POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.

“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!

One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.

Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?

The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.

In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.

[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]

FADS away?

"Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away...otherwise known as privatization and globalization."

The previous post was sent to the local paper as well as the Senators Dorgan and Wyden and by late afternoon the project was killed. (Or at least some aspects of it.) Admiral Pointexter took credit that day for the controversy and reportedly offered to leave the administration, so they let him. Just as four other high figures in the administration took responsibility for erroneous WMD in the state of the union, they and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion) Bush is still around.

Today Lou Dobbs in a column on the Economy in that same local paper writes a titled piece: "Left and right joined in attack on progressive thought" leads me to a mutation[*] of MacArthur’s going away. "Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away, otherwise known as privatization and globalization." But Dobbs is right, and correct too in that progressive thought is needed, but also thinkers that know the difference and don’t use the label liberal as their only argument. If someone believes in principles, they would discuss openly and have the courage to debate them rather that wander around between them and keep the dead wood that fuels his fire.

On a related matter, maybe. Secretary of State Powell is reported to be leaving at the start of the next administration. NOT? Do we have more strategy from the Office of Strategic Information (Slash) Influence? Here are some choices. Either he did or he didn’t let someone know that piece of information. Either it was clear or it was vague or something close to that or different. More choices are that the source made it up, or concluded from other information or was wrong.

Here is my choice. Powell is not being listened to, he wants to be listened to, the president can now claim to be listening. Powell will make his decision later, if he lasts that long.

[*] [3-28-08: Update- quotation mark is facetious as I am mangling MacArthur, but also meant fade not fad, but was it? I left it. The (Slash) was the link to the futures.(minor editing and link insertion)]

Market of Strategic Information Slash Influence Is Too Right!

A small news item July 29th, pg. A12 deserved more attention. "Pentagon betting plan attacked" was a fair title for the disturbing program aimed at intelligence gathering but too little useful information was provided. In such a system, traders would and apparently (in some cases) already do, bet on outcomes of foreign policy, elections and military actions. Other sources (MSNBC) indicate it would start with 100 experts and expand, then the sponsors DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) claim that they would not be able to identify traders who sign up.

It sounds similar to the former fiasco Office of Strategic Information/Influence, now titled a Futures Market. Reports on 9-11 have indicated the poor handling of the volume of Intelligence that was already there and now they expect to have help from the economic forecasting arena? Not to mention the idea that misinformation that was hypothetically strategically planted somehow missed processing by any Office in the Administration that would keep things straight.

Markets may be efficient indicators of the futures, but they may be too efficient for interpretations that would be meaningful in time. Setting aside the aspect that DARPA would be sponsoring or turning a blind eye to insider trading, which would admittedly be a required component, how would they separate trading by terrorists from ideologues and analysts from capitalists? Not that there is anything wrong with some of that.

Efficiency would have been if voters had taken warning from the markets (in 2000) at the risk of a Bush election.

Fact:
I hope people are looking up the word in a dictionary, but for Encarta the first three definitions have something to do with truth, the fourth is a term of law, so he certainly would not use that one. Anyway, this must mean truth can change or maybe we will wait for the dictionary to change.

What can change is that a fact can be trustworthy or not. That is apparently what has changed. Then not, again.

I do believe that the president claimed that critics were wrong and that he should be trusted with the decision. That seems not to have changed, while the facts have. Not. That seems to have changed or it never mattered.

You can have your cake and eat it too, but crow...

FACTS CHANGE?
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.

Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?

Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.

With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.

Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.

The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???

Did congress know that and when did they know it?

Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.

Not a lack of intelligence, just the use of intelligence.

In the last day or so, Resident Bush has emphasized the intelligence that we are sure about. He stated, (approximately)that anyone who knows the history of the Saddam regime knows that he possessed biological and chemical weapons. Further that he had used them. There is no lie or contradiction in this belief. It is just that we are uncertain Bush knows the meaning of "history" or intelligence, or indeed "possessed" or "used". For these are all past tense.

Now we have a Resident who may not know what "was" is.

If intelligence has some evidence, we must find out who provided it to him and how it was filtered for him. It is more than knowing where the buck stops, but where did it start?

NOTE TO READERS:

There is nothing new to report, just a more artistic or poetic version of an earlier situation. How true? Check for double meanings. How subtle? Others may be more intentional. Vague? A strategy, not necessarily mine.

Just a little ramble here, to point out that nothing has changed only versions are being spun. Some versions were already apparent to many of us. Hype? I try to avoid. But that is what the administration used, and even got caught up in. They fell for their own hype, got carried away, and still don't know why they can't handle it. The truth, they thought we could not handle. The hype it turns out may be their downfall.

Caution! Blurred metaphors, both ahead and before.

SELF EN-TITLED...RULES

[11-10-11 title upgraded and link added.]
(Defining our way to wars), Or beating around the Encarta* Bush.
Fighting terrorism, the cause,
finding Patriotism, the effect.

