May we now turn the tide? Many have commemorated with new words, and I will only go back to my words in the first few hours until I digest the ones that revisit it today.
Here they are: September 11th, 2001
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Saturday, September 10, 2005
PART OF A DRAFT FOR AN INVESTIGATION
The flood of investigations that have not gone anywhere, call for new leadership at the top.
Short of that I recommend a bi-partsan team with full powers consisting of Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell.
Short of that the last hope is that congress do it's job and the press work even harder.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it is clear that Congress needs to take seriously the role of the federal government in meeting the needs of its people. I am urging you as my representative in Washington to:
1. Fund the health care, housing, nutrition, employment and education needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina;
2. abandon all plans to extend or grant additional tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations; and
3. abandon the budget reconciliation plan to cut health care and nutrition programs for low-income families.
I HAVE AMENDED THIS TO ADD MY OWN CONCERN REGARDING THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE ROBERTS:
From the Editorial in the September 19th issue of THE NATION
as summarized here:
1. His conflict of interest while interviewing for his nomination.
2. His claim he would recuse himself when it came to "conflict with his private religious views.
3. His participation in the Republican remake of federalism,
4. and the release of his Solicitor General papers when he was "detailed specifically to handle the most politically sensitive materials".
JUST POINT ONE(conflict of interest during the process) should disqualify Roberts.
And to go on:
POINT 2 (recusal should really be questioned in his confirmation process)
a. He already violated that principle.
b. He must delineat his views or caseS on which he would recuse himself in the future.
POINT 3 is counter indicative of the latter and confirmation of the former
while Point 4 is further documentation being hidden.
IF THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (Under the terms of the Judicial Compromise of the Gang of 14) that there are three unfinished inquiries that need further independence and progress, (Downing Street, Plame Outing and Phase II on the Use of Pre-War Intelligence) but now a fourth continuing disaster and fiasco that (Bush will investigate Brownies Heckuva Job at FEMA)...
THEN I GUESS AS SOMEONE PUT IT --
Hurricane Katrina was only a
"NEAR CATASTROPHE".
Short of that I recommend a bi-partsan team with full powers consisting of Jimmy Carter and Colin Powell.
Short of that the last hope is that congress do it's job and the press work even harder.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it is clear that Congress needs to take seriously the role of the federal government in meeting the needs of its people. I am urging you as my representative in Washington to:
1. Fund the health care, housing, nutrition, employment and education needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina;
2. abandon all plans to extend or grant additional tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations; and
3. abandon the budget reconciliation plan to cut health care and nutrition programs for low-income families.
I HAVE AMENDED THIS TO ADD MY OWN CONCERN REGARDING THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE ROBERTS:
From the Editorial in the September 19th issue of THE NATION
as summarized here:
1. His conflict of interest while interviewing for his nomination.
2. His claim he would recuse himself when it came to "conflict with his private religious views.
3. His participation in the Republican remake of federalism,
4. and the release of his Solicitor General papers when he was "detailed specifically to handle the most politically sensitive materials".
JUST POINT ONE(conflict of interest during the process) should disqualify Roberts.
And to go on:
POINT 2 (recusal should really be questioned in his confirmation process)
a. He already violated that principle.
b. He must delineat his views or caseS on which he would recuse himself in the future.
POINT 3 is counter indicative of the latter and confirmation of the former
while Point 4 is further documentation being hidden.
IF THESE ARE NOT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (Under the terms of the Judicial Compromise of the Gang of 14) that there are three unfinished inquiries that need further independence and progress, (Downing Street, Plame Outing and Phase II on the Use of Pre-War Intelligence) but now a fourth continuing disaster and fiasco that (Bush will investigate Brownies Heckuva Job at FEMA)...
THEN I GUESS AS SOMEONE PUT IT --
Hurricane Katrina was only a
"NEAR CATASTROPHE".
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Back-Log August 20th, Political is the Process
(Letter send to local paper, not printed.)
Bush Agenda Needs More Attention, Not Sympathy
Your view that Cindy’s Sheehan’s grief fuels the anti-Bush agenda is not as controversial as the assessment that her name stands out due to "media attention" is obvious. Both of those are just the way things work. Less obvious probably is the media’s responsibility and congress is not far behind in blame. What is missing in your piece is the reason she is there now. That is that the president is using the deaths of our service men and women in Iraq for political purposes and linking them to a "noble cause".
If the media and congress would hold the president accountable for more than slogans we would likely not be in Iraq let alone be uncomfortable with his inability to face us or plan for success. Imagine that someone would use their grief to change things and imagine further that she gets support from sympathizers that are political as well as qualified. The supporters of the administration and our "struggle" could only hope for as much.
Bush Agenda Needs More Attention, Not Sympathy
Your view that Cindy’s Sheehan’s grief fuels the anti-Bush agenda is not as controversial as the assessment that her name stands out due to "media attention" is obvious. Both of those are just the way things work. Less obvious probably is the media’s responsibility and congress is not far behind in blame. What is missing in your piece is the reason she is there now. That is that the president is using the deaths of our service men and women in Iraq for political purposes and linking them to a "noble cause".
If the media and congress would hold the president accountable for more than slogans we would likely not be in Iraq let alone be uncomfortable with his inability to face us or plan for success. Imagine that someone would use their grief to change things and imagine further that she gets support from sympathizers that are political as well as qualified. The supporters of the administration and our "struggle" could only hope for as much.
Catching Up with US.
OR WATERLOGGED (Cause and Effect/Accountability)
Just why is bureaucracy so at fault when Bush or whoever is in charge (he apparently has to investigate that) added to it by bringing FEMA under Homeland Security?
Homeland Security, and Bush, are more at fault than FEMA, unless blame is only trickle down. (For some it is the people's fault while they serve at the will of the president.)
No wonder New Orleans is flooded. For the sake of millions of bucks passed (NOT), we need billions of buckets to bail out the trickle down.
Maybe there is some sort of "rhetorical" balance in this administration. A linguistic "Tao" of sorts, or that sorts it out. Money is passed up, and "the buck" is passed down. Now I get the schizophrenic partnership between the pillars of the Republican party that are falling upon this country. Religion and the Almighty Dollar do not need to be so close or frictional, but it appears that the dollar to them is meant to rise while the moral burden is for the masses.
Wait. Is this only rhetoric? A metaphor may be more accurate. But rhetoric like money and religion are just words that need to be given meaning by how they are connected to the living and dying. And before I waste more words, I will just say that the bureaucracy is a key in providing the connections to more than just two factors.
The blame does not go to religion, money or bureaucracy which will and must change, but the actors that need to change. The PROCESS must be a two way street of ACCOUNTABILITY between many factors, rather than just the high road and the low road of survival of the "fittest" or we will continue to revolve rather than evolve.
If there is "intelligent design" it may be that I could not make any PROGRESS with a pun about removing the R and replacing the D to improve our evolution. But it also may show the "cause and effect" which is ACCOUNTABILITY that neither party nor people can escape
Now we have come full circle: He trusts the people, not the government, and now everything is on them.
Just why is bureaucracy so at fault when Bush or whoever is in charge (he apparently has to investigate that) added to it by bringing FEMA under Homeland Security?
Homeland Security, and Bush, are more at fault than FEMA, unless blame is only trickle down. (For some it is the people's fault while they serve at the will of the president.)
No wonder New Orleans is flooded. For the sake of millions of bucks passed (NOT), we need billions of buckets to bail out the trickle down.
Maybe there is some sort of "rhetorical" balance in this administration. A linguistic "Tao" of sorts, or that sorts it out. Money is passed up, and "the buck" is passed down. Now I get the schizophrenic partnership between the pillars of the Republican party that are falling upon this country. Religion and the Almighty Dollar do not need to be so close or frictional, but it appears that the dollar to them is meant to rise while the moral burden is for the masses.
Wait. Is this only rhetoric? A metaphor may be more accurate. But rhetoric like money and religion are just words that need to be given meaning by how they are connected to the living and dying. And before I waste more words, I will just say that the bureaucracy is a key in providing the connections to more than just two factors.
The blame does not go to religion, money or bureaucracy which will and must change, but the actors that need to change. The PROCESS must be a two way street of ACCOUNTABILITY between many factors, rather than just the high road and the low road of survival of the "fittest" or we will continue to revolve rather than evolve.
