TM-R (day-5)

Trust Me?(review) Early Warning- anarchy [The Problem With Information Anarchy]-
My comment:
Regime Change based on WMD history and evasion of process, nexus intentions.
Trust but verify.

Congress- - to boldly go...

My intention is to keep things short and leave the reading to others. Sound familiar? The latter not the former.

Re: the poll
Darn, there may not be a "heckuva" difference, except for who does the "hard work".

RESULTS:
[I'm not sure] is a surprising third.(3%)
[As long as it gets the job done] is a distant second.(10%)

--I'm not sure if the administration or the designers of the polls are making more progress - - - in designing the polls or uniting "us".
--Even the 87% [be wary] is suspect, as we are hoist by our own Picard. For we so much want to just "make it so" [Q2].

"Under Review"? PLEASE! Start with the president's first announcement, and the review "this government" did and this "ally" in the war on terror and why it was worth a veto threat, and by the way what is up with the review (Phase II) on the use of intelligence running up to the war. Will it be that type of review? What about the presidents "intentions" before he went to war over Saddam's "intentions"?

Oh what irony one weaves [Q3,Q4,Q?] when first we practice... Hide and Q

Looking beyond

Conquest

This one I have fully digested, indeed spewed forth or back through my archives. Two concepts emblematic of The Liaison Report are contrasted in one sentence "People who believe in universal rules and people who see power behind the rules can scarcely talk to each other".

Another two words, "...politicians and their critics..." represent (in my view) the problem and solution: We must have both, not de-value both.

Now I will leave you to fully digest and get back to the "hard work" that should have been done before we spent our blood.

Full-Meal Deal

The least I can do in the next 45 days, until I get back to my previous post to review it(IF EVER), is fully digest those that I run into in the next 45 days like, FEARMONGER IN CHIEF William Greider agrees with David Brooks who has "...dismissed the Dubai ports controversy as an instance of political hysteria that will soon pass." But should "provoke a more rational discussion of the multiplying absurdities."

OK, I may have seasoned my take with a dash of the link below, and I will note in memo terms that The Washington Post titled: Port problems said to dwarf latest fears

TRUST ME?

This is a big deal. And before I read all the links which I will provide here I will make my own connections or speculation/questions. Speculation(Slash)questions may be the leap to point, and the connection to the president may be the longest path. That about sums it all up without much of the burden of facts, which is what appeals most to the public and the Bush administration. Another connection? That was it. But now to insert the links for later reading unless the burden of something else moves me on.

Darn. As usual I cut to a connection and missed a few simple points. Which I guess are actually difficult to make given the problems above.

So here are the random "whatever"s:
Security Not a Problem? Ally in war on terror? Follow the rules? Follow the money. Fight them over there? Overseas Corporation? State-Owned Corporation. Dictatorship. Family Business. Corporatizing, not globalizing-- Democracy/Freedom.

Again the "whatever"s are the catch. But this should merit review of more than this transaction as it is more than about who operates the ports, but the process of the administration and (not just) who is making the decisions and how they are being made, as much as why.

Now I will fill in the links, and trust you to review them, and I hope to get to them later.

But wait-- now I find two more than the three I hadn’t finished. But key words especially intrigue me and I will not jump to connections the way Secretary of State Rice might, but maybe I have a hunch. Early Warning- anarchy - - Debate / facts may be the clue. But these I have yet to open.

Later... Now the links to be inserted.

In fact, maybe I will institute my own 45-day period to get back to this or to read and review this- - IF EVER! Maybe the bubble the media/administrators are blowing will finally break through the filtering/job other branches of government are accountable for, not to mention "we the people" and the "Fourth Estate".

Hoof and Mouth.

I don’t know if it is just me, but I don’t blame people if they think it is. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I didn’t shoot the facts in the hoof. Back to the issue that seems to be me, but it may just be that you had to be there: The Cheney Fox interview and the Kenedy County Sheriff’s Incident Report seem to deviate on the matter of spin. Was the quail flushed to the right or was it flying counter clockwise? I guess I had to be there. Either way, the accident is not what is being beat but the hoofing that was done to get it out.

On that trail, my earlier commentary on the spin:[2-17-06]

David Brooks, in his column Cheney hunting accident enters the spin-everything zone, makes a few good points but mainly is just another player in the spin zone. He refers to stereotypes and roles that the media will use and play, but which are spinning for one reason alone, the preemptive deviations of Cheney, so common in the administration.

Deviation from the process, more than preempts, but cuts out the roles of questioners who resort to stereotypes when the questions are not answered until the facts stop changing. What does the Vice President not having his press people have to do with the investigation waiting till the next day? Too much may be made of the press being slighted, the better to overlook that even "Voldemort" can’t turn back time and undo the spin resulting from the fear or at least delay in facing the truth.

In Brooks criticizing his own field, "Ours is not to feel or think. Ours is but to spin or die.", that seems to be what the administration would like us to do, and many have. This time, hopefully not Cheney‘s "friend".

And on the horizon, still beating

The "Story"

Vice President Cheney made his first and final appearance on the issue of the shooting of his hunting buddy and takes full responsibility. FULL?

First I must make a rare, (maybe twice before) and I can't even recall the details, but in the form of an explaination that I alluded to a dispute on the time, it could be the time zone thing that explains the one hour.

Not that I could not use more vetting, but shouldn't the adminstration be under more scrutiny as well. It is our duty and one the press or media often forgets or even bashes it's self for. More on the Brit Hume job later, but apparently the president is satisfied. He took responsibility but his choice of words needs to be examined and counted upon. The word "you" appeared a few times, so "we" must take some of the blame?

Still Ticking

and still blowing "the bubble" or the press off. The story apparently is still in need of work.

