No really. A headline two posts ago is what was missing or what started me on Wag the Dog...
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat a New York Times piece by Mark Mazetti was on the front page of my Sunday local paper. Not exactly an October Surprise, but then there was the Fox appearance of Bill Clinton that topped the cake.
Democracts are stuck in pre-9/11 thinking and Republicans are thinking post-9/11. We must run with that. Pre-9/11 thinking by the Democrats may have gotten Bin Laden if the Republicans had used it. Post-9/11 thinking by Republicans, is actually no different than their pre-9/11 thinking.
This is where I think I was going, when I left off, Sunday.
This whole Liaison Report is where we have been.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
We're as mad as Heck and...
Sunday, September 24, 2006
WAG THE DOG? Who started it?
OCTOBER SUPRISE? Not really.
Two thoughts occurred to me, or I concurred with something I had heard, that if there were an October Surprise, that finding Bin Laden or hitting Pakistan may be the likely examples. Not yet October, but the French leak that maybe Bin Laden has died and Pakistan leaks that they were threatened earlier.
At this point I will pause to reflect on further links, having included more than I have read yet and lost one.
Two thoughts occurred to me, or I concurred with something I had heard, that if there were an October Surprise, that finding Bin Laden or hitting Pakistan may be the likely examples. Not yet October, but the French leak that maybe Bin Laden has died and Pakistan leaks that they were threatened earlier.
At this point I will pause to reflect on further links, having included more than I have read yet and lost one.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
On "Duty"
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.
They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.
He put them in the Declaration of Independence.
For those that did not get to the link in the previous post, above is one section that goes to the heart of it, but his main point was on our freedoms to think and make comparisons and to disagree:
We must know that, to you,(Mr. President) thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.
Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.
They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.
He put them in the Declaration of Independence.
For those that did not get to the link in the previous post, above is one section that goes to the heart of it, but his main point was on our freedoms to think and make comparisons and to disagree:
We must know that, to you,(Mr. President) thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Our Patriotic "Duty"
One may wonder if I have prescience, but it is more likely what may need to become more common sense. Common sense is really only a sense of what is more common. It may take a more radical sense to detect what is real. If that is hard to follow, at least it makes sense to me why it is.
Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.
Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]
Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.
LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?
P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.
Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.
Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]
Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.
LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?
P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The 1st thing that went wrong.
LOYALTY
Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team
In rebuilding effort, loyalty to Bush administration was paramount
This is probably the most important piece of the failed course that will not change. It not only rules out opposing views but limits the number of available skilled staff for an administration with little faith in the government serving the people. Then it also penalizes even those in the same party with open minds that see things differently. It should be no wonder that failure is so frequent and change is so difficult. Even those with merit that chose to keep giving their input will have no effect without the administration being willing to change and risk further exposure of their failures.
As George Lakoff, points out in the book, Don't think of an Elephant Know your values, Frame the debate there are a pair of parental metaphors Strict Father vs. Nurturing Parent and I earlier joked it was about the "Golden Rule", or rather the rule vs. the joke,(Those with...etc.). However there is a much simpler and more familiar way of putting it that explains the philosophy which is behind this all. "Do as I say, not as I do." Sadly the reaction to the reality that is in the results is also familiar to the strict father metaphor. "I'll give you something to cry about."
A second point, (not necessarily in order in the article)and I have not read beyond a few words in a few paragraphs, is probably the goal of privatization of government. It sounds good, but in reality it is a double edged sword that is not even half good. The two sides are either, you are on your own, and corporations will take care of what matters. It should simply be remembered that "privatization" is really "corporatization". Not that corporations are a bad thing, only that too much freedom is as much a concern for corporations as to individuals, for none of us would fair well on our own, even the ones that are trickling down.
[I will try to add links to my earlier references.]
Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team
In rebuilding effort, loyalty to Bush administration was paramount
This is probably the most important piece of the failed course that will not change. It not only rules out opposing views but limits the number of available skilled staff for an administration with little faith in the government serving the people. Then it also penalizes even those in the same party with open minds that see things differently. It should be no wonder that failure is so frequent and change is so difficult. Even those with merit that chose to keep giving their input will have no effect without the administration being willing to change and risk further exposure of their failures.
As George Lakoff, points out in the book, Don't think of an Elephant Know your values, Frame the debate there are a pair of parental metaphors Strict Father vs. Nurturing Parent and I earlier joked it was about the "Golden Rule", or rather the rule vs. the joke,(Those with...etc.). However there is a much simpler and more familiar way of putting it that explains the philosophy which is behind this all. "Do as I say, not as I do." Sadly the reaction to the reality that is in the results is also familiar to the strict father metaphor. "I'll give you something to cry about."
A second point, (not necessarily in order in the article)and I have not read beyond a few words in a few paragraphs, is probably the goal of privatization of government. It sounds good, but in reality it is a double edged sword that is not even half good. The two sides are either, you are on your own, and corporations will take care of what matters. It should simply be remembered that "privatization" is really "corporatization". Not that corporations are a bad thing, only that too much freedom is as much a concern for corporations as to individuals, for none of us would fair well on our own, even the ones that are trickling down.
[I will try to add links to my earlier references.]
Monday, September 11, 2006
9-11-01. Will we wake up?
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.
[written in the hour or so after the tragedy]
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.
[written in the hour or so after the tragedy]
Sunday, September 10, 2006
NEXT POINT!
To comment on negative campaign and point to inaccuracies and insufficiencies in actual records of the incumbents. The media should be responsible for monitoring both last minute campaign ads for putting them in context with actual problems and the record of the incumbent.