If there is "intelligent design" it may be that I could not make any PROGRESS with a pun about removing the R and replacing the D to improve our evolution. But it also may show the "cause and effect" which is ACCOUNTABILITY that neither party nor people can escape
Now we have come full circle: He trusts the people, not the government, and now everything is on them.
Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto")
(Letter sent to local paper, unprinted.)
MEDVED'S NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY TESTED!Michael
Medved sees a "religious ghetto" where "intelligent design" is not allowed to be taught as a science. If Lance Dickie actually wrote that any "questions never come up in science class", then he was wrong. That criticism aside I would suggest that Medved is confused about the difference between questions and the rest of the discipline of science. It is demonstrated by his most relevant and telling comment that "literally hundreds of academics have endorsed questions and research at the heart of intelligent design."
Questions and research are at the heart of science as well, but it is in the conclusions and their testing which education deals with. In this Medved fails or refuses to face any "global test". He claims that "it’s Darwinist fundamentalists who want to ban any challenge to evolution." His conclusion fails because evolution and science are always about being tested, while "intelligent design" is expecting a pass to be taught as science despite it being an un-testable conclusion let alone a preemptive answer.
Imagine the "ghetto" that science would be if only having more questions was what qualified one for the field, let alone allowed them to be taught. In fact we don’t have to imagine the world if education was only ongoing questions and we are facing that test, and its failure in the real world.
If any exception proves the rule, it is probably only through the generosity of some and the theft by others that we have not seen more evolution, let alone ghettos.
MEDVED'S NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY TESTED!Michael
Medved sees a "religious ghetto" where "intelligent design" is not allowed to be taught as a science. If Lance Dickie actually wrote that any "questions never come up in science class", then he was wrong. That criticism aside I would suggest that Medved is confused about the difference between questions and the rest of the discipline of science. It is demonstrated by his most relevant and telling comment that "literally hundreds of academics have endorsed questions and research at the heart of intelligent design."
Questions and research are at the heart of science as well, but it is in the conclusions and their testing which education deals with. In this Medved fails or refuses to face any "global test". He claims that "it’s Darwinist fundamentalists who want to ban any challenge to evolution." His conclusion fails because evolution and science are always about being tested, while "intelligent design" is expecting a pass to be taught as science despite it being an un-testable conclusion let alone a preemptive answer.
Imagine the "ghetto" that science would be if only having more questions was what qualified one for the field, let alone allowed them to be taught. In fact we don’t have to imagine the world if education was only ongoing questions and we are facing that test, and its failure in the real world.
If any exception proves the rule, it is probably only through the generosity of some and the theft by others that we have not seen more evolution, let alone ghettos.
Monday, September 05, 2005
I'm Bushed
and a little similar in not wanting or having to read the full thing to get the gist of it. But as I pick and choose (or scan as I am not Evelyn Wood) I do seem to hit on just more of the same I already have noted.
I'm not sure I have posted it here, but do not bet on it not getting worse for some must may know it. Actually I am certain I did not post it anywhere (as such) as I made a mid-sentence course correction. Another thing Bush does but which still does not let us know where he means to go.
The above was taking the blame for maybe not reading before I rant, but then before it's "there he goes again", me or him, we must start being accountable for holding someone accountable and it may take more than more investigations, but an independent (ha!), no partisan look at everything that gets to the President.
I'm not sure I have posted it here, but do not bet on it not getting worse for some must may know it. Actually I am certain I did not post it anywhere (as such) as I made a mid-sentence course correction. Another thing Bush does but which still does not let us know where he means to go.
The above was taking the blame for maybe not reading before I rant, but then before it's "there he goes again", me or him, we must start being accountable for holding someone accountable and it may take more than more investigations, but an independent (ha!), no partisan look at everything that gets to the President.
Are We "IN" Yet?
Can you hear me now?
Are we there yet?
Or is there more of the same? ("catastrophic success"}
The president's problems are "IN", and if it is only a choice of black or white, us or them, they must be either INcompetence * or INtentional! Is a third option there?
Oh yeah, stay the course and look back later, and when we have more to face, stay the course and look back later.
* * Why New Orleans is in deep water.[by Molly Ivans]
[My personal note] is that we really need someone to simultaneously kick butt and filter the memos or whatever is not being read to the Captain or whoever is in charge. Meanwhile if we cannot point fingers and fix things at the same time, how can we hurry into a decision on a Supreme Court Associate Justice now Chief Justice nominee? How can we depend on due diligence in that decision while we find so few holding the President accountable? All I am saying is that given the president's catastrophic successes do we really have confidence in his ability let alone meaning in making any decisions?
Are we there yet?
Or is there more of the same? ("catastrophic success"}
The president's problems are "IN", and if it is only a choice of black or white, us or them, they must be either INcompetence * or INtentional! Is a third option there?
Oh yeah, stay the course and look back later, and when we have more to face, stay the course and look back later.
* * Why New Orleans is in deep water.[by Molly Ivans]
[My personal note] is that we really need someone to simultaneously kick butt and filter the memos or whatever is not being read to the Captain or whoever is in charge. Meanwhile if we cannot point fingers and fix things at the same time, how can we hurry into a decision on a Supreme Court Associate Justice now Chief Justice nominee? How can we depend on due diligence in that decision while we find so few holding the President accountable? All I am saying is that given the president's catastrophic successes do we really have confidence in his ability let alone meaning in making any decisions?
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The President
Helps bring out the best in America!
NOTE: Alternet Link but the concept came from the Bush video below. Something about "diversity" and facing it or the bulk of it. More like putting a spin on pain or is that a smirk on the face of it. Note: this editors note obviously became more, see next post or rather ABOVE "PERSONAL NOTE".
NOTE: Alternet Link but the concept came from the Bush video below. Something about "diversity" and facing it or the bulk of it. More like putting a spin on pain or is that a smirk on the face of it. Note: this editors note obviously became more, see next post or rather ABOVE "PERSONAL NOTE".
Friday, August 19, 2005
Intelligent Design? More Irony.
Going back two posts to the reality of cause and effect that seems to be denied by Bush, it should be obvious that Cindy Sheehan's important question(What is the noble cause?)is normally addressed preemptively in order for there to be any success in a project. Just how can anyone expect to reach a goal that is shifting and undefined, not to mention prepared for properly without all the input available.
Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.
Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.
Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.
Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.
Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.
Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.
Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.
Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
UN-REALITY AND CAMP CASEY
I must read more(On the WP "unreality" and on Camp Casey messaging), but it seems that the qualifiers or the choice of words still leave a lot of wiggle room (in the WP piece) when it comes to knowing what they really mean or when they intended it. My "pre-"cursory analysis is that we should now focus on what the noble cause "was" as it will always depend on what the definition of "is" is. Now seemingly "post-war on terror" and with the on going "struggle" a look back at what the reasons were may lay in "following the money" and not only holding the administration and its "willing" corporate sponsors(profiteers) accountable but congress and the media as Cindy Sheehan has noted many times.
Having not finished reading the following, they may deserve some credit for this line of thought:
CINDY'S MESSAGE:
HOWARD DEAN'S:
IRAN NEXT?: (Why we need to remember the unreality!)
Jumping to the conclusion(with a re-read needed), in other words did we really intend to win something that was going to be ongoing and unconnected? The next project(U.N or Iran] will be a different matter but what will have changed?
[Sorry needed to rant or question/hit and run.]
But...If I may project further, that others may take more responsibility.
[NOTE: as I post this I have now read the below link.]
Having not finished reading the following, they may deserve some credit for this line of thought:
CINDY'S MESSAGE:
HOWARD DEAN'S:
IRAN NEXT?: (Why we need to remember the unreality!)
Jumping to the conclusion(with a re-read needed), in other words did we really intend to win something that was going to be ongoing and unconnected? The next project(U.N or Iran] will be a different matter but what will have changed?
[Sorry needed to rant or question/hit and run.]
But...If I may project further, that others may take more responsibility.
[NOTE: as I post this I have now read the below link.]
Dateline: August 10th, 2005
[you will just have to trust, that is the date I saved these words]
Evolution v. Quantum Philosophy: FLIP/FLOP
[Black and white or ones and zeros.]
Connections...