Note that the timeline is disputed between a timeline where MSNBC has a 6:30 shooting versus the 5:30* in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report. And note that still hospital officials "were not concerned about the six to 200 other pieces of birdshot that might still be lodged in Whittington's body".

It just seems that more has been reported about what has been reported than what really is in any report yet. Maybe we will finally get a story, but not that the press (or Brit Hume) will yet do a job that is not just pressing.

* a rare mea culpa - - see next post

Shoot First

and not ask questions later. Should we really stay the course with the gang that couldn't shoot straight? My point is that the Vice-President shooting someone is a minor deal compared to the administration's normal pattern of behavior, not that it necessarily deviates from it. Also that the only harm in asking questions is that it takes time from other questions that aren't answered. Like, how long does it take to get their stories straight? Or, was this a preemptive deviation?

[2-14-06 08:43 Update:

Trickle on the Buck.

It should sound familiar to paraphrase former FEMA director Michael Brown: to go balls to the walls to cut red tape. Since their end game is to drown the government in a bath tub, it ironic to expect another layer of bureaucracy to make the process work better. It is not only another layer that communications needs to go through but responsibility to be passed on to.

What school of management says to simply cut the red tape and simply let another layer know that there is a problem? Just who has the responsibility after the red tape is cut and how is the job done and by whom? It should be obvious that by drowning a government of, by and for the people, only the people will suffer. Things don’t get done by faith or fiat, it takes a structure that these people have no faith in, let alone competence.

Check and stall.

on why they claim that the Oath is not necessary for administration officials, and possibly why Specter and others can "sound" like they are concerned about the constitution and call for a judicial review. A.) Could it be that if prosecutions for "lying" to congress are called for that they (Republicans) will be the ones that will need to initiate them. B.) Under "judicial" review of other violations by the administration, just who will form that panel? C.) This is all an effort to "DeLay" real progress and stay the course.

(i.e.: The only check to the president is congress (who are political and partisan*) and the only real investigation may require the process of impeachment to start.)

* not that either are bad, but are what it is all about. Or the congress will get away with what the people let them, and the president will get away with what congress lets him.

To Pump - - US UP!

Just as President Bush's past State of the Union addresses, this one was a wonderful speech that tended as Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "To pump--you up!" It really was a speech that was hopeful about the future yet short on the past.

A local paper suggested that the president clip a bit of it to his shaving mirror to read every day. I would suggest that they both review and work on the rest of their words further. I wonder how much would be left if the parts that were more faith-based than fact-based were removed. Then there are the portions that all Americans, especially Democrats could agree with.

It is wonderful to be hopeful, and looking only forward, that is all there is, when the facts are really just in the past. Of course I may be contradicting the facts, in that Bush did make reference to the past, while warning that that was turning back. While much of his speech was about concepts that should receive our support, what will matter most are the details and working together.

Unfortunately, his words do not bode well when he takes about one paragraph to do an about-face. From his claim that "...even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger", he takes only a few sentences to fight the quasi-quixotic foes on "...the road of isolationism and protectionism..." I really can’t answer how this will work when he seems more about exporting our leadership than working on the democracy and law "in order to form a more perfect union" here.

On the coattails of an unpleasant prospect.

Senator Specter’s charge that the treatment of Samuel Alito was "despicable" is itself "despicable". Senator Specter’s treatment of his own office of Senator, other Senators, and the whole process was despicable. It is despicable that the particulars of his charges were totally false and that as sound bites were distributed without question.

Stay the Comity of Course

I think the president’s address could be summarized by a comparison I made the day before, but which Senator McCain reminded me of in his call for comity after the speech and which he spelled out so as not to be confused with comedy. The Senator made a reference to bygone days of cooperation across the aisle, and a plea almost of why can’t we just get along. The day before a thought had crossed my mind, that Bush is probably a cross between Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield, but you just take out the first names. Senator McCain expects that we should just get along, while Bush just gets no respect. That will be very difficult if Bush thinks he is King and we are expected to stay the course through the Dangerfield.

Filibuster survived, but for what?

There were 42 votes against Samuel Alito. That was without 4 Democrats that voted for Alito. If those 42 had voted against cloture, the debate on Alito would have continued. Maybe debate is too much work for some of them. Maybe the pressure of having to decide and wanting to get on to other work is too much of a strain. Maybe voters will get apathetic and lose their enthusiasm for carrying through on what counts. It's just an up or down vote. Next!

Alito was confirmed 58 to 42, with those 4 Democrats. Given that Democrats are less partisan, that just means that we need more Democrats. It seems that even when in the majority Democrats were independent minded or had different constituents. But it does not mean that Republicans or the Democrats that join them represent what is good for the country or even what the majority of the country supports.

Let us just hope that Alito's propensity to pad a resume was only part of an act that conned the neo-cons. It is not likely, but it is what we can only hope.

Fourth Estate Blowing It!

The Journal posed an interesting question in their December 20th editorial, "9/11 changes debate on electronic spying". Unfortunately by taking the President's answers they have dropped out of the debate, presuming there ever was one. The point is not whether eavesdropping would have prevented anything.

If going to war was necessary because existing policies were not working, the President should at least be required to prove not only that wiretaps prevent something but that he could not have used them under the law, both before September 11th, and after congress granted broader authority. Until congress finishes the promised and forgotten investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence, we should be very concerned whether any is being used to protect our constitution.

I don’t know if enough in congress have learned any lessons, but certainly not this editorial board. They concluded, "Once we may have joined in that debate. But that was before Sept. 11, when we were awakened to a reality we didn't see coming. If electronic spying could have stopped Mohammed Atta and his cohorts ... you should be able to finish that sentence yourself."