We fight the terrorists: defined

Somebody using violence for political purposes:
somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping,
and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: defined

Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports
or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

In need of an un-redefined way out,
Still in need of defining a way in.
Still having a ways to go.

Still going… I intentionally borrowed, no Bush or Blair intended.

Uncertain the rules allowed, the matter is now embedded.

Uncertain an asterisk did it, I did not wish to take too much credit[**].

The following: Take it or leave it.

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©
& (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

You thought it was all over, so if you’re not with it, you’re again it.
[11-10-11 links not provided to Encarta, since it requires registration. See upgrade of title above and additional link.]

DEFINING OUR WAR TO WARS.

Fighting terrorism, supposedly the cause,
with patriotism the resulting claim.

We fight the terrorists: Somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

Have we considered the definitions before our actions or is it just rhetoric? Do we know the way we will choose before we act or are they empty words or just talk?

Some see a way out that depends on the definitions, others see war as better than more defining of our ways or doing nothing. Which way will we go after the war? Will we have it defined? Will there be an after? Will we still be in need of defining or ever stop the redefining?

Thanks to:

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Also Russ Baker, Howard Zinn, and www.tompaine.com

PASSIVE AND MUTE?
by Russ Baker
Iraq is out from under Hussein, but that shouldn't leave liberals at a loss for words.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7682

MY COUNTRY: THE WORLD
by Howard Zinn
Tom Paine enlarged the idea of patriotism when he said: "My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind."
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7726

NOTE: Originally I titled this "Defining our way to wars", but in capitalizing it, an interesting typo crept in and I could not resist leaving it.

Childish Diplomacy: Who started it?

Bill O’Reilly’s "Enough is Enough of Canadian Belligerence" hardly deserves more than the childish reply; "You started it." I don’t really know where it started. But to declare that Canada’s plan to send Iraq’s leader and other potential war criminals found in their country to the World Court in The Hague, is belligerence, certainly demonstrates the weak link to the many phantom reasons given for starting the war against Iraq. I won’t go into all of them either but did they not involve enforcing the resolutions of an international body while ignoring other resolutions of international bodies?

The villains have turned out to be those who threatened vetoes, like France and Germany. If vetoes are a guide to villainy then the U. S. and our former Soviet nemesis have combined for their fair share of more than ten times the vetoes France has ever used. Freedom is another phantom reason that was linked to the war in Iraq while those opposed are vilified for using it at home or abroad.

War was claimed as a last resort chosen over doing nothing. Now we hear how childish both sides can get when those are the only two choices. Arguments against phantom opposition are as easy to win as wars against formerly propped up regimes. The U. S. should be grateful that some were diplomatic enough not to force another U. N. Security Council vote on a resolution we could diplomatically veto. But then we would be clear on what started it.

Shame on those who disparage the U. N. as only a debating mechanism.

Two points are needed mentioning. First, if members would give up their veto powers, it would be more. Second, if they are suppose to restart a program of oil for food or any take any other action like lifting sanctions it would be important to know who is responsible in Iraq for security and running the programs.

If vetoes are the measure of failure at the U. N. then the U.S. and its major rivals have contributed to its failure by many factors over that of France.

If you devalue debate you devalue information which is ironic for this arena. If force is more valuable then you have endorsed violence as the mechanism, leaving tyranny and anarchy as the result, and excusing preemption on both sides.

If we don’t care about who gets the money, or the benefits then we may as well not be responsible or compassionate.

ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?

A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?

They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?

They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".

It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS email March 20th, 2003
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)

While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.

The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.

At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.

No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]

King County Journal 2003-03-19 Federal judge
His views are important

The characterizations by Armstrong Williams of the Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came to the wrong conclusion.

That they are ``sandbagging Estrada's career because he doesn't mesh with what a good Hispanic should be'' may be racist, but it is Williams' conclusion, not the opposition's. They are withholding approval because they cannot be convinced, due to evasive tactics, that he is what a good judge should be.

If the nominee would express his views or knowledge of judicial precedence and talk about his judicial experience, then there would be more to discuss than whose party or race he represents.

Roger Larson

Bellevue

TO US ALL:

A subtle responsibility needs more active duty.

A few days ago, the French foreign minister said, "one does not have the right to be discouraged", but there is hope only in action. Yesterday President Bush called an end to diplomacy. He laid his cards on the table and other’s hands do not matter.

He was given a free hand by congress to behave in such a manner. Absent a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council, they are unanimously behind this move as well. The fact that any new vote would not be heeded does not seem very diplomatic in nature. But only a new resolution and vote would change the approvals that were previously given.

So, in silence the president is proceeding with the support of these bodies. The purpose of such efforts was to disarm Iraq for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. For this the United States congress and the United Nations is responsible. The threat of war was to bring this about. It was being successful.