Changes...
Absolutes...
They have flipped and guarantee flop. Based on the concept that there may be two types of thinkers: those that deal with reality and those that think it is chosen.
The Will to Power? The power of Will? Intentions play a big role in relationships and this breaks down into the two realms of Science and Religion. Will is recognized in ourselves and the supernatural. Is there really a difference? A relatively easier question is how we relate to others, and well as the world. Maybe a better model would have it as the material and the spiritual worlds. Two realities that are hard to deny but are realms that are separate yet maybe connected. Religions are not the master of the spiritual world any more than money is the master of the material. But there is no denying that intentions play a role in manifesting some reality.
The principle that there are absolutes, and that there should not be flip flop or understanding of others to better relate in this world is the main problem with the Neo-Con or Non-Thinking administration. Bush is reported to place intuition above intellect. Others report that his intuition is flawless. That is easy when one’s intellect does not recognize flaws and hypocrisy is the height of reality in that one can choose between schools of thought that often preempt facts, not to mention cause and effect.
8-10-05
Roger Larson
[Again, trust the date, but the subject I had in mind, may be more obtuse.]
Evolution v. Quantum Philosophy: FLIP/FLOP
[Black and white or ones and zeros.]
Connections...
Changes...
Absolutes...
They have flipped and guarantee flop. Based on the concept that there may be two types of thinkers: those that deal with reality and those that think it is chosen.
The Will to Power? The power of Will? Intentions play a big role in relationships and this breaks down into the two realms of Science and Religion. Will is recognized in ourselves and the supernatural. Is there really a difference? A relatively easier question is how we relate to others, and well as the world. Maybe a better model would have it as the material and the spiritual worlds. Two realities that are hard to deny but are realms that are separate yet maybe connected. Religions are not the master of the spiritual world any more than money is the master of the material. But there is no denying that intentions play a role in manifesting some reality.
The principle that there are absolutes, and that there should not be flip flop or understanding of others to better relate in this world is the main problem with the Neo-Con or Non-Thinking administration. Bush is reported to place intuition above intellect. Others report that his intuition is flawless. That is easy when one’s intellect does not recognize flaws and hypocrisy is the height of reality in that one can choose between schools of thought that often preempt facts, not to mention cause and effect.
8-10-05
Roger Larson
[Again, trust the date, but the subject I had in mind, may be more obtuse.]
Friday, July 29, 2005
ONE PARTY: HOLD THE LOCKSTEP!
Maybe things would not be so bad in a dictatorship. However, Plato thought about it and passed. The main problem being finding a good dictator or one benevolent to all. But maybe we should experiment with one party rule. The Republicans have done the latest research in this field and now that we know what does not work, except for those that want to trade charges about who is holding whose breath, we can breath a sigh of resignation and just have Democratic rule.
This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.
One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.
[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson
The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?
This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.
One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.
[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson
The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?
Friday, July 22, 2005
OUT OF THE BLUE? NOT!
I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but questions leaping out are another matter. What about Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak? The only one not talking is Judith Miller. She chose to protect her sources. For a journalist admirable, for a pawn of the administration, what? The missing link seems to be the two sources that Robert Novak used. One Karl Rove*, the other still unknown. Another journalist? Is confirming that one heard something from an unknown source a confirmation? Is forgetting the source a defense? Is protecting bad sources or administration leaks a journalists job? Is it job security or a defense against charges of treason?
I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?
Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.
Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.
Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.]
* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl
I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?
Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.
Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.
Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.]
* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl
Friday, June 24, 2005
Reaction to Preemption of Fear by Fear Itself.
FIRE KARL ROVE!*
He is a threat not only to Democracy but possibly our liberty and our lives.
Rove's words reflect the biggest difference between the administration, not conservatives, and Americans, all of them including liberals. That is, that for the administration's political purposes, war is not the last option. And if you want to unite us, knowing what you mean, and meaning what you say, should be your top priority for the sake of America and the world.
The whole policy of preempting fear by fear itself, must be ended!
If this is not the policy, you better check in on what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are saying as well.
PEOPLE MUST SPEAK NOW! OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR WAR!
* correction Carl read Karl 6-12-14
He is a threat not only to Democracy but possibly our liberty and our lives.
Rove's words reflect the biggest difference between the administration, not conservatives, and Americans, all of them including liberals. That is, that for the administration's political purposes, war is not the last option. And if you want to unite us, knowing what you mean, and meaning what you say, should be your top priority for the sake of America and the world.
The whole policy of preempting fear by fear itself, must be ended!
If this is not the policy, you better check in on what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are saying as well.
PEOPLE MUST SPEAK NOW! OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR WAR!
* correction Carl read Karl 6-12-14
Thursday, June 16, 2005
From Pillar to Post?
Is truth really relative?
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.
The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.
Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.
The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.
Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
BIG TENT v. MESS TENT
Do I need to explain the frame?
BUSH'S WAR
THE FRAME
REGIME CHANGE
I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.
To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)
The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.
The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.
If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.
(Below Sent to Local Papers)
It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.
Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.
Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA
BUSH'S WAR
THE FRAME
REGIME CHANGE
I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.
To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)
The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.
The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.
If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.
(Below Sent to Local Papers)
It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.
Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.
Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA
Monday, June 13, 2005
DEAN MESS IS THE MESSAGE!
It is hard to react to the reactions but it all seems a lot of overreaction.
The Dean mess is the message.
A "Big Tent" versus "THE MESS" Tent.
The Bush mess is the "Mess Age".
If generalizing were a crime, there would be a lot of pundits and pols in lock-up.
If the particular truth were told, the media is much of the mess.
If context is ignored, you only have "the con" text.
If Dean is not dividing, then what would be the need for a "BIG TENT"?
If Dean is the focus, then what about the mess we are in?
If the media overreacts to Dean, at least the multiple reactions include issues that the troops are working on.
That is the dilemma of staying on message.
You may get a "Mess Age".
The Dean mess is the message.
A "Big Tent" versus "THE MESS" Tent.
The Bush mess is the "Mess Age".
If generalizing were a crime, there would be a lot of pundits and pols in lock-up.
If the particular truth were told, the media is much of the mess.
If context is ignored, you only have "the con" text.
If Dean is not dividing, then what would be the need for a "BIG TENT"?
If Dean is the focus, then what about the mess we are in?
If the media overreacts to Dean, at least the multiple reactions include issues that the troops are working on.
That is the dilemma of staying on message.
You may get a "Mess Age".
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Liberals Rethinking? Not in their hands.
In regard to the "Gang of 14" compromise, I would like to point out the seemingly binding nature of it and the "extraordinary circumstances" pertaining to the President not seeking "advice and consent". It seems that it is in the hands or principles of the Republican 7 that they abide by Part II, B for any other nominations, given the refusal by the President and others in congress to recognize the constitutional principle of equal branches of government. Any indication to the contrary by these seven would void the agreement!
Risking fulfillment of the agreement would only be worth it if we can politically win the understanding of moderates while keeping the hearts of progressives.
Any comparison of future or pending nominations to the conceded nominees would be invalid, as that is what they were negotiated for.
Risking fulfillment of the agreement would only be worth it if we can politically win the understanding of moderates while keeping the hearts of progressives.
Any comparison of future or pending nominations to the conceded nominees would be invalid, as that is what they were negotiated for.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Groundwork for Impeachment?
Two weeks ago Sunday, when I broached the subject of politics with a friend, I guess I was sort of laying the ground work of an I told you so, when I noted the sailor in San Diego and the Military Justice finding the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq illegal.
He had a rather firm reaction of missing the days when they shot deserters. I did not bother to say something about the worst Bush being able to get is impeachment. We are one step closer.
He had a rather firm reaction of missing the days when they shot deserters. I did not bother to say something about the worst Bush being able to get is impeachment. We are one step closer.
Evolution of a Mugging or The Revolution of Irony
Mixing metaphors, the process was taken to the woodshed on the so called compromise or "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations". It may be more of a mutual sacrifice. On one side, the three nominees that will make the cloture vote are a gift from the centrist Democrats. On the other side the "right" to end the filibuster by breaking the rules was sacrificed by the centrist Republicans. If this was done for the sake of the rules and tradition of the senate, then it seems that principles were held hostage by those republicans for the sake of getting past this or just those nominees. The only hope is that with advice and consent there will never be sent more nominees with potential to be filibustered, and that there will never be reason to vote against their principles again.