If it is that simple, what is the next thing we won’t see coming and what will prevent another wake-up? How much power is needed to prevent power from being grabbed, either by leaders or followers? Maybe in the Journals dreams it will all work out, but they certainly can‘t be depended upon to burst any bubbles either as a member of the fourth estate or by knowing a debate if there was one. The problem is that those who could finish the answer to the one question miss the irony in having one point of view.

[The Journal probably thinks their readers don't know that the media is the Fourth Estate, and that is just fine with the paper as they are not doing their job anyway.]

Filibuster failed. NOW UP OR DOWN.

The current support for Alito for Supreme Court is 57 to 38. That is with 4 Democrats and 1 Republican listed in the C-Span analysis. That means that if those opposed and those undecided had made a stand against cloture we would still be filibustering or debating. Cloture passed 72-25 with 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats supporting the end of debate and a scheduled vote up or down tomorrow.

The fact that a vote is scheduled does not mean that debate is over and I suggest those wavering to read Senator Max Baucus's statement today on why Samuel Alito does not meet his criterion for approval.


Here is a plea that I sent earlier to Senator Conrad of North Dakota:


Dear Senator Conrad

Your oath is to the constitution, the constitution begins "we the people", Alito is for voting his conscience and giving the president that power over the law. You have a choice that is very difficult, but do not bet that things cannot get worse because of your choice.
To me it is clear,
NO ON ALITO!
NO ON CLOTURE!
NO ON CHANGING SENATE RULES!

If you can not find in in your conscience to vote 3 "No"s, at least protect the tradition and duties of the senate (by supporting the filibuster by not changing the Senate Rules), as distinguished from the House which actually should put new light on your point that you represent your constituents.

Here are my points. The filibuster survived, it just did not work. Republicans did not have to resort to changing or violating Senate rules and messing with it's traditions and the way it protects the constitution.

But that does not mean that Senators still cannot consider carefully when they uphold their oath to protect the constitution, and not just vote their party line or their conscience or resort to the political calculus which says they are representing their constituents.

Saber Rattling

Having reviewed the previous links attached to my last few posts, the devil really is in the details. I did express some optimism in reading between the lines of the headings, (unlike some who have difficulty getting through the title of a memo)it does depend on actual changes that will be brought about.

Iran vows missile retaliation to any attack
Accuses Britain and United States of arming rebels in its south


Things have changed after September 11th, 2001, though I am not so sure they were not preempted, but that is at least the change. The whole idea of preemption depends on not saber rattling or you have preempted the action with words. If that is what has changed since 9/11, then nothing has changed for the better, except that things would be better if it were a dictatorship. And Plato in his Republic knew there was no process that could produce a benevolent dictator, so what we have is a feeling that preemption of the process is needed. Maybe the only thing left is hope and prayer, but it might really depend on not preempting them with words and having faith in the process.

A few notes in review:

Olmert: Israel won’t …In response to Hamas’ win, Austria, which holds the European Union’s rotating presidency, issued a statement on behalf of the 25-nation bloc stating “there is no place in a political process for groups or individuals who advocate violence.”

Bush: Hamas must…
“We’ll listen to ideas. If the attempt to write law is likely to expose the nature of the program, I’ll resist it,” the president said.

The title of the links are not in reference to my point, that the first is an interesting comment from the EU on the political process, and the second is Bush on his view of the constitution. An interesting counter balance: the take on violence and political processes.

Step two in bringing it home.

...
Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas
Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said major mediating powers Thursday agreed Hamas should renounce violence.

"We reaffirmed the view that ... you can’t have one foot in terror and the other in politics," Rice told Reuters in an interview after senior officials from the so-called Quartet -- Russia, the United Nations, the European Union and the United States -- spoke by phone.

...

"A two-state solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel’s right to exist, and disarm," the statement said.

...

NOTE:

Let's not read too much between the lines, the dots, or the paragraphs, but the bold I added and that punctuation could be a stretch. But that is only all the more room to work between the lines.

These brief comments are made without a thorough read of the last few links in this area. Not that any closer read would get any closer to a reality that needs more work and punctuation anyway, but I will try to get back to them unless things unfold too fast.

Where's a cop when you need one?

Is this a good cop/bad cop deal or is it more of "staying the course"?
Here are a few headlines that I will comment on in the light of hope that it is the former.

Hamas' win muddles Mideast peace prospects
Palestinians who vow to destroy Israel get 76 of 132 seats in parliament
[1-27-06: editors note actual link title: Olmert: Israel won’t negotiate with Hamas Militant group quiet after landslide victory in Palestinian elections]

Bush: Hamas must renounce stand
Peace is never dead,’ he says when asked if he’d rule out relations

U.S. releases five Iraqi women prisoners
Official denies move is linked to demand of U.S. journalist's kidnappers

Actually I may let them speak for themselves and read them later, but I am reminded who the Secretary of State is and who the President is and with Rumsfeld and Cheney to cloud the picture I think that there could be hope that Rice is working in this area, and that with all the bad around that some good may come from the "hard work" our troops are doing, and we that politics will actually prevail over violence.

I lighted upon the following segment from the middle link:
But behind the scenes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be talking to Russian, European and U.N. officials later Thursday in a bid to get them to pressure Hamas into renouncing terrorism and accepting Israel’s right to exist.

Of course, the devil may be in the details, but then the administration hasn't done a "heckuva job" with them anyway. Renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist seems like a good starting point. Maybe even politics can clean it's name and be brought home again.

ALL ABOUT THE DANGERFIELD

RAMPING UP THE POLITICS OR LEVELING IT PERIOD.

Politics is the best way to stand up for our principles and participate in the process that moves us forward. It should not be another name for sacrificing both.

If politicians and lawyers "get no respect", we must notice where it comes from. If we don't fight it here, we can't get it anywhere.