The fact that it has failed is also the responsibility of these bodies, not the protesters. The inability to succeed in the face of opposition is not diplomacy. It is making excuses. The inability to get a resolution passed is not the fault of those that might veto but also those who would write it. The fact that a new resolution is not being pushed that the United States could veto and be outnumbered anywhere from 11-4 to 14-1 may be diplomacy. But it does not avoid responsibility and hence cannot be said to be irrelevant.

[Heading and link updated 3-21-10]

To Congress:
Thank President Bush and declare that inspections are working and support further U.N. actions.
Please support HJR 20 and SR 32 in light of above and below.

In different words, consider declaring a win for the purposes of strengthening the U.N. and demand Saddam Hussein surrender to the U.N.

The Moment of Truth! How ironic, that it is time to lay the cards on the table.
HAVE COURAGE, RESPECT AND RESOLUTION FOR INSPECTIONS WORKING!

French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin said: "It is difficult to imagine what could stop this machine" and adding "one does not have the right to be discouraged." (AP, King County Journal, 3-16-03, p. A9)
That is the major reason the Bush administration has for stopping the inspections, that the U. S. is discouraged. Dis-COURAGED and disrespecting the United Nations.

Please have courage and pass a resolution. Please declare the inspections are working and that the inspections will continue. Please agree on a strict timetable, that can be monitored and maintain control of the inspection process. If the U.S. is going to disrespect the U.N. by not having a resolution, someone must call them on it other than Saddam Hussein. If the U.S. is going to have war crimes trials, make sure they are signatures to the World Court or negotiate with Saddam Hussein directly rather that let the U.S. take the lead.

Today the Vice President was on Meet The Press
Old or New Regimes
(Note edited in bold on 3-17-03)

Vice President Cheney has never made Republicans look so reasonable(delete "good"). The recent Old Diplomacy Republicans that is, like George Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, not the New Regime Change Republicans like George W. and Rumsfeld who unlike Cheney do not speak softly and carry a big stick but clumsily with a big stick. When Cheney spoke softly it was on the core reasons for the war on Iraq where he could not really get excited when so lightly tying together their seemingly sound excuses.

Though the New Regime Change Republicans claim to act for progress and freedom they bring back ancient tactics reminiscent of the fall of Rome and the origins of terrorism.

Though not well footnoted here, I lack the ability to claim as classified my evidence. It is found in the mounting and diverse writings of others, both old and new, as well as my own writings (old and new) that attempt to read between the lines and connect the dots.

Bully Pulpit Not for Pitbulls

Teddy's Ghost: T.D.R's "Big Stick Diplomacy" Resurrected By Bush
My Reply: [Did it not start out "Speak Softly..."?]
Being the world’s policeman is not in and of itself bad. As Bill O’Reilly says of history fogging in and out, it apparently depends on the administration in power. An earlier administration was ridiculed and impeded for attempting to be the world’s policeman. And if the goal of the war were to spread our democracy then being the policeman would mean others would be the legislative and judicial branches.

They risk opening a Pandora’s box we have already looked into, and their reasons appear hidden in a shell game from enforcing U.N. resolutions, to disarmament, to regime change, to democracy, to going it alone. If we start as judge and jury as well, we may not only unite the world and not necessarily with us, but encourage other unions or worse. We are a long way from probation officers and social workers if we can’t grasp what we are working for or the concept of the separation of powers that we should be working under.

[And was not the "big stick" asked for (from Congress) under the premise that hopefully it would not be needed? We are still becoming clear on what it will be used for.]

NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.

The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.

[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.

Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.

Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.

Earlier material from "This Is About Progress(ives)"
02-06-01 08:29am [To Sen. Feingold: 01-31-01]
http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html


I believe it was Senator Grassley who said regarding the sharing of power in an evenly divided senate; someone must be in charge. There was no need to share power since Democrats have the power of the filibuster. If this is not the time to use it, when will? This may be as Sen. Feingold says an "olive branch" to the new administration. But what are the previous confirmations of nominees? Too many alive branches may create a Bush too hard to get through to, or you are creating a pile that may be too hard to climb. It is already getting too thick with his actions.

ANTI-EYMAN INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL?

[Reply to King County Journal Editorial, 2-11-03]

It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result, your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.

There is also the problem of fuzzy math and English. Beyond the inability to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining the validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for this state and maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially (revenue cuts must equal spending cuts), not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements(also cost related). Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.

Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?

[Sent to KC Journal, 2-21-03 in reply to upcoming column that had been in the NY Times.] [Link and bold added 8-2-10]

The Yes-But Parade, by William Safire was very good. He made the administration’s case as best it can be made. However if turned inside out, the argument is useful in demonstrating the reverse. It is better to be in the "Yes-but parade" than be following the Butt Head in the wrong direction leader who sees the choice as acting now or doing nothing. Sorry, it was just too tempting to put it in Bush diplomatic terms. It is easier to focus on what we label people than what they may mean. Safire takes the "yes but fellows" label that Franklin Roosevelt used for those who agreed with his goals but had reservations about moving forward in the manner he prescribed. Somehow this is equated with the multitude of questions that arise about the war with Iraq. One could easily turn his argument inside out if not for the need to answer these questions and more.