[6-2-05: Comment and final link added below]
The continued comments that nominees are due an up or down vote indicate the degree that this deal depends on the integrity of the 7 Republicans who are standing up (with the Democrats)for the rules and traditions of the U.S. Senate and the constitution.]
[6-2-05: Comment and final link added below]
The continued comments that nominees are due an up or down vote indicate the degree that this deal depends on the integrity of the 7 Republicans who are standing up (with the Democrats)for the rules and traditions of the U.S. Senate and the constitution.]
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Memo of Understanding
It may not make good blogging, media or politics, but the more I read the Memo of Understanding.. not only the more I understand it but have hope that it is binding.
In brief:
Part I: Pending
A. on 3 nominees vote to cloture.
B. on 2 reserve right to vote cloture
Part II: Future
A. right to filibuster or cloture up to individual
B. Commit to oppose rules change in the 109th congress except by the rules, meaning not by simple majority.
Now it is back to politics, which is also media and blogging. This seems to be more binding than some of them may understand or will admit. But then again, we are back to politics and the rest.
In brief:
Part I: Pending
A. on 3 nominees vote to cloture.
B. on 2 reserve right to vote cloture
Part II: Future
A. right to filibuster or cloture up to individual
B. Commit to oppose rules change in the 109th congress except by the rules, meaning not by simple majority.
Now it is back to politics, which is also media and blogging. This seems to be more binding than some of them may understand or will admit. But then again, we are back to politics and the rest.
Vaccination for our Castor Oil.
With the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, we must vaccinate ourselves from what one of the participants of the Gang of 14 called the castor oil which the compromise was. With the veto expected on the Stem Cell bill, we will see that it is not a matter of an up or down vote, or majority rule. It is not even a matter of morality. It is a matter of politics or Bush trying to reason. (Tangent later.)
The vaccination must come to the argument David Brooks made and to which Al Franken agreed was a precedent with the Owen vote, bringing down the barrier of what constitutes where “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
In my opinion this is a risky bet but on principle the barrier has not been dropped. The three nominees were part of the compromise made as part of upholding the filibuster. These nominees should set no precedence that would change their view that the filibuster is constitutional and for the best of the country. This logic is binding to the extent that in Part II, B. they have agreed not to change the rules with a majority vote.
The vaccination must come to the argument David Brooks made and to which Al Franken agreed was a precedent with the Owen vote, bringing down the barrier of what constitutes where “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
In my opinion this is a risky bet but on principle the barrier has not been dropped. The three nominees were part of the compromise made as part of upholding the filibuster. These nominees should set no precedence that would change their view that the filibuster is constitutional and for the best of the country. This logic is binding to the extent that in Part II, B. they have agreed not to change the rules with a majority vote.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Temporary Victory for Filibuster
Here are two titles I hope not to need:
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles
There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.
I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.
The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles
There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.
I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.
The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.
Concern about Compromise.
(Comments in Email: 11:45 am PST.)
This is either the poorest example of journalism
or the most obvious reason we are in trouble,
but can anyone figure out a compromise that will work,
that fits the parameters McCain noted where future nominees are not blocked and current filibuster rules remain unchanged?
UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE WEEK OR HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION:
“We’re having difficulty coming up with exact language which would portray that desire. It’s tough,” McCain told “Fox News Sunday.”
"Dealmakers to meet over judges standoff." See link.
This is either the poorest example of journalism
or the most obvious reason we are in trouble,
but can anyone figure out a compromise that will work,
that fits the parameters McCain noted where future nominees are not blocked and current filibuster rules remain unchanged?
UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE WEEK OR HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION:
“We’re having difficulty coming up with exact language which would portray that desire. It’s tough,” McCain told “Fox News Sunday.”
"Dealmakers to meet over judges standoff." See link.
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Mother of All Flushes
Going back to my old style of writing I have a quick filter of the highly filtered news. On the recent scandal at Newsweek or rather “Setup”
or UN Like Rather setup: It reminds me of the old WMD falderal. How? Well it begins with what is the truth or where do we begin?. I take back my comment on old style since I seem to have evolved a bit if nothing much else has changed. But the truth about WMD as well as the facts or which came first their existence or removal? If the disrespect for the Koran exists and there has been more than one report of that occurring it is the administrations job to prove that these did not occur. The problem here is that the truth is not something that you can pick or choose nor kill the messenger for trying to get at. I certainly have no first hand knowledge, but it seems that facts are beside the issue of checking reports and proving the negative. It seems that there are many reports of the Koran landing somewhere no matter what you call it. It seems that Newsweek ran their piece by the Defense Department, with some changes made. So the farthest from this frame is to blame the messenger.
[I had to attach the link, to give some credit as it is still unread. But it is another irony or hypocrisy (depending if you or left or right brain thinking) in the UN Oil for Food scandal being a Weapon of Media Distraction from taking responsibility for our own actions.].
or UN Like Rather setup: It reminds me of the old WMD falderal. How? Well it begins with what is the truth or where do we begin?. I take back my comment on old style since I seem to have evolved a bit if nothing much else has changed. But the truth about WMD as well as the facts or which came first their existence or removal? If the disrespect for the Koran exists and there has been more than one report of that occurring it is the administrations job to prove that these did not occur. The problem here is that the truth is not something that you can pick or choose nor kill the messenger for trying to get at. I certainly have no first hand knowledge, but it seems that facts are beside the issue of checking reports and proving the negative. It seems that there are many reports of the Koran landing somewhere no matter what you call it. It seems that Newsweek ran their piece by the Defense Department, with some changes made. So the farthest from this frame is to blame the messenger.
[I had to attach the link, to give some credit as it is still unread. But it is another irony or hypocrisy (depending if you or left or right brain thinking) in the UN Oil for Food scandal being a Weapon of Media Distraction from taking responsibility for our own actions.].
Friday, May 13, 2005
Preemption not Prevention but Prediction
I have yet to more than barely read the following three sites, politicalwire.com timesonline.co.uk guardian.co.uk. which I found simply by doing a search for Downing Street Memo
But it is clear to me that this information must have been filtered through what is known as open source intelligence well before the congress voted on the Iraq Resolution. Just as it may be difficult for real information to pass through the “objective filter” which the president calls his staff, there is much that is poorly strained in reaching the public as well as our representatives.
My post is evidence of my conviction at that time.
More than just filtering the facts, reading between the lines before the dots are connected seems the only way to analyze the administration. It seems that my theory that people will follow what you do whether or not they know what you mean can also be taken preemptively, and that is also a two-way street. Preemption is not just prevention, it can be prediction, unless you count on someone to know better.
But it is clear to me that this information must have been filtered through what is known as open source intelligence well before the congress voted on the Iraq Resolution. Just as it may be difficult for real information to pass through the “objective filter” which the president calls his staff, there is much that is poorly strained in reaching the public as well as our representatives.
My post is evidence of my conviction at that time.
More than just filtering the facts, reading between the lines before the dots are connected seems the only way to analyze the administration. It seems that my theory that people will follow what you do whether or not they know what you mean can also be taken preemptively, and that is also a two-way street. Preemption is not just prevention, it can be prediction, unless you count on someone to know better.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
WEDGE ISSUE? UNITING ISSUE: The Filibuster
Even before seeing the following, States set to fight, defy driver’s license rules
Object to new federal requirements with no funding I thought it could be a uniting issue that should also save the filibuster.
The States must sue the Federal Administration for unfunded mandates. Beyond the reasoning that drivers licenses are to make roads safe, not the airways, this must also be tied to the concern about loss of the filibuster. The Senate beyond representing the minority, it also represents the States in a form of equal representation. If there is no taxation without representation, there should be no trickle down mandates without funding. The Senate and the Supreme Court along with the filibuster must be seen as protecting “States Rights” as well as the minority.
Object to new federal requirements with no funding I thought it could be a uniting issue that should also save the filibuster.
The States must sue the Federal Administration for unfunded mandates. Beyond the reasoning that drivers licenses are to make roads safe, not the airways, this must also be tied to the concern about loss of the filibuster. The Senate beyond representing the minority, it also represents the States in a form of equal representation. If there is no taxation without representation, there should be no trickle down mandates without funding. The Senate and the Supreme Court along with the filibuster must be seen as protecting “States Rights” as well as the minority.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Chicken Hawk Down? 2008 Frist-Bush?