PLEASE FILIBUSTER THE RUBBER STAMP ALITO.

THE CHARGE OF POLITICS

Politics is the best way to stand up for our principles and participate in the process that moves us forward, it should not be another name for sacrificing both.

CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!

Filibuster Alito for Constitution's Sake

An Open Letter to SENATORS(in particular moderates who bargained away their duties for the sake of protecting Senate traditions and rules regarding the filibuster)

(Slightly edited from fax sent 1-18-06 to)
Honorable Senator Nelson:

A "unitary philosophy" puts you out of a job, and the people out of the picture. This philosophy has existed prior to the unprecedented selection of Bush over the people. The (constitutional)design of three branches of government requires each to do it's job, and the process (in you) are the arbiters. If you do not stand for the people and the constitution’s principles, do you know what you are standing for?

I feel that it is crucial that you oppose Mr. Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

If that is not possible due to the political dangers of your area, it is at least crucial that you stand for the terms of your judicial compromise that prevented the busting of the filibuster in earlier nominations to the judiciary. UNLESS of course that you feel that the Democrats had the opportunity for "advice and consent" as explained in said document.

Politics and the law are more than games, they make the rules for the games that are our lives. Please do not gamble that things cannot get worse or that you can know what is in the conscience* of one that seems to be above the law. That is their philosophy as stated by Bush and demonstrated by his actions. Their conscience is above the law, is yours?

Failing to persuade you on your vote on Alito, at least stand up for your compromise, do not vote for cloture.

* During Bush's 2000 campaign, I noted when he pointed out that his conscience was above any campaign laws. That may have been the Rubicon, now we may only have politics, tyranny or anarchy.

THANK YOU, SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS!

It appears that the Democrats will be united against the nomination of Samual Alito for the Supreme Court. Here it seems is the con text without any context needed, from Senator Arlen Specter that he expects Alito "…to render justice without respect for persons…". Senator Linsay Graham called it political, and I would agree. He is not suprised that Bush would nominate the likes of what he likes since he won the election. And that if Democrats want to make it politcal that Republicans will clean their clock. Such talk in not very admirable in the setting he selected, but he is right that it is political. And since Bush was selected by an unprecedented Supreme Court decision and given his track record, polls aside, this is about politics, Democrats must hold the line on this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. To say that the president gets his way since he won the election is the whole reason that we have three branches and a constitution. Do not Rubber Stamp Alito, filibuster the Rubber Stamp Alito.

Bush: the Belated Preemptive

The BLAME GAME is really a preemptive excuse to be unprecedented.
Of course Bush needed to preempt in 2000 the people and was selected unprecedentedly by the Supreme Court.

One way to understand this may be to look at the jokes that are "out there".

Politicians and lawyers "get no respect"!

That is because we must respect the understanding of them first, before blaming the people that practice them. And if our goal or starting point is truth or perfection, then we do not intend to really practice them. Meanwhile we must do what it takes to stop others who's intentions we cannot be certain about.

Can we break the vicious cycle?

The question is more important than the answer.

But one answer must be that we value/respect the process, not value slash meaning from words.

TWO-WORD CULTURE

Ed Shultz referenced the two word culture.
Here is what it triggered in me. And what probably triggers Bush.

US THEM
CULTURE WAR
MESSAGE MEANING
MEAN MESS

CHOCOLATE WOE
REFERENCE SELF
FREUDIAN SLIP
FAITH MIGHT
VICIOUS CYCLE

Of course this may need explaining,
but that is really the "hard work".

But a slip of the tongue or a loose context which can be taken wrong, may be what is really needed to get any Message through the Mechanisms, the Money and the Media with any message left.

And if "advice and consent" or checks and balance or the three branches of government are not allowed to do their jobs, then this is the 4M that will do the work that was formerly the Fourth Estate.

Message not mess age.
Truth is not fair or balanced.

Means Trumps Meaning, but can't read memos.

When you stick your foot in your mouth you best take it out. This is to indicate I hope I have two feet and they try to keep moving, as well as my mouth and keyboard.

But in regards to the last post, here is a hero which if I had heros would supplant Murtha. In fact if Gore had not been supplanted in the theft of 2000 we would be doing more than putting our foot in it. Or putting it up others.

In regards to Bush/Alito and again I hope to remain behind on my research as long as good people are standing up for principles even though we may wonder where their feet are.

What got me to the two links above were their titles of course and thanks to a www.tompaine.com Again I post them preemptively(unread), but their titles should intrigue. The Alito Hearings: The Democrats Katrina should read The Constitution's or the Peoples' Katrina. And Gore says Bush Broke the Law With Spying pertains to the same substance, where means will trump meaning.

But to put a point on it, it may seem idiotic, it may be ideological, but it may be just about them. Meaning it may not be about founding fathers but about power and one's conscience. They think conscience is one and the same as con science. A true case of one is as one does.

Book by it's cover, memo by it's title: historical?

At the time of this posting I am several great ideas and a few good sites behind in my postings and reading. But these two I could not resist posting preemptively. That is before reading, as the concepts seem to be worth it in their titles alone. I could refer to them as my hero and my idea. The former being Murtha's latest charge, the latter being what might be to come if Alito is slipped through. I will correct or amend myself if I am wrong, but they are Murtha says elections could end war and a writer Paul Rogat Loeb in a Truthout Perspective says Filibuster Bush, Impeach Alito. Now maybe I got the cart before the horse or Bush is jumping the Shark or I have flipped the couch, and if you aren’t sure what that means ask Dori Monson or Oprah Winfrey, but my first estimate was that we must stop anything Bush does if Alito is force through. But the premise could actually be that he should be impeached after he is rejected for the Supreme Court. Of course I could have read both of them it first, but it is late and it would ruin my premise that this is urgent.