True, making up words does not deserve the ill repute Bushisms have attracted. However "yes-but fellow" does not really contain anything new. It is tempting, not to mention childish to resort to name calling. It is not a question of acting now or doing nothing, as possibly the strongest argument the administration has, suggests. It does alleviate me of the need to address the serious if not slightly distorted questions that Safire relies on heavily in his case since he simultaneously minimizes the need to answer them. He even simultaneously concludes that the same "yes but fellows" who supposedly share these common goals of the administration would be better off challenging those same goals.

The most important question is why can’t we do something, without ignoring all the questions? Just to point out the emptiness of such labeling for purposes of thinking, is there really any constituency, or consensus, or poll numbers for doing nothing? Is there really a do nothing group we can label? Only in the minds of the schizophrenic Butt Heads, (childish, patriarchal if not abusive parents) who maintain it is my way or the highway, or I want things my way or I’m taking my toys and going home. If only it were so simple.

I am no psychiatrist but this may be an analogy that can be followed, that is more similar than divergent. Both parent and child have their way. They want to get it. They may not be going in the same directions. Being on the path may be better than not going somewhere, but you better know where you are going and how you are going to get there. And making a move is not in and of itself better than not. One fault in the analogy, is that Nations and their leaders or diplomats are neither parent nor child. However it is further useful that they may want to be, and often behave like both.

It may be reasonable to see how carrying a big stick and being on a bully pulpit can be confusing, not to mention from a different Roosevelt. For the plain spoken, it is easy to see the case they make for violence as a means, if they don’t have to answer the questions on the end or the means.

The cost, not to mention the courage, it takes to answer these questions may indeed be high, but we can’t even begin to compare it to not answering them, let alone acting before we do. Safire may be right that there are "yes but fellows", but it can go both ways. He just sides with the yes but head in the wrong direction (away from questions) crowd. Sure "acting now" has not exactly been rushing it, but where has the delay come from in answering more of the questions?

Maybe alternate analogies are more useful. Progress may be in their mind too. But are we really moving in a new direction? Are we really using any new means? Only more questions are arising to confront, confound or run with.

Exercise Lie or Confusion [Original of letter edited and printed in KC Journal. 2-11-03]
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English

Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.

Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]

It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.

It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.

Uniting?
A reply to John Carlson's yet to be published or read column. Sent 2-22-03
His column was printed 2-23-03.

John Carlson asks; "What are the anti-war marchers actually for?" Maybe one who marched could answer better, but they marched with my heartfelt support. That question may have been one reason for any hesitancy if that. However it should be simple. They are for peace, and not war. They are for the multitude of methods of working for peace and for preventing war. Are they united under one method of getting there? I think not.

To say they are only against something (as I assume a day before reading his piece) is as wrong as saying hawks are only for war. To say protesters must unite in favor of one idea is as wrong as saying that the war has only one goal. To disarm Iraq is it? Fine, the message is getting clearer. Thanks to whom? Regime change? That too has had its evolution in terminology. Thanks to whom?

Tough talk may have pushed the world to where it is, but it may not get it out of it’s spot so easy. Maybe George Bush has been a uniter not a divider. Did he foresee whom he would unite? It will depend on if he can get out of the corner, he seems to have painted himself into, and upon what he has united the world. It is finishing the job and how we, if united, will be moving on to the next job that will be tricky. Let us hope we are not all in the same corner.

Backlog of Writing to Others.

[Replying to a Radio Host who had Joan Smith on-air for KIRO710 radio in Seattle, Washington.]
Here! Here! For Joan Smith's "It is about time the US got over 9-11" and her appearance on Seattle radio. The host could not get over his own hyperbole to see his error. It goes over my head how he can get from "get over" to "forget it". Getting over it, is not to forget it. And as he reads my e-mail, he [probably]goes "Huh?"

[His] hyperbole in reaction is getting in the way of thinking. It is a matter of moving on and how we determine how. Not only determining how we react, but determining and being honest about, and even knowing how and if we can pre-empt.

September 11th made me sick! Does that mean we have to behave as sick people? Her defense of her logic was even better than her writing. None of us will forget, and yes it is healthy to get over.

Some callers called into question her writing, when they could not even see literally. If we cannot even agree on language, we will never even know the meaning of Sept. 11th. While some may say there is no meaning, others will certainly run with it. Then the radio had the message from President Bush to the U.N. "When you say something, does it mean anything?" Well put. Do we know what he means?

Who is doing the posturing and could it be that some have principles.
(from Feb. 6th, 2003)

William Safire had a seemingly brilliant piece, "It’s better to err on the side of Iraq hawks" covering the "I told you so" posturing that will occur "post-war". His conclusion is indeed very serious, reflecting the benefits or casualties that will occur, if either side is wrong.