They certainly aren't counting the Chicken Hawk down.
Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.
They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."
They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."
Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?
Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.
They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."
They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."
Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?
Let's Do the Frist: or Onward Fristian Soldiers!
After the last post, I opened my local paper and read the AP report on Justice Sunday, and Frist does seem to be out of touch with the "Agenda" of the so called "choir" to which he spoke, but that is part of the plan.
He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.
Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.
He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.
Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.
Borrow and Twist- a surfing metaphor?
Oh what a web we weave or mobius strip we ravel. I was going give a shout out earlier as a wake-up for the upcoming Justice Sunday events, but they may hopefully make it through the “so called Liberal” media filters. But cutting through the mangled message is not that difficult if you follow the borrow and twist method that has been my habit: You must simply take their statements or labels and sort out the facts. Well maybe not even that.
The so called aim of JCCCR.org is "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith". There basically is no judicial war on faith except theirs. They are actually fighting for their Truth and they are against anything else, especially Faith. Faith by definition is not Truth but actually depends on not knowing or having facts. It is even divorced from logic. Even this concept is not exactly absolute, but relative. Having knowledge, be they facts or understanding, does not rule out faith.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith. Truth is also part of the process, but understanding and faith are not strangers to it.
All links in this post were only glanced at, either during or after the process. The Al Franken Show and the mention of upcoming guests, from Andrew Sullivan.com to People for the American Way also deserve some credit for getting me rolling, but I probably missed some valuable comments while processing this and going overboard with definitions and links.
The so called aim of JCCCR.org is "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith". There basically is no judicial war on faith except theirs. They are actually fighting for their Truth and they are against anything else, especially Faith. Faith by definition is not Truth but actually depends on not knowing or having facts. It is even divorced from logic. Even this concept is not exactly absolute, but relative. Having knowledge, be they facts or understanding, does not rule out faith.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith. Truth is also part of the process, but understanding and faith are not strangers to it.
All links in this post were only glanced at, either during or after the process. The Al Franken Show and the mention of upcoming guests, from Andrew Sullivan.com to People for the American Way also deserve some credit for getting me rolling, but I probably missed some valuable comments while processing this and going overboard with definitions and links.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
QCON: Bolt of Hope
Quick Concept:Questioning Conservatives
Have some from the other side seen the light?
Have some from the other side seen the light?
The People's Business?
Bush today: “Sometimes politics gets in the way of the people's business.” Speaking of “on the one hand” or “on the other hand”, I was torn between thinking of it as the nadir or zenith, but it seems the core of his logic.
He wants his nominee and he wants it now.
So much for "strict father", sounds like pre-tantrum baby.
Further comment would have to rely on the “cause and effect” of whatever he means. And which comes first? People or business. Not to mention whatever the alternative to politics is. This seems the epitome or Dao(Dow) of cutting through and being full of it.
I could have done without a link, but there is possilby some link to the question of which comes first.
He wants his nominee and he wants it now.
So much for "strict father", sounds like pre-tantrum baby.
Further comment would have to rely on the “cause and effect” of whatever he means. And which comes first? People or business. Not to mention whatever the alternative to politics is. This seems the epitome or Dao(Dow) of cutting through and being full of it.
I could have done without a link, but there is possilby some link to the question of which comes first.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Don’t count your Chicken Hawks before they splat!
On the apparent success in getting further consideration of John Bolton’s nomination to U. N. Ambassador , I would like to give the CIA (Counter Intuitive Associating) analysis or as I would describe the purpose of The Liaison Report as walking the line between "on the one hand", and "on the other hand".
On the one hand Bolton has some undesirable behaviors. On the other hand he represents the administration’s principles. On the one hand that is not the way a diplomat should work. On the other hand he is honest about how the administration does work.
There is something fresh about this honesty in the grander scheme of things, it is only on closer look that the principle and particulars of honesty fall apart. If this is (not?) the principle that moves America forward, it is at least the principle that the administration operates under.
As encouraging or intriguing as the links here prove to be, replacing Bolton will not replace the behavior and policies of the administration without more "hard work".
On the one hand Bolton has some undesirable behaviors. On the other hand he represents the administration’s principles. On the one hand that is not the way a diplomat should work. On the other hand he is honest about how the administration does work.
There is something fresh about this honesty in the grander scheme of things, it is only on closer look that the principle and particulars of honesty fall apart. If this is (not?) the principle that moves America forward, it is at least the principle that the administration operates under.
As encouraging or intriguing as the links here prove to be, replacing Bolton will not replace the behavior and policies of the administration without more "hard work".
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Spreading Irony and Con Text
President Bush will become know as the Irony President. I believe I have noted that before.
But the previous post was in haste, and the context intentionally left open.
It was brought to mind by the ironic use of President Roosevelt's words by the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration.
But the previous post was in haste, and the context intentionally left open.
It was brought to mind by the ironic use of President Roosevelt's words by the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
THE TAO OF DUB-YA
THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF GEORGE DUB-YA BUSH:
“I trust the people not the government”
“I am a uniter not a divider.”
I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.
Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.
It is very simple.
He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,
so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.
And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,
in not trusting government.
Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.
If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.
He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.
The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.
“I trust the people not the government”
“I am a uniter not a divider.”
I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.
Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.
It is very simple.
He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,
so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.
And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,
in not trusting government.
Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.
If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.
He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.
The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
My Take:
[editor's note: 4-7-05 Schiavo link added below and here]
Those who depart from party dogma may deserve some credit, but it also may be political. Hopefully the kind of political that represents having some principles and actually standing up for them, though these may be divorced from the relevant facts, not that facts are partisan or dogmatic either. On the other hand it does not mean that they have stood up for a principle if they are just considering their own political skin.
My prediction is that there will be a backing off by the administration in the face of reality and politics. This is about the 2006 election, as well as “activist judges” whatever they are. My further prediction is that the difference will be told in whether it is a matter of their holding their powder for later. We must remain activist on principles and further the debate.
They will have other "talking points" that must not distract us from ours.
Those who depart from party dogma may deserve some credit, but it also may be political. Hopefully the kind of political that represents having some principles and actually standing up for them, though these may be divorced from the relevant facts, not that facts are partisan or dogmatic either. On the other hand it does not mean that they have stood up for a principle if they are just considering their own political skin.
My prediction is that there will be a backing off by the administration in the face of reality and politics. This is about the 2006 election, as well as “activist judges” whatever they are. My further prediction is that the difference will be told in whether it is a matter of their holding their powder for later. We must remain activist on principles and further the debate.
They will have other "talking points" that must not distract us from ours.
QCON: In this case Quick CONcept!
TALKING POINTS:*
OURS: Things we should talk about.
THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.
Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.
What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.
Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?
Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.
Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?
*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.
[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]
OURS: Things we should talk about.
THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.
Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.
What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.
Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?
Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.
Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?
*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.
[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Stop grandstanding on the Schiavo tragedy
Please sign the MoveOn Petition
I did, with my added comments:
Also stop spending money on fake news PERIOD!
Stop producing news or using public relations firms.
The press would be glad* to report if you show up and answer questions.
And stop lying on the floors of the House and Senate.
Hold members of congress responsible for their words, their source of information and make sure they and the American public get reliable news.
THANK YOU
* I am not so sure I believe this, but it would be nice if the only reporting came from actual opportunities to ask questions from both sides and actual investigating, without simply taking it straight from the mouths of pols or their shills.
I did, with my added comments:
Also stop spending money on fake news PERIOD!
Stop producing news or using public relations firms.
The press would be glad* to report if you show up and answer questions.
And stop lying on the floors of the House and Senate.
Hold members of congress responsible for their words, their source of information and make sure they and the American public get reliable news.
THANK YOU
* I am not so sure I believe this, but it would be nice if the only reporting came from actual opportunities to ask questions from both sides and actual investigating, without simply taking it straight from the mouths of pols or their shills.
BU--SH-- v. Legalese
The previous post needs more filtering or at least a few more words. It may be just ironic that the links contained too many words and you had to do the “hard work” that the Center for American Progress did in their filtering of the following words.