[update edit 3-12-14]

Rallying the Will of the People

More Bush Rah Rah.

QCON

[Quick Comment On News or Questioning the CON.]
Paraphrasing Bush, look for a discussion of troop adjustments with the new Iraqi government.
Like when congress was briefed about illegal spying and the trashing of the constitution?

And Bush denies knowing Abramoff? Being a Pioneer in the Republican Party and raising $100,000 doesn't get you known or appreciated? The price must be much higher to get in the bubble.

Links later.

TORTURE RULES!

OR [more heavily edited from 12-14-05]
THE SPORTS METAPHOR AND THE CHEERLEADER

They don’t govern by polls?
They don’t govern by facts either apparently.
The course is chosen and they work both facts and the polls.

Facts are not governed by polls, neither are reactions to them, nor results.
Meanwhile the hard work is done by the players and this game is about the rules.

Who is the coach here? What does it matter if winning is the only thing, leaving alone what are the rules.

Ironically, this was about supporting the authority of the U.N. but has ultimately undermined all authority.

How will rules be enforced, when the policy is that following them is for losers, not to mention, only winners make them.

BUSH'S POST-ELECTION PLAN

[only slightly edited from 12-14-05]
Iraqis need to be able to provide their own security.

They need to prevent terrorists from operating in their country.

All this from what changed on September 11th 2001, when we were unable to provide security for our own and prevent terrorists from operating in our country.
Terrorists who learned how to fly planes and bring them down with box cutters.

Meanwhile he wants to be in charge of reforming intelligence, while spending more money on keeping track of those who oppose him or have better ideas.

Now that is intelligence. Or more-of-the-same-pre-empting of intelligence.

Short Cuts

Maybe the previous post could use a hint. Democracy is a choice that relies on truth. Bush’s reasons for attacking Iraq have changed, though being policeman to the world and nation building are admittedly given short shrift or are trying to be skipped, they are where we are bogged down and where we should turn it over and where if Republicans had not been chosen may have resulted from a Democrat without the long bad trip we have taken. But given that truth is for sale, we must pay* the price. It’s not been a bad ride for some.

Some will argue that the administration could not have prevented 9-11. That is easy to assume, given that many would still do nothing different. It is assuming that nothing would have been done different by Democrats, which they certainly would not claim.

*The links are interesting tangents. "Republican"-[Bubble Boy], "they"- [News Weak] and this "we must pay"-[Pentagon roles out stealth PR] revolve around the press. We would not be on this trip if the press were truly independent, not independent of truth and dependent on buyers.

FORGOTTEN HUMANITY!

9-11
WMD
Regime Change
Democracy
Policeman to the world
Nation Building
Humanity

By adding humanity to the list, it places democracy at the center. If truth was not there, the choices are still here.

The above list may seem like a progression of reasons for us being in Iraq. Note that somewhere in there is the truth, unless it is yet to be included. Please note that if we had worked on our own democracy many of the reasons may not have been there, while others were in the first place. Note that these are all important reasons for work, but without truth, will be hard to come by. Note that they have only become more important to work on. The truth in these should be looked at before more reasons face us.

Recent Efforts.

FORCED STAND UP!
Strategy of MoveOn

[12-08-05]Eighty per cent of Iraqi's want us out, 45 % believe that harming troops is warranted. If the troops are not there to be targets, they (insurgents or what ever you call them) will only have Iraqis or others to kill, which will certainly undermine the strategy that we are only reacting to and only increase the responsibility of Iraqis to stand up and make their own choices.


NO DISCOURSE MEANS WRONG COURSE!
TELL JOE

[12-08-05] I can only imagine that you are actually calling for us to speak out and so you will see the light of true patriots and then have the courage to do your job. It is your right to support what you see fit, but to call for following blindly in any time is a great disservice to the country and it's people especially to those who are supposed to be fighting overseas for democracy.

[Headings were not included with in the above comments sent with the petitions.]


TODAY'S RHETORICAL QUESTION: Will Lieberman play the role of a third party spoiler or be a party splitter?

Of course that would be the Republicans that should be spoiled or split. Not that I am suggesting this, for we would still have to worry about being spoiled or split. But my point of discourse above would mean that it is preferrable to "staying the course"/the wrong course.

Is there anything worse than a rhetorical question?
Answering it?

[Please note: hopefully compared to my usual comments this is seen as derived from some current wild speculation and taken a little further, not in hopes that it will come to pass.]

Evolution or Devolution?

Having read a bit of the pamplet, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, it is more an argument than a plan. It has good intentions and seems like a plan, but may be flimsy in reality and based on an erroneous foundation, mainly that many of the good intentions are not demonstrated at home or in his administration's or party's behavior.

The Devolution of Iraq

9-11
WMD
Regime Change
Democracy
Policeman to the world
Nation Building

Heckuva Job,
FOR A DEMOCRAT!
The Evolution Of US.

Executive Summary: Politics is a two way street, but you gotta choose one.

NOT REALLY FLIP-FLOPPABLE, but the solution may be smack dab in the middle and then having a choice and making it.

This ties together better than I expected.

NOTE: Things came untied, just about the middle too.

Real Politics!

Politics may be a game over power, and war a game over the rules. Power is all about if you don’t give it, someone will take it. Politics is about the rules as much as the power, for it is not just about who makes the rules but it is also how we make them. If the rules are not followed, it can and will only be about breaking them to make them for others. It is not about those who follow them being the losers.

Politics?

Some see it as a game, others as a war. It is more than a game and less than a war. If you dis or distance yourself from politics, it is only natural to be closer to war. If you dis or distance yourself from the law, you will only be closer to anarchy. Note who disses or distances themselves and if you don’t find who started it you may find who at lease will keep it going.