However his analysis reflects a bias in two ways. His assumption that this occurs post-war, and his characterizations and breaking down. He assumes that "Iraq hawks" will prevail and that those who "express reservations about removing him from power at this particular moment, or without U.N. approval" will fail. Hence allowing him to put the ifs on the side of the opposition and more certainty if not flexibility on the side of his argument. It could not help but have a justified point, the way he has postured.

The characterizations are further misconstrued. Given the assumptions it is fine to leave "hawks" as is, but those who have "reservations"? The many views that are held in opposition to the war are reflected throughout his argument. The concern that war be "at this particular moment" and "without U.N. approval" does not seem to be addressed. If this were not confusing enough, his thinking hints at the argument that one would be better off without the other. Post-war it would only make sense that some will hold on to their principles and appear as posturing. But pre-war where would the "hawks" be without the "opposition"? Will those willing to work for peace get anywhere with "hawks" that won’t address notions of patience or approval?

NEXUS REVIEW

It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.

The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience? This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).

OH REALLY FOG

OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?

Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.

But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.

Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.

By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.

Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?

[Update: 2-13-12 labels and links]

A MOMENT OF SILENCE For Challenger Crew.

Words were inadequate to express the feelings of Saturday morning February 1st, 2003. The president’s words were just right. Not only for what he said, but for what he did not. He avoided taking too much meaning from a tragedy. Things will go on. It is not that any tragedy is less than another, but that we may gain experience in handling them or not. While some may seem jaded or inured, it may be that they feel as much or more for others. What was needed was a moment of silence before we turn back to reading the signs.

FORWARD

My post “The French. Why do they hate us?” was a commentary I wrote replying to the Slate writer, Christopher Suellentrop. I had intentions of endorsing Thomas Friedman’s ideas in “ Thinking about Iraq (3)” in the NY Times or as the King County Journal titled it: "Mr. President, here is a deal on Iraq". It suggests that the Arab world negotiate Saddam Hussein’s exile.

It was unintentional that this reply to Francophobes, was so appropriate in addressing a few comments Friedman made, but was also useful as a forward to supporting his plan. I guess with the crack he made about France and Germany wanting us to step into a mess in Iraq, the plan none-the-less, could be something that they could consider supporting. In finding a contact for the Embassy of France website, there was an interesting post there (“Situation in Iraq”) by the Minister of Foreign Affairs explaining the role of France, the European Council, the United Nation, the UN Security Council in the international arena.
Suffice to say that it gave me hope that not only was Suellentrop’s conclusion soon to be shown wrong, but that they had much more on the ball that may or may not mean they could support the Friedman plan.

The French. (Why do they hate us?)

Because we are dumb and they don’t. First I must qualify that "we" here means some of us(are dumb), and "they" means most of them(the French, don’t hate us). Second, most of us need to use dictionaries more frequently than emotions.

Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.

The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.

But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?

Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?

[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link

Some may find my sports analogy of too light a matter. But sports analogies should be of great concern if soccer (being the original football) is any indication of future world affairs. It is at least worth keeping mind, given the behavior of fans, both inside and outside stadiums. And certainly lends nothing to the theory that at least team (or national) sports are a worthwhile activity.

Defense is Not Offensive A short analogy.

A sports analogy or Bushism: “The best defense is a good offense”, was just disproved. In the Superbowl yesterday the #1 defense whipped the #1 offense. While war may not be like sports, maybe sports is more like life. It should be played by the rules. In war the refs are generally composed of the winners so that seems to work against the sports analogy for war. Of course no body is perfect, even the refs make mistakes, but that does not mean we should throw them out or limit challenges or replays.

Life and peace are another matter. They may need power and enforcement, but without the rule book they would mean nothing. Without the rule book, refs, challenges and replays, offense would just be offensive.

It is also interesting that the winners with their defensive philosophy were from Florida and the losers with their offensive philosophy, were from what some call the Left Coast. It seems that this time the results for Florida were much clearer. While in Oakland the disturbing behavior that filled the streets may have occurred whether their team or the analogy had been successful in this case.

Bush Boxed in Cover Up

BUSH BOXED IN COVER-UP or Democratic Ad Boxed To Go or IRONY "STILL GOING"

Within days of opening an Office of Global Communications * to declare the Iraq regime an "apparatus of lies" it looks like the president needs to focus on his local apparatus of "communications". In a blatant cover-up, right under his own nose, the president makes a mockery of his own words. Touting his economic package at a trucking warehouse in St. Louis, he wanted a stage depicting small business in America. His platform was in front of a printed backdrop of boxes stamped with "Made in USA" surrounding the words "Strengthening America’s Economy". But below the podium decorating the platform were boxes with conspicuous tape over some of the words. When reporters investigated they found the words "Made in China". A spokesperson credited the tape to White House volunteers. There may be economic lessons here too, but that is another box too full of irony.