Scott McClellan, 3/21/05:
"The legislation he [Bush] signed is consistent with his views.... The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."
Texas Law, Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
“If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment.... The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day.”
Having yet to fully read both of the previous links, it would be like sorting out Bu--Sh-- and Legalese.
Scott McClellan, 3/21/05:
"The legislation he [Bush] signed is consistent with his views.... The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."
Texas Law, Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
“If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment.... The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day.”
Having yet to fully read both of the previous links, it would be like sorting out Bu--Sh-- and Legalese.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
THE WORD
FROM ON HIGH:
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
TEXAS JUSTICE: HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 166. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
Can we say "Flip-Flop"?
Can we say "a uniter not a divider"?
Or is it simply the forked tongue of a Texas Rattler?
It's NOT JUST political. It's the whole ball game, or is it shooting match?
Where is that liberal media and where are the DubYa-Blamed filters now?
Who knows better now?
[I file the below LINK for adumbrative procrastination.]
Translation: I may have heard of it, there may be some connection, but I have yet to read much of it.
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
TEXAS JUSTICE: HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 166. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
Can we say "Flip-Flop"?
Can we say "a uniter not a divider"?
Or is it simply the forked tongue of a Texas Rattler?
It's NOT JUST political. It's the whole ball game, or is it shooting match?
Where is that liberal media and where are the DubYa-Blamed filters now?
Who knows better now?
[I file the below LINK for adumbrative procrastination.]
Translation: I may have heard of it, there may be some connection, but I have yet to read much of it.
QCON: Politics?
Yes! QCON: [Quick Comment On the News] or Question Con, or Question Context, Question Content.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Friday, March 18, 2005
In Honor of "Hard Work"
For those who are currently wavering or wondering about the issue of Iraq, here is a piece "Why Iraq Withdrawal Makes Sense" by Norman Solomon , which I recommend for the courage needed to do the hard work that must come before war becomes the only "hard work" worth doing.
For those who may have missed it, President Bush used these words "hard work" several times in one of his most inspiring speeches. But it is not too much to ask as in (House Concurrent Resolution 35) to develop and implement a plan for "immediate withdrawal". Then we, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can get back to the "hard work" we will always have and should have done before the "war as a last resort".
While I would not encourage too much reliance on polls, it is part of a democracy. While Bush disavowed polls, he did say he trusts "the people not the government". Despite the embedded nature of government in journalism both here and in Iraq it is ironic and fortunate that polls do not reflect what the President wishes and what many, even progressives fall for: which is that in the current case, we and a continued military presence are the solution.
At least we must begin the "hard work" of discussion and hope that democracy here and abroad, and a trust of the people will mean the government will do the "hard work" of being open to debate. We got into this war with less than ideal candor. We will not end it without a greater degree of open mindedness and real "hard work".
For those who may have missed it, President Bush used these words "hard work" several times in one of his most inspiring speeches. But it is not too much to ask as in (House Concurrent Resolution 35) to develop and implement a plan for "immediate withdrawal". Then we, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can get back to the "hard work" we will always have and should have done before the "war as a last resort".
While I would not encourage too much reliance on polls, it is part of a democracy. While Bush disavowed polls, he did say he trusts "the people not the government". Despite the embedded nature of government in journalism both here and in Iraq it is ironic and fortunate that polls do not reflect what the President wishes and what many, even progressives fall for: which is that in the current case, we and a continued military presence are the solution.
At least we must begin the "hard work" of discussion and hope that democracy here and abroad, and a trust of the people will mean the government will do the "hard work" of being open to debate. We got into this war with less than ideal candor. We will not end it without a greater degree of open mindedness and real "hard work".
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Democracy Battle Going Unclear
QCON- [Quick Comment On the News]
I.e. My take: Here are a few links that I have only glanced at that seem to paint the picture.
Democracy battles by George going uNclear
Democracy- by George by Juan Cole
Senate Votes to Allow Artic Drilling by Josef Hebert Associated Press
Budget Tug of War by Joel Havemann -- The Los Angeles Times
Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist /Preserving Checks and Balance
Bush budget drilling... the iceberg or the Titanic?
I.e. My take: Here are a few links that I have only glanced at that seem to paint the picture.
Democracy battles by George going uNclear
Democracy- by George by Juan Cole
Senate Votes to Allow Artic Drilling by Josef Hebert Associated Press
Budget Tug of War by Joel Havemann -- The Los Angeles Times
Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist /Preserving Checks and Balance
Bush budget drilling... the iceberg or the Titanic?
TIP OF THE FLAME
Among the things that attract my attention are the various organizations that overlap in purpose. Checking the DNC petition, it seems that details were lacking in the wording * or maybe I just expect too much or need to work more myself, but I cannot help but feel that those we petition may not have it any clearer than many of us. Our own representatives may get it, but as Democratic Leader Harry Reid points out the PR problem as $3 million (that is as far as I read) we are already off on a few tangents that may be parallel.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.
===========================================================
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Soothing of inflammation.
[NOTE] In this blog or as I choose to call it BLOB (Web Lobby) I have never altered the archives that I can recall, except to add a link. The only editing has occurred within moments or hours of posting, as minor corrections. Maintaining this principle I refer to the previous post which I now amend.
In preface: While not meaning to defend any individuals particular choice of words, I do feel that they have a right to choose them their selves. Given the overall and most recent history of violence, and the Orwellian language and Homeland Security acts which have been used to overshadow and preempt not just freedoms but the value of dialogue, I find the inflammatory use of language a very small concern. Indeed it is a highest and best example of freedom as well as beautiful alternative to just saying “war is a last resort” while sabotaging our constitution and flaunting international laws and treaties.
To amend I will only highlight and add the comments that follow this section:
[From previous post] For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
The bold words leave much to the interpretation of the reader. I would emphasize these words in the kindest light, if I may use a wrong word in “kind”. While a reading of surrounding text may tend to further inflame, they may also further support the overall argument, which I will not be concerned with, given my preface. In fact if it takes outrageous language to get notice or productive dialogue, this seems the operating principle not only of our society but our leadership, if the are interested in dialogue at all. The outrageousness itself has no other value.
In preface: While not meaning to defend any individuals particular choice of words, I do feel that they have a right to choose them their selves. Given the overall and most recent history of violence, and the Orwellian language and Homeland Security acts which have been used to overshadow and preempt not just freedoms but the value of dialogue, I find the inflammatory use of language a very small concern. Indeed it is a highest and best example of freedom as well as beautiful alternative to just saying “war is a last resort” while sabotaging our constitution and flaunting international laws and treaties.
To amend I will only highlight and add the comments that follow this section:
[From previous post] For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
The bold words leave much to the interpretation of the reader. I would emphasize these words in the kindest light, if I may use a wrong word in “kind”. While a reading of surrounding text may tend to further inflame, they may also further support the overall argument, which I will not be concerned with, given my preface. In fact if it takes outrageous language to get notice or productive dialogue, this seems the operating principle not only of our society but our leadership, if the are interested in dialogue at all. The outrageousness itself has no other value.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
What's good for the goose? Goose the gander!
American Perspectives?
It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.
Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",
followed by:
“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.
This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].
The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.
For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?
It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.
Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",
followed by:
“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.
This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].
The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.
For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
ON MESSAGE; SS CRISIS
The crisis is that the president has a serious problem with language.
Either in saying what he means and/or meaning what he says.
Not to mention being responsible for connecting dots from whatever he means to his actual actions, let alone results.
Either in saying what he means and/or meaning what he says.
Not to mention being responsible for connecting dots from whatever he means to his actual actions, let alone results.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Only the begining.
Congratulations to the people of Iraq and the powers that be, there is now democracy in Iraq. This is their due, despite what most sides would agree count, and that would be the results. So now the counting begins, and as a counter* myself, hopefully not where the nightmares begin.
Terrorists must know that they cannot win, but we must know that votes count. Saying so does not make it so. Having held elections is not the definition of success. Elections are a sign of progress. But progress can only be relative** and must continue. Neither progress nor success erases the past, nor avoids whatever truth is yet to come.
*As a participating observer and counter in the Washington state recount of the governnor's race.
** Of course democracy is relative too. Or as a Republican lawyer claimed who was also observing, not what we live under in this Republic. He may have been just yanking my chain, but we had what I thought was a serious and honest discussion.