Bureaucracy did it.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently claimed that he never told the president to attack Iraq, but that the president knew his feelings on the matter or some such. Just what is the difference, if I have that clear? Whatever the president knew or understood, is the matter. And the chain of command is still in question for the Commander-in-Chief. The president who ran as a Commander-in-Chief now leaves it in the hands of the military to decide on the strategy in Iraq? It is bad enough that handling hurricane Katrina was complicated by a new layer of bureaucracy, FEMA under Homeland Security, but Rumsfeld had his own additional Office of Special Plans, which was another layer of the object filter which Bush prefers over the so-called filter of the media, not to mention intelligence.

If this is viewed as only the game of politics and that the timing is questionable, this piece shows who as fought and who has delayed, and that there should be no shame in taking advantage of the timing, as earlier would have been better. Like before the 2004 elections. The time is now and until the 2006 election when the only solution is replacement of the whole "bigger government" that has distanced our leader from realities on several levels.

Often it is hard not to stoop to childish refrains that siblings banter such as "you started it", but heck if that is not their policy of pre-emption that they be the ones to actually start things, if anybody is, not to mention will. Timing is also a thing they ignore not just preemptively but when they quote Democrats who said things, the difference is that they were in the past and then actually did thing or didn't and things changed, usually for the better, despite the resistance from the those who then resisted involvement in the world or being a force for good or democracy.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Politics is the Name.

The day began with my thoughts of politics. The politics that Bush says should not be used in a time of war, but which are regularly part of their daily method of operation. The budget later.

The House is considering a non-binding resolution offered by Republican leadership.
H.Res. 571 "It is the sense of the House that deployment of U S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

The politics?

Murtha’s resolution would have called for "redeployment" as quickly as possible. Instead the Republicans pushed for a vote just to vote against something. If that is not political, I don’t know what is.

If the Republicans claim that Democrats have no plans, they are first of all lying, but second, just voting against the Republican plans is a good enough plan.

Now Democrats can even vote against plans that are so bad, even the Republican makers can’t vote for them. If that is not political and irresponsible, I don’t know what is.

On the other hand, maybe that is the only way things will work. Republicans can blame Democrats for getting the troops out of Iraq.

If we got in on false pretenses, the only way out may be on false pretenses. The only test for the use of false anything is if they work. Wrong facts and shifting reasons usually won’t.

Thanks to Eleanor Clift of this weeks McGluaghlin Group for her fiery enthusiasm about the connection between Murtha and the military. I may be missing some credit to the false pretense concept.

[Below link and this comment added 11-24-05: Note the battle of the cut-and-run 2006 campaign has just begun, as that is the likely charge, no matter the outcome. Not in an attempt to have it both ways, let us not pre-empt success by such plays, but continue the work that will prevent, the continued hard work of war.}

A Pre-emptive Comment:

Remember this next October, when it is too political now to set a timetable, but then there will be talk of a troop withdrawal when an election is at stake.

Now when giving a timetable would be to cut-and-run, closer to an election reducing troop strengths will sound better. But remember that the Democrats wanted a timetable only to get it done, when the Republicans finally flip-flop in talk it must still be done.

THANK YOU VETERANS

French Recollections?

The best defense is non recollection. Back a few posts I was connecting Bush, Blair and Berlusconi, and now are we to see the bashing of the French?

Over the weekend, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig compared the current indictments to Watergate, but not in the way we should think. Or actually in the way they think, in that it is just political. Watergate was just about a party who lost an election getting even. First VP Agnew was replaced and then Nixon. So said Haig.

Given the plan of preemption, just how far does this framing go? Are the French now to be framed as the Democrats are as just pulling stunts? But one thing should be clear is that the three "B" were eager beavers for war.

Philosophy, still in the game?

Two points need making on judicial philosophy. First a question: what happened to the judicial philosophy question? A good question would be, is it trickle down or bottoms up?

These are two points of departure here and almost a pun in that there is not really a difference with the slip of a key, but now that there is a new nominee there is still a question surrounding the philosophy or is it in the original intent of the nomination which should hinge on one question? Is a corporation a person?

Further: Is there equal protection under the law, in particular how does citizenship and homeland security come into play and more originally how do these promote the general welfare as noted in the preamble of the constitution?

Philosophy or politics? Neither are bad, neither are games. Play them. Do the hard work that will always be needed to keep the solutions from being a flip or a flop.

Going back to some other word games, I think of the forum, a battle, a debate, and 4 "M"s; money, mechanics, media and message(not in any particular order) is not just for ’em.

Yesterday was "a victory for the American people".

What Senator Frist called a stunt is probably only the first battle for which the Democrat's powder has been kept dry. The Republicans are outraged at the unprecedented use of Senate rules and leaving the public out of the process. The irony is woven so thick even my head hurts.

The charge that Democrats are criminalizing politics is an indication that it seems they feel, that all is fair in love and war. Leaving love aside, since there is no love lost, they feel that rules are only for losers. War is only an extension of politics where the rules are only for others.

The complaint that they were not consulted and that the public was left out shows that they would love others to play by their rules without questioning their war. It is laughable if it were not likely treason that somehow they make light of revealing the name of a CIA agent while being offended by a request for a closed session concerning the use of intelligence, while VP Cheney is not only at the heart of the current inquiry, but was able to keep his energy panel secret.

If this does not make your head hurt too, see my earlier baseball analogy, and the recent indictment analogy by Fitzgerald. And the next time they want the public not kept in the dark, call their bluff and put all the cards on the table.

Bush's choice.

Some quick points on the beginning of the process to confirm Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito:

The president does not need to get an up or down vote as it was shown that a few outside of congress were able to prevent it in the case of Mier.

