  w h ?

[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat"  RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn?  i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*

^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f  / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *

Retro-Gate

Iran-Contra, WMD, October No-Surprise.

Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.

Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate


Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]

[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?

[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)

*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.

Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle

[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes

GOP @)!@ ...(2012)

2012 that is.
Mitch Daniels, was my earliest hunch, Huntsman was a close second. Ron Paul was an early hope, but Gary Johnson beat him to the announcement. Now when I say hope, this is from the perspective that there be a good candidate for Republicans and the 2012 race, not that they should have any shot at being good for the country. This does not take into considerations any impact of a third party or independent candidate, or any political calculus. I don't find any references in a search of my blog but could have embedded some comment or link that may mention them. I associate Daniels with a Chris Matthews* comment, and Huntsman with some China controversy, while Paul and Johnson are libertarian. Which may be why I have been focused on economics and Ayn Rand. I would like to have a good de bait on neo-classical economics. It is hard to imagine Mitt Romney making it but then the longer the so-called libertarian or tea party candidate split the vote he or these guys could run the fish ladder, and it is hard to imagine a third party candidate that would not be just another spoiler. I don't want to do the political calculus to rock that boat.

* one reason I might scratch Daniels, but then again

5-17-11 Related links: Needless to say** Label
(Republicans 2012)
One No Trump
Two No Huckabee***

**Calm Pend E Um has a reference to an anomoly
*** Raising Cain