Side-bar*** It is interesting that in Washington the votes of felons are not suppose to count, but they can design the machines that do the counting.
Terrorists must know that they cannot win, but we must know that votes count. Saying so does not make it so. Having held elections is not the definition of success. Elections are a sign of progress. But progress can only be relative** and must continue. Neither progress nor success erases the past, nor avoids whatever truth is yet to come.
*As a participating observer and counter in the Washington state recount of the governnor's race.
** Of course democracy is relative too. Or as a Republican lawyer claimed who was also observing, not what we live under in this Republic. He may have been just yanking my chain, but we had what I thought was a serious and honest discussion.
Side-bar*** It is interesting that in Washington the votes of felons are not suppose to count, but they can design the machines that do the counting.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
THE MOST HONORABLE SENATOR
Senator Mark Dayton deserves keen interest and congratulations for standing up to the administration and calling liars what they are. He also stood up for the confirmation process as not just a rubber stamp. Some may argue that a president has a right to choose his own people, but the constitution says something else, or it is a waste of words which many are still wasting and making others die for. The only argument for the President having liars or incompetents as his representatives is that they truly represent him, but that does nothing to reduce the responsibility of our representatives.
Thanks also to Ed Schultz for presenting a few qoutes from Senator Dayton that I will try to link here.
Thanks also to Ed Schultz for presenting a few qoutes from Senator Dayton that I will try to link here.
Friday, January 21, 2005
A simple message.
Building a New Majority by Scott Galindez, touches on what the Democrats must do to not just win but to lead this country in a direction we can be proud of.
We must stand for social and national security and tax fairness while working for freedom at home and abroad.
But we must not take our eyes off the concerns that there will be more WMD. The proclamation of freedom in his speech must be put in perspective. It is not just that there is “no justice without freedom” but also no freedom without justice.
Which comes first, is an important question, not asked or ignored.
We must stand for social and national security and tax fairness while working for freedom at home and abroad.
But we must not take our eyes off the concerns that there will be more WMD. The proclamation of freedom in his speech must be put in perspective. It is not just that there is “no justice without freedom” but also no freedom without justice.
Which comes first, is an important question, not asked or ignored.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Who is "Lighting a Fire"?
President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.
If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.
We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.
If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.
We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Juxta-Boogey
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 11 January 2005
Let Bin Laden Stay Free, Says C.I.A. Man
By Tony Allen-Mills
The Times UK
Sunday 09 January 2005
Taken separately, they seem far fetched, yet together are they any more sensible?
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 11 January 2005
Let Bin Laden Stay Free, Says C.I.A. Man
By Tony Allen-Mills
The Times UK
Sunday 09 January 2005
Taken separately, they seem far fetched, yet together are they any more sensible?
Neo-Context
SUGGESTED READING:
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
USE THE PROCESS OR LOSE IT.
Boxer to Stand With Conyers
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
Monday, January 03, 2005
IF YOU HAVE A SENATE SEAT, STAND UP!
If you have a senate seat and voted for the Iraq war resolution
If you have a senate seat and won with a broad margin of support
If you have a senate seat and narrowly won with the support of progressives
If you intend to run for that seat or higher office, or even if you just believe in exporting democracy
You must stand up for democracy at home.
Stand up for the congressional effort to Object to Ohio Electors and investigate the violations of voter's rights in Ohio.
READ THE LINK!
This one too! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
If you have a senate seat and won with a broad margin of support
If you have a senate seat and narrowly won with the support of progressives
If you intend to run for that seat or higher office, or even if you just believe in exporting democracy
You must stand up for democracy at home.
Stand up for the congressional effort to Object to Ohio Electors and investigate the violations of voter's rights in Ohio.
READ THE LINK!
This one too! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
Anyway...
I may be slightly facetious but I like facts. I also like doing what Condoleeza Rice thinks she is good at.(see Rice Lacuna : Memo)Drawing conclusions from the titles of pieces or from only the slimmest of facts, which Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld says change anyway.
Anyway...from How Bush Really Won Quoting George Bush from November 3rd, 2004 "I have won what I call political capital and now I intend to spend it."
I guess a few million votes may merit some capital, but only compared to 2000 and given the point that it was only the Supreme Court that selected him, I guess we can still call it political. I was going to note that it was the Electoral College or rather Florida and now Florida and Ohio that gave him some capital and we have yet to see how much, let alone what he means by spending it. Are we lost yet?
Now I may read the link or just save it as a hysterical document.
[Updated: 4-1-08 top new link added]
Anyway...from How Bush Really Won Quoting George Bush from November 3rd, 2004 "I have won what I call political capital and now I intend to spend it."
I guess a few million votes may merit some capital, but only compared to 2000 and given the point that it was only the Supreme Court that selected him, I guess we can still call it political. I was going to note that it was the Electoral College or rather Florida and now Florida and Ohio that gave him some capital and we have yet to see how much, let alone what he means by spending it. Are we lost yet?
Now I may read the link or just save it as a hysterical document.
[Updated: 4-1-08 top new link added]
Cleaning House
I must edit the previous post to read "Those are big ifs(Period)."
For that is more in line with the link's point.
I must also note my negligence in not making any comment on the worlds worst disaster. But what could be said. At least I will not lay blame for the occurance nor note those that have found reasons in the past for events.
That said, it will be a blessing if a coming together in hard times results, or another disaster if the opposite occurs.
Going back another post, "Political Differences?" There may not be much to regret there, but that it did pass but with only a slight change in some wording that makes me wonder about the worth of the whole thing anyway. Let's hope that there is not reason to revisit it too soon nor a closing of the door on a wholesale reconsideration or adjustment.
For that is more in line with the link's point.
I must also note my negligence in not making any comment on the worlds worst disaster. But what could be said. At least I will not lay blame for the occurance nor note those that have found reasons in the past for events.
That said, it will be a blessing if a coming together in hard times results, or another disaster if the opposite occurs.
Going back another post, "Political Differences?" There may not be much to regret there, but that it did pass but with only a slight change in some wording that makes me wonder about the worth of the whole thing anyway. Let's hope that there is not reason to revisit it too soon nor a closing of the door on a wholesale reconsideration or adjustment.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Give an inch?
Going “incremental” is intriguing as long as it is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It may be worth considering the “Option 5” of a 2002 Treasury Dept. study which involves lifetime savings and retirement accounts. It is thought that the administration will hold off on radical tax reform until the social security and budget are dealt with. Those are big ifs (period). (edit: 1-3-05)<em>DELETE(or rather “until”s.) [A more careful reading shows they were only ifs. ] They are also somewhat tied to any tinkering with taxes.
It may be worth giving an inch as long as we don't pay for a mile. But that is dangerous if too many hope to have their cake and eat it too.
It may be worth giving an inch as long as we don't pay for a mile. But that is dangerous if too many hope to have their cake and eat it too.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Political Differences?
The action taken to hold up the vote on the intelligence reform bill comes from a desire to hold partisan the safety of the country. One feature raised as an issue, is the battlefield intelligence capabilities that some want to insert in the bill. This seems a bad policy given the problem with the filters our system has. It would seem to short circuit the command structure, such as it is. Another irony is that the bill is not going to be voted on since there is not a majority of the majority party in favor of it. This I guess is not an irony, since when it came to getting bills out of committee they complained that a minority had something to do with it.
Certainty out-sources faith.
[Saved from 10-18-04 10:03:00 AM]
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
CIA our job one.
I stumbled across a note to self, actually I believe from Ambassador Wilson: that Open Source is not an Intelligence Discipline. My caps but note my link below. Scroll down to Bicameral Brain and Intelligence for Commission
Point being, if the CIA’s job is to support the president, we do need another intelligence agency for the rest of us or the US proper. As Air America Radio's promo says… something about the truth requiring more than one perspective.
Note: the definition of open source is us.
Point being, if the CIA’s job is to support the president, we do need another intelligence agency for the rest of us or the US proper. As Air America Radio's promo says… something about the truth requiring more than one perspective.
Note: the definition of open source is us.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Some Hope Links.
From a procrastinator to prognosticator I almost forgot my progressive nature, but a few weeks before the election I was preparing to Kerry On, with or without Kerry.