The "gang of 14" that settled on the compromise earlier, will need to refrain from preventing a filibuster other than by their individual vote for cloture, if the Senate (both parties) was not consulted on the current nomination.

Given the power of outsiders to prevent a president's choice from even getting to a vote it also should be clear that any nominee should not be a "slam dunk" . More is likely later on a litmus test.

Is the Ball Rolling?

Blowing in the "B"s.
Bad things come in threes?

First Katrina blew the lid off the bureaucracy called FEMA.
Second, the Windy City team blew away the Astros.
Third, a prosecutor from the Windy City lands a blow at the administration’s staff.

Three more blows this week, may lead to a final three "B"s
The reversal and removal of Mier and Libby and the reinstating of the Davis-Bacon Act which was rescinded in the aftermath of Katrina are blows to the power of the administration.

Where will this end?
Maybe with Bush Blair and Berlusconi.

At least two points may have been made.
Things are not black and white, they are political.
It is more than just Bush who does not know what he is talking about, but much of his bureaucracy.

Note: In most cases what is blamed is usually what is being used, i.e. politics and bureaucracy. They simultaneously provide a barrier to being accountable, and hence Bush is right in blaming everyone below him down to the people.

Note: Andrew McBride CNN 10-28-05 13:30
I do not recollect any of this coming from the above source but it was on in the background and may warrant later referencing or linking.

Speaking of cycles, here is a loop.

Speaking of connections I take this opportunity to note a hard worker in justice and politics. Randy Gordon for Congress (8th Congressional District, Washington)


There may be an underlying frame here that could be useful or maybe I have mixed in a little reverse psychology or need more framing training, but should it read "Don't think of a vicious cycle"?

I will have to follow up, as I just midstream of production, popped over to "Sizzle or substance..."

QCON: Or JUST Quick Rant?

(Quick Comment On News)
Paraphrasing President Bush: the troops deserve unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory.

My comment: These are both fine, but out of order and missing much more. The commitment to the mission should come after a clear strategy which cannot come before the recognition of facts as well as the reality of cause and effect.

Given the emphasis on repeating propaganda and forcing not balancing wills, not to mention the fog of accountability that is the chain of command, we are a far cry from the troops getting the commitment they deserve which should come in more than just words. Words that if you look at them are more about the mission than the troops. And are more about words than actual support for the troops.

It seems a vicious cycle which of course should end, but they in so many of their own words recognize it will not. Noting this, the only answer is for the vicious cycle to return to the "hard work" cycle that others were doing before the vicious cycle thinkers took charge. Given their choice that others will do the hard work, we would think they should agree that others take the cycle back to better support the troops, let alone the people.

[Sorry only link is below]

Liberal Media?

Why cannot responsible outlets hold their journalists responsible for accuracy?
Because it would shut out all sources from the administration, except those critical.

Pundits should have a little more freedom, but if they were held accountable for not blurring the line between opinion and fact there would be even less heard from the right.
That's my opinion. The facts are out there.

Flip-Flop Link In Chain- or endless drain?

It seems that actually reading the Washington Post piece, Goss’s CIA still in turmoil: Lawmakers wonder why agency is bleeding talent during wartime, takes a bit of the wind out of my analysis. I was earlier intrigued by their piece, No disciplinary review for 9/11 failures of Tenet: CIA director bars accountability review for his predecessor, others.

But now I must recall the enthusiasm I had for my analysis with actual information.
Moral is an issue as well as accountability.(note two above links)

The agency is loosing it's experienced agents faster than al Qaeda leaders are being rounded up or eliminated. It is my opinion that not holding those responsible for failures accountable, lowers moral more than locating them.

Is it reasonable to expect Goss the former critic of the CIA to become a booster of the CIA? Not investigating how the intelligence was used, further lowers moral. Looking into these problems will probably lead up the chain of command which has actually been lengthened.

Not only is he tinkering with the collection of intelligence

Among his top priorities is getting spies in the field to work more independently and to rely less on complicated relationships with foreign intelligence services. Some veterans have interpreted that push as either a disinterest in working with others or a rejection of a collection method that is highly valued inside the clandestine service. But Goss believes the agency has leaned too heavily, sometimes to its detriment, on faulty information gleaned from others.

but had been insulated from the top by a DNI

In March, President Bush chose as DNI John D. Negroponte, a career foreign service officer and ambassador in Iraq. Negroponte's office is still taking shape, and it is unclear how much control he will exert over the CIA.

But the days of an all-powerful CIA director who reports exclusively to the president are over. Goss no longer has daily access to the Oval Office -- Negroponte is now responsible for briefing the president -- and Goss must coordinate all decisions with Negroponte's office.

The overall problems are the collection as well as the use of intelligence. Accountabiliy in the former must lead to the latter. But adding to the chain at the top will only distance the intelligence as well as accountability from the top. As if the administration was not already at great lengths from accountability or checks and balances. If intelligence is being used in the manner I feel it is, then Congress and especially the Democrats should put a clean out in this brain drain and scoop up the intelligence experience that is being lost. That would be a legitimate use of a "plumbers" unit.

See my earlier suggestion. and further comments around that post.

Big Ed Goes To Washington

Just fired from Armed Forces Radio yesterday morning before his debut congress should investigate why the adminstration cannot survive under our freedoms and depends on propaganda.

Original Intent?

Strict Constructionists?

Life begins at conception, what about right to privacy.
Yes? No?

Are either of these in the constitution? No.
But they both fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now this does nothing to make things any easier, except to prove that it is not as simple as those that have the answers think it is. Also that even their positions cannot be sustained without complicated gyrations, usually known as hypocrisy, that would be contrary to the "rights retained by the people" which are protected by powers reserved "to the people". This would stand orginal intent on it's head, while even the power of the people need to be checked.

See the link?