The reporter’s quick claim of Boxgate was never so appropriate. For if his staff had destroyed the tape, they would have had to destroy the boxes which were the cover for his platform.

* [links and labels added 12-6-07]

Do as I say, not as I do.

It is more than ironic that the Bush administration opens an Office of Global Communications on the same day it declares the Iraq regime an apparatus of lies. Let’s look at some of the communications that have come from George W. Bush. “I trust the people not the government.” “I am a uniter not a divider.” His claim that he was president well before he was selected. Anyway then things get really fuzzy, running up to the “axis of evil”.

Let us be clear. There are some evil people in the world and something must be done about them. But calling them an axis gives them more credit than they deserve, not to mention leaving others out, both other evil and our allies. The most interesting thing he said lately about his problems developing a coalition to move on Iraq is that “It is like a rerun of a bad movie. I don’t want to watch anymore.” That is the problem with this administration. Not only is this worse than a rerun of any previous behavior in foreign policy it is likely to create spin-off behavior that we don’t want to watch either.

Sent to King County Journal 1-17-03.

Can we be any more clear?

Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.

Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.

In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.

Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.

Previous mention of duplication may be solved by the fact that I may have reached a capacity in my archives that makes them unavailable. [It may have been a temporary situation.]

The filibuster is now in the news as a method to counter judicial nominees that have previously been rejected. My view is that it is warranted on a case by case basis now if ever.

I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.

At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]

and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]

NOTE: [I apologize for some duplication in earlier posts that my editing did not remove. They were originally included since they were part of a particular effort, a letter or fax to someone in particular.]

[Instamessage to talk-show host (TSH) sounds like an analysis.]

Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?

(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )

Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?

Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.

Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.

It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.

Update: Hullabaloo!

[Sent to Seattle PI, 12-23-02]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM

The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.

If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?

If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.

[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]

Ideology and Process

[Printed in the Eastside Journal 12-16-02] Edited version of 12-6 post: IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
POLITICS
Voters too impatient

A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.

These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.

There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

Roger Larson

Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]

George F. Will piece or peace? (6-2-08)

The topic of Empire has surfaced. [George F Will and a waste of history let alone 9/11]
(Sent but not printed by Seattle PI, Sept. 10th, 2002)

The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

(6-2-08: only the title has been added with some editing of the quotations marks)

[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.

Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 3rd.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

Wilbur Mann (EJ Dec. 3rd) in his letter to the editor, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Beyond the system Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology. These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner take all nature, allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in it's last two cycles, Mann typically chose to focus on a point so poorly supported it actually supported the piece by Kaul. Mann concludes, "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." Sorting the contradictions contained in these sentences seems needless, since whether we eliminate the electors themselves or keep the process, Mann prefers 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 voters, Florida legislature, Florida judiciary, and Florida electors).

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas. It seems to me there are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

PROGRESS is also exceedingly susceptible to this same prism of interpretation.

A short segment I caught of Dave Ross on KIRO710 this morning provides a very appropriate example. He and a caller agreed that President Bush would go down as one of the most successful presidents in history if he could disarm a rogue nation without firing a shot.

One could be quick to agree but would likely already be wrong. Last point first, a few shots have been fired. Actually there are no other real points only speculations or questions. We must define a rogue nation and see if the definition works outside of “the winner makes the rules and can ignore” them scenario. In other words, how will this apply to the behavior of our own and other nations?

TODAY'S THOUGHT CONTINUED:

WAR is a topic most susceptible to the prism of interpretation. One example is the prognostication of whether we will have war in Iraq. A root question is; why are we involved in Iraq? Is it terrorist threats, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, oil or just regime change? Without a clear answer to the root questions, opposing views can agree that war will be inevitable but for different reasons. Unclear reasons leave opposition to war most obvious.

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?

[open letter to the Seattle area media: Aug. 29th 2002]
[LINKS UPDATED 9-28-11 Original only had UW link.]
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.

What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?

Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.

UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find."

This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. If the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media it, appears they reward those that would be more disturbing and disruptive.

Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.

[9-28-11: More updates and links needed.]

MY APOLOGIES for not maintaining the log. I will resume my original intent of posting previous writings that were sent but not necessarily printed anywhere.
A COMMENT: on the silence, digesting the election.
A THOUGHT: When Republicans win an election we may get a chance to be proven right, but should hope we are proven wrong.
Interpretation is the key, or the prism through which we view the actions and words of others. To be clear is a risk for both sides of the political spectrum, but being unclear is the tactic chosen by those who may prevail. If this seems hard to digest, it may at least be understood as an excuse for the gap in my log.

President Bush recently stated. "You cannot wage war defensively."

My reply (if I have not borrowed it from somewhere) is: You cannot wage peace offensively.