Win or lose I will try to remain optimistic but this is a ray of hope.
Not that I did not smell a rat earlier, I Smell a Rat http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604Z.shtml, I had a feeling that others may be doing there job. See link below. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604W.shtml
Win or lose I will try to remain optimistic but this is a ray of hope.
Not that I did not smell a rat earlier, I Smell a Rat http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604Z.shtml, I had a feeling that others may be doing there job. See link below. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604W.shtml
Thinking Right In Name Only?
We must call it Hi-Johning the Truth. I would call it Hijacking the truth, but what with homeland security and all that terrorism, it may be too scary a rallying cry. Now I may need to give thanks to the right subliminally for the John reference but it really surfaced in my mind as the more formal name for Jack, not the two Johns that they think they flushed.
In the search for a new face to put on our fight or indeed a party, I thought mainly of enthroning the truth as an aim, rather than letting it go down the drain.
[Hint: I may be caught up, but this is just a few words I may link something to later. It may be too obtuse or seeminginly tongue in cheek, but the point may hold water.]
[[Not an endorsement, but some credit for the theme may go to hearing of the link below to ThirdWay.com on my local www.airamericaradio.com radio station.]]
In the search for a new face to put on our fight or indeed a party, I thought mainly of enthroning the truth as an aim, rather than letting it go down the drain.
[Hint: I may be caught up, but this is just a few words I may link something to later. It may be too obtuse or seeminginly tongue in cheek, but the point may hold water.]
[[Not an endorsement, but some credit for the theme may go to hearing of the link below to ThirdWay.com on my local www.airamericaradio.com radio station.]]
Keep Up the Faith
[11-6-04 I woke up to this thought in rough form and have not had to tweak it much.]
Some people don’t understand that faith is not knowing,
knowing is not understanding,
and freedom is not from religion.
This may seem like a cycle that some try to break out of
and some try to break into, but others can not tell them which.
There may be absolutes, there may be knowing,
but finding them together is another divide
it is no ones job to close
but which each of us may find the need to.
Some people don’t understand that faith is not knowing,
knowing is not understanding,
and freedom is not from religion.
This may seem like a cycle that some try to break out of
and some try to break into, but others can not tell them which.
There may be absolutes, there may be knowing,
but finding them together is another divide
it is no ones job to close
but which each of us may find the need to.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Keep Up the Beat
There is some ironic optimism here, or maybe not. Either optimism or ironic? I don't know, maybe later.
But in catching up, I hope to refer back.
SO HERE! AND Here's to catching up. [the link below gives post cryptic credit to a similar idea]
11-4-04 [A rougher draft was sent to others and other chronological changes are partially self contained.]
Good News! The campaign is over. But the fight will go on. How is what matters. Words matter too. For Bush and for the rest of US.
Grammar, syntax and words and deeds are all connected. Where we are going may not be that different. How we get there is all right to debate. For lack of a letter or number of letters words, can change, and changes matters. Words become works or deeds can become dead.
Anyway, faith means acting without knowing. If knowing comes first, we may get somewhere else, let alone not need faith. Faith in the process is needed, but it too, must not be assumed.
Where was I going? Optimism.
I know I wrote the first three words before beginning my editing the way I wrote it, and actually 6 words before I had to add a but. I had already written the sentiments of first paragraph and its six sentences before I found the link below. [Bush wants ‘consequential presidency’; Dems & GOP look to future] And I had only scrolled down a bit, before my eyesight landed on the following words. [See Link: Russert On Politics]
"A very important point about second terms — people forget — Ronald Reagan, in his second term, went about an arms control pact with the Soviet Union — his arch-enemy."
My second paragraph reflects where I make a tangential leap. Hopefully the rest is useful advice. We must face Bush and ourselves, with as he says, faith and confidence or was it vice versa.
Now I will read the rest of his story before rehashing my stuff.
[Italics will generally mean context notes that may have been added or hopefully help, and represent some of the evolution or editing involved in my processing, seeing has my backlog is due to reaching out closer to home.]
But in catching up, I hope to refer back.
SO HERE! AND Here's to catching up. [the link below gives post cryptic credit to a similar idea]
11-4-04 [A rougher draft was sent to others and other chronological changes are partially self contained.]
Good News! The campaign is over. But the fight will go on. How is what matters. Words matter too. For Bush and for the rest of US.
Grammar, syntax and words and deeds are all connected. Where we are going may not be that different. How we get there is all right to debate. For lack of a letter or number of letters words, can change, and changes matters. Words become works or deeds can become dead.
Anyway, faith means acting without knowing. If knowing comes first, we may get somewhere else, let alone not need faith. Faith in the process is needed, but it too, must not be assumed.
Where was I going? Optimism.
I know I wrote the first three words before beginning my editing the way I wrote it, and actually 6 words before I had to add a but. I had already written the sentiments of first paragraph and its six sentences before I found the link below. [Bush wants ‘consequential presidency’; Dems & GOP look to future] And I had only scrolled down a bit, before my eyesight landed on the following words. [See Link: Russert On Politics]
"A very important point about second terms — people forget — Ronald Reagan, in his second term, went about an arms control pact with the Soviet Union — his arch-enemy."
My second paragraph reflects where I make a tangential leap. Hopefully the rest is useful advice. We must face Bush and ourselves, with as he says, faith and confidence or was it vice versa.
Now I will read the rest of his story before rehashing my stuff.
[Italics will generally mean context notes that may have been added or hopefully help, and represent some of the evolution or editing involved in my processing, seeing has my backlog is due to reaching out closer to home.]
Friday, October 29, 2004
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality.
[The point is that I wrote this "To The Uncommitted" and probably must insist, it was before I found the link "Believe". I also feel and have felt that I was closing a loop, or getting near to going loop d'loop. (I play with words, but it is serious. Only so much has been written before the rest of this and yet all will go on anyway.]
To The Uncommitted:
Bush may seem committed and to the fearful, courageous. Reality is not that simple. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding needs a mix. An instant mix is certainly simple, and Kerry is certainly complex. But Kerry is the pudding, and the right mix. Proof is in the results, before, during and after we face what we must face. Bush’s simple certainty proves nothing but more to face and it is offensive.
Vote as if the results depend on it. In all reality they do. Especially in the sticky situation we find our selves. A good leader knows the risk of being followed. What they do will be followed in deed, whether their words can be followed or not.
Kerry has the mix. Let him bring the fix, not more of the offensive fix we are in.
To The Uncommitted:
Bush may seem committed and to the fearful, courageous. Reality is not that simple. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding needs a mix. An instant mix is certainly simple, and Kerry is certainly complex. But Kerry is the pudding, and the right mix. Proof is in the results, before, during and after we face what we must face. Bush’s simple certainty proves nothing but more to face and it is offensive.
Vote as if the results depend on it. In all reality they do. Especially in the sticky situation we find our selves. A good leader knows the risk of being followed. What they do will be followed in deed, whether their words can be followed or not.
Kerry has the mix. Let him bring the fix, not more of the offensive fix we are in.
Monday, October 25, 2004
And now a few words...
A couple days ago I wrote someone—
One may be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we may never know.
Today I refined it—
We should be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we can’t preempt.
A priori ego—[Greek to me]
or I don’t know when but recently I wrote—
The highest order of philosophy is political philosophy, the other moral philosophy. And when ever the twain shall meet is perfection or BS.
A paradigm or tangential word quibble or quiz—
Bush is the soul of solecism or the idiom of syntax, or the irony of preemption.
But he must not become the energizer bunny.
One may be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we may never know.
Today I refined it—
We should be capable of understanding anything, but being right is something we can’t preempt.
A priori ego—[Greek to me]
or I don’t know when but recently I wrote—
The highest order of philosophy is political philosophy, the other moral philosophy. And when ever the twain shall meet is perfection or BS.
A paradigm or tangential word quibble or quiz—
Bush is the soul of solecism or the idiom of syntax, or the irony of preemption.
But he must not become the energizer bunny.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
The American Conservative?
I may have said it different and from the opposite perspective, but not any better. (See Link)
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wakeup. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around theworld) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the same terrible deeds.
(Archived Sept. 6th 2002.)
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wakeup. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around theworld) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the same terrible deeds.
(Archived Sept. 6th 2002.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)