Preamble and ForeMost

The Constitution: Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BUT NOT PREEMPTED NOR THE END ALL.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat and Catapult.

Today the president gave an important* presidential ADDRESS, according to the administration, before the National Endowment for Democracy. Rather than primetime it was snooze time for the West coast at least. As listeners woke to their clock radios and the president's voice, it just may not be the right time of day for propaganda. As opposed to Tom DeLay’s remark about his indictments not passing a test of the shortest glance, minds may be their most keen while hitting the snooze button. One caller to the Ed Shultz Show claimed to have an epiphany during the speech. His point being that anyone who runs a successful business must lay out success metrics in order to succeed, and all Bush has is failure metrics.

The first point was embedded in the first paragraph of my comments "Intelligent Design? More Irony." The balance of it covered the endless recycling of Bush's excuses.

A further case in point, while I am uncertain if it came from the speech, is the question: Would Iraq be better off with Bin Laden in charge? While we can’t go home again,(well I don’t really know) but if Bin Laden is now an option, why not ask if Iraq is better off with Sadam? My point not being to answer that, only that the options are now even worse. So if a red herring is what we faced, we can always imagine smellier fish.

Maybe it is fertilizer but I don't imagine it will help democracy whether it is a fragile flower or a tree, whether it is homegrown or outsourced.

*Originally scheduled for September 11th. My original September 11th, 2001 probably already had it covered.

What Powder is Dry For!

[From email sent 9-12-05]
Melodrama over meaning as I see it... Melodrama over meaning? That takes the cake without even having the guts to eat it. Medved claims Hurricane Katrina will have little impact over 99% of our citizens. Even if that is not an exaggeration, it means that roughly 3 million will be affected. Unfortunately the 99% less effected "ballparking" of the figure does not apply to the fraction of these 3 million who are displaced, or with lost property or lives. The Superdome was only able to shelter almost that number or not quite the 30,000 lives that Medved must feels have little meaning or that Barbara Bush "feels" are doing well at the Astrodome. No wonder the president was into baseball, his thinking is only ballpark and his advice really comes from the outfield and we now know just what is meant by a "shutout". The people get shut out while they shutout what really should be feelings that they can have an impact on so many realities.

As I see it Medved wants Bush to really hit it out of the park with nominations to the Supreme Court. But in all reality the administration has three strikes or at least a walk, but only out of power: the investigations of the Downing Street Memo, the Plame Outing, Phase II of the investigation into the pre-war USE of intelligence, and now the FEMA reaction to Katrina. If this is not the "extraordinary circumstances" that give ample reason for Democrats to call for at least a rain delay, then America should call for new umpires if not a whole new park.

(It is ironic that I agree that more needed saying about the nomination of Roberts. However very unironic the link that deluged New Orleans. My quibble is over calling coverage of the tragedy melodrama. Again it is no melodrama that Bush uses tragedy for political gain and ducking and covering however unsuccessfully.

Separation

Of Church and State

Corporate
Personhood

Original Intent?

[Note to self: August 5th, 2005]

If things are black and white...

Which the so called original intent constitutionalists apparently think that they are, in particular as to the right of privacy. If the words are not there then the intent is not there, seems to be the standard that is used. If only we could be consistent with that.

But since often even words evolve or have interpretations, especially when they are connected together in sentences and paragraphs, and categorized numerically, and alphabetically and Roman-numeralized, not to mention with a little thing called grammar and punctuation, which can be a little tricky, well it is not exactly limited to a simple word search.

[brought forward]To the nomination of Harriet Miers:

This may be just circular logic that leaves nothing out, but lets nothing in. But if things are black and white, we must know what they are.

If conflicts of interest were addressed sufficiently with Roberts, I need to research more fully, but they pop up even more strongly with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

This would seem a plus for democratic hopes, in that Roberts and Meirs will have to recuse themselves from any decisions that pertain to events which they have participated in. The dark side is that it is not clear at whose discretion this determination will be made. It would seem that this is another circular logic that one must determine which side they are on, inside or outside of the loop.

If Roberts has already failed to recuse himself from a case while being interviewed for his nomination to the Supreme Court, can we depend on future justices recusing themselves from rendering opinions upon their own actions in their earlier career. If the primary reason for her nomination is having a judicial philosophy of the president's, then it would seem that we must examine more than just the constitution's original intent.

Hope Floats.

There may be some hope, on the water. President Bush has awoken to his responsibilities:
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

But it is already taking on water:
As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."

I wonder if he will be attacking the process "going in" then. As far as the "people saving lives", are they really federal anyway and who is really attacking them?

Regardless, it is like thanking people for their "hard work" after you have made their work harder.

Not defending the process is just short of blaming it anyway, and not blaming the people that were not there still needs looking at. It seems like there is no shortage of fingers to go around.

QCON: What next?

I recently heard Bush discusssing the idea that there was some relaxation upon having "dodged a bullet"(of Hurricane Katrina) as he claims he heard it through the media, but acknowledges that they got it wrong and much had to be investigated without "blame gaming".

If he didn't use these words, his press representatives have, but regardless, the next step is not only investigating but making changes, but he also plans will be moving forward and has mentioned concerns about preparedness for biological attacks and we are also aware that there are being comparisons to September 11th. I could almost feel the words "mushroom clouds" coming soon to his lips after "dodging a bullet" and "biological attack".

Not that I am linking (with my links), Roberts to a "mushroom cloud" but now that I think about it...

[QCON: means Quick Comment On News or as Bush leaves us: Questioning while Conned]

A lot of Revisiting of 9/11

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.]

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.]

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?

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

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

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.

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

More Mess Age: GO DEAN!

Repeat till it sinks in!

Leap Frog the Propaganda!

Trickle Down MESS of Truth!

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".

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.