I would gladly end it there but more comes to mind. It is frequently said, "the best defense is a good offense." This refers to the game of football where there are rules. In war where the rules are declared by the victor and ignored by the participants it would seem that this would not apply. The game of football has referees that impose the penalties without bearing arms. If we do not get agreement on following rules it's hard to see where we can expect them to be followed by others. If the more fortunate among us have difficulty following rules, how can we expect those under pressure to maintain self control, let alone hope? We must work on both the rule book and the game plans.

Dubious is the word...

NOT PRINTED [a reply to Ari Fleisher's letter to the editor in the Washington Post]
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.

At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.

In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.

Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'

In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.

On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.

In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.

[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).

NO JOKE

Last night, David Letterman made fun of the Democrats for not articulating a message or rather having lost to the Bush efforts of articulation. I won’t attempt to retell the joke, but it is sad, if the opinion prevails that the Democrats could not out-articulate Bush.

Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.

Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.

[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]

A Plan to B-Team

[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.

While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.

As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.

There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.

[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]

The U. S. Senate, the nation and the world lost a great leader yesterday in Senator Paul Wellstone, but for liberals or progressives he was a leader amongst persons worth following.

Will France be a new leader or will laws?

Well I must consider now that the whole world is not following exactly. Though following as in paying attention is still valid. There is something disturbing about the label of follower or leader but not so much as there is with the statement "either you are with us or against us". Cooperation requires being able to play both positions, follower and leader. If we are nation or world of laws not men then those laws should be what are followed and cooperation is needed to write them.

Either you are for following laws or you are against them. The ONLY exception should be self-defense, which applies to the individuals and groups when engaged in otherwise legal actions. Violations of law by individuals or groups should not let governing bodies off the hook from following laws. Foreign policy must keep this in mind or risk leading to war. War should only result from a failure in foreign policy not as an extension of it. And one should not be a leader if unwilling to follow laws.

Subject of last post as it was faxed to selected representatives: WE ACT IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM?
retitled: "the whole world is following".

With the recent revelation about North Korea's nuke program being known to the administration the last 12 days my metaphor of a Pandora's box is maybe outdated. A more appropriate metaphor may be the little Dutch boy and the dike.

My fax and some earlier work may seem precognitive, but a look back may be more useful. i.e. 1947 National Security Act, and other foreign policy actions, treaty violations or secret diplomatic or military slight of hands that "the whole world is following".

After reading the War Resolution and several passages on why representatives voted the way they did, I still believe strongly that the arguments for the resolution were weak and the arguments against the resolution are many.

One issue not really highlighted is that of leadership. America is unquestionably in a leadership position. But what does a leader do but create followers? Are we prepared to live in a world where other countries will follow our examples? We are going after an international criminal but refuse to acknowledge the international criminal court. This seems to be a most blatant travesty of justice, and we act in the name of justice?

When laws are ignored, by any individual or group, it increase the likelihood of totalitarianism or anarchy as well as blurring the distinction between war and terrorism. When leaders lead poorly it would make sense that followers will act poorly. It would seem to increase the level of vigilantism as well as senseless crimes.

We are fortunate in this country that there are not more followers. But that does not mean we will be lucky enough to avoid an increase in poor followers.

The presidents speech was nothing new EXCEPT the following: "I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military,
if it proves necessary, to enforce UN Security Council demands."

YOU MUST VOTE NO, if it is anything more than that. Also VOTE NO, if it is anything less than with U.N. Security Council approval.

The administration said the speech was: "Comprehensive proof that military action may be necessary." The words "comprehensive proof" and "may be" seem to be mutually exclusive. My representative, Congresswoman Dunn said that there are 40 countries behind us on this. It is not clear yet if this authorizes unilateral action or not and if they would be behind us then.

CONGRESSIONAL COVER?

CONGRESSIONAL COVER?
At the Eastside Democratic Dinner, Senator Cantwell spoke of the war being a
shell game hiding the issue of the economy. The reverse can be true if the
economy is used to disregard concern for war and other foreign policy
issues. Both would be a case of running for political cover rather than
face what is right or wrong.
(Much thanks to Congressman McDermott!,and Senator Cantwell,
and Congressman Inslee---
SEE PREVIOUS POST of a two-page fax sent or emailed to others.)
TO THOSE IT MAY CONCERN: 10-8-02

WAR? NO! DEBATE? YES!

[faxed and e-mailed before the Presidents Speech]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
[COWBOY MANIFESTO (NSS)? NO! ANSWERS TO RHETORIC? YES!]
Below is a short compendium of the argument.
It cuts through the scholarly to almost the common sense.
We need more than common sense,
but even it says... NO TO WAR!
NO TO THREATS!
YES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CO-OPERATION.

PLEASE READ!
Debate Iraq Resolution!
Debate Cowboy Manifesto!
Further debate must be held on the Iraq Resolution indeed on the Cowboy Manifesto (National Security Strategy of the United States).

I am very concerned about the new preemptive policy in defense of the nation. Congress must not lose the power to declare war. The president still has the duty to inform congress of his actions in defense of the nation. Congress should review authorization for the National Security Act of 1947 and be informed of all covert actions taken in the name of defense. Congress should make sure all treaties and international laws are complied with or amend their actions and consent on the basis of any violations.

In regards to Iraq, enforcement of UN resolutions should be made in cooperation with the UN Security Council or there is no authority but that of congresses to go to war. Since Iraq’s transgression was mainly the invasion of Kuwait, regime change other than for purposes of enforcing UN resolutions is an act of war. Inspections and disarmament must be done under clear guidelines that prevent war preparations prior to violations being found and corrected.

If the United States chooses to take this responsibility on their own, what will the U. N. or any other nations that disagree hold us responsible for? Indeed which of our actions will other nations or groups take as an example?

The rhetoric must be cut through. There is a fine line between a bluff and a lie. Both should be difficult to do in a democracy. Questions must be answered or we must insist actions remain rhetorical!

Please keep war powers in the hands of Congress. Do your jobs and do not give the President a free hand.
He should have all the power he needs from the Constitution. Extensive changes show a lack of courage to do what is needed without political cover or more likely THAT IT IS WRONG! Please consider what has been done in our name with the power administrations already use or have abused.

RESOLUTION ON IRAQ [From the Washington State Democratic Party]
Never has a document so fully received my support. Patriotism is a word that could easily be misused, but the principles contained in the Resolution on Iraq from the Washington State Democratic Party, approved 120-0 have my strongest support. These principles are more important than partisanship and more deeply represent patriotism than anything before.

WSDCC Sept. 28th 2002
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Washington State Democratic Party strongly believes that the United States must not strike out unilaterally to force regime change in Iraq or any other nation, and such unilateral action would call into question the legitimacy of the United States as the chief proponent of the rule of law and as a leader of nations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any course of military action by the Bush administration must follow the Constitutional requirement of congressional approval, as well as consultation with the United Nations Security Council.

In addition to all the WHEREAS that are not included, here are my further comments:

There must be a full debate on foreign policy as well as war powers. If we are concerned about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein supporting terrorism, and terrorist states are the same as terrorist individuals, we must be certain we do not support any terrorist states or ruthless dictators. International law is the primary distinction between war and terrorism and this line is very blurred.

We must be certain we follow international law in our foreign policy. It is not enough to decide that someone has capabilities for terror or weapons of mass destruction, but to be convinced they intend to use them preemptively. Iraq dictator has mostly contained radicals and it is unclear that he would empower them beyond his control. Even if Iraq’s dictator were threatened in a last stand effort to survive he would probably use any means at his disposal rather than give them to others.

Since we have established a preemptive stand and given or allowed others to use weapons beyond our control, we are the ones that have to worry about enforcement of international law. War is certainly an answer to not having to worry over distinctions in law or methods of violence.

I am sorry that where Congressman Jim McDermott made his statements, has overshadowed his message. Maybe he did overstate his beliefs, but hopefully the President is overstating his, but congress should be more certain in authorizing war.

Catch-22*

[Inspired by an Oct. 1st reply to Sept. 24th Michael Kinsley piece in the Eastside Journal, Bellevue Washington.]

What is behind this need for name-calling and labeling? Conservatives, Liberals, good and evil, maybe to keep it simple? But pseudo-intellectuals, where is the point there?

Conservatives certainly aren’t all that bad. They just don’t know any better. Liberals aren’t that good. They just can’t be that certain. But what is the opposite of pseudo-intellectual? It must be either a real intellectual or a complete ignoramus.

Here we seem to have a catch-22. By tossing out such a label, one must imply one knows better. Of course that does seem to cover and reach a large portion of the population. But will they be listening to real intellectuals or the complete ignoramuses who both feel they know better?

Oops! Questioning isn’t part of the process nor patriotic. Neither is the need to listen to any sides. We all know good and evil when we see it. We all know we are the good guys. Now that’s pseudo-intellectual.

* 2-13-12 title(and labels) added due to search

WAR MADE SIMPLE ( An update on a personal lobby against war.) Sent 9-26-02
or A PRIMER FOR OPENING PANDORA'S BOX

To President George W. Bush: ( I guess I am an optimist too.)

I wish to let you know that I am very much opposed to going to war with Iraq in the manner that the administration is going about it. We must tone down the rhetoric but it is probably too late. I hope you have the answers to the following that are not rhetorical questions. For some it is as simple as saying war is "bad". For others it is saying they will have weapons of mass destruction so we need to stop them first. We know that it is not that simple no matter how much we know there is good and evil. If saying something was so made it so, we’d all be gods. If you have any taste for war, please have the guts for democracy.

>> see previous posting here: REGIME RHETORIC REPLY. [9/25/2002 9:00:32 AM | Roger Larson]
[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]

Post Script:
Please remember any answers are good for other players too, especially being above having to answer the questions. And one final question. What happens when players go through regime changes either legitimate or not?

Sent.