And what has happened to the $20 billion contract to "monitor the tone" of the media coming out of Iraq? That would seem an incursion on "freedom of the press" while at home they could be doing a better job as well. They should be looking at the "tone" of the administration and what has a better chance of changing even if it was monitored better.
And what has happened to the $20 billion contract to "monitor the tone" of the media coming out of Iraq? That would seem an incursion on "freedom of the press" while at home they could be doing a better job as well. They should be looking at the "tone" of the administration and what has a better chance of changing even if it was monitored better.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The Point?
What some people call talking points are to others real points. But if ABC comes to their senses and scraps "The Path to 9/11", we have made a point or more. They will have talking points about "liberal control" of the media but the point must be that 9/11 should not be used for profit or propaganda and there is a difference between talking and reality.
Entertainment should have some freedom, but the 9/11 tragedy and it's investigation should not be used in that regard on "public" airwaves, especially on the anniversary and without comparing contrasting with work such as Orwell's "1984" and Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" both of which would be more entertaining and related to our reality, and which "Path", even with alterations would fit more as the character and subject in these works.
Entertainment should have some freedom, but the 9/11 tragedy and it's investigation should not be used in that regard on "public" airwaves, especially on the anniversary and without comparing contrasting with work such as Orwell's "1984" and Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" both of which would be more entertaining and related to our reality, and which "Path", even with alterations would fit more as the character and subject in these works.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Phase II, finally!
WWW.WeGotEd.com
with Ed Shultz was kind enough to provide the link to a podcast of Senator Jay Rockefellor on the Senate floor.
Back to the issue of ABC and "Path to 9/11"
Thanks to People for the American Way an Open Letter to ABC: Don't Airbrush 9/11 led me to Firedog Lake weblog which provided an easy tool to reach the media
with Ed Shultz was kind enough to provide the link to a podcast of Senator Jay Rockefellor on the Senate floor.
Back to the issue of ABC and "Path to 9/11"
Thanks to People for the American Way an Open Letter to ABC: Don't Airbrush 9/11 led me to Firedog Lake weblog which provided an easy tool to reach the media
Who is the No. 2 terrorist organization in the U.S.?
I'm not sure of the network ratings,
but I think ABC is just trailing Fox news.
MSNBC is in line for the awards in the fight against terrorism,
despite Scarborough possibly being an insurgent.
Broadcasting is the field where new laws should be enacted in the fight against terrorism, and it would maybe only take bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but an investment in journalism and a divestment from other corporate entities could also be necessary to win the war on terrorism.
but I think ABC is just trailing Fox news.
MSNBC is in line for the awards in the fight against terrorism,
despite Scarborough possibly being an insurgent.
Broadcasting is the field where new laws should be enacted in the fight against terrorism, and it would maybe only take bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but an investment in journalism and a divestment from other corporate entities could also be necessary to win the war on terrorism.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
How many "B" will fall?
In the weeks following September 11th, 2001 I had to make a decision whether to travel and with the help of a courageous speech by President Bush decided that terrorism was worth standing up to by living life as close to usual as possible. That decision put my wife and myself weeks later walking down a street in Rome which we had passed only hours earlier, but now barricades were up. It was the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. had just struck Afghanistan.
Being in another country at a time that the U. S. was beginning a war was a disconcerting experience yet still an attempt was made to enjoy the trip and also afforded the access to European journalism. With this introduction, one thing I recall reading gave me the impression that Tony Blair's future seemed to be bright or at least believeable as it focused on leadership of the European Union. Now 5 years later, Blair’s fortunes not to mention Berlusconi's have dimmed.
Being in another country at a time that the U. S. was beginning a war was a disconcerting experience yet still an attempt was made to enjoy the trip and also afforded the access to European journalism. With this introduction, one thing I recall reading gave me the impression that Tony Blair's future seemed to be bright or at least believeable as it focused on leadership of the European Union. Now 5 years later, Blair’s fortunes not to mention Berlusconi's have dimmed.
Bloggerman may repeat history anytime.
Keith Olbermann has hit another one out of the journalistic park.
"Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir? Mr. Olbermann has a keen sense in asking this of Bush and should be followed not just by the public but by his peers in the field and any politicians who care about progress.
"Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir? Mr. Olbermann has a keen sense in asking this of Bush and should be followed not just by the public but by his peers in the field and any politicians who care about progress.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
MemoGate
Bush catches critics off guard
Weakened president still can set terms of debate
ANALYSIS: The Washington Post
Read- OPINION. TheLiaisonReport.com
Memogate has dual meaning: The weakened president could not accurately read memo headings.
The media cannot write accurate heading titles. While the former does not bother reading the full memos, this reader has at this point not finished reading the article. My point is that The Washington Post is more likely not off guard and is setting the terms of the debate for a weakened president. Even the term debate is very shaky, implying that there is: 1. an argument and 2. they will actually face a debate. The point is that we would not be in much of this mess if the media had not been his cheerleader and the administration had been able to read memos. While headings do get attention, we would not have this course or the terms of the debate without the media still blowing it.
Weakened president still can set terms of debate
ANALYSIS: The Washington Post
Read- OPINION. TheLiaisonReport.com
Memogate has dual meaning: The weakened president could not accurately read memo headings.
The media cannot write accurate heading titles. While the former does not bother reading the full memos, this reader has at this point not finished reading the article. My point is that The Washington Post is more likely not off guard and is setting the terms of the debate for a weakened president. Even the term debate is very shaky, implying that there is: 1. an argument and 2. they will actually face a debate. The point is that we would not be in much of this mess if the media had not been his cheerleader and the administration had been able to read memos. While headings do get attention, we would not have this course or the terms of the debate without the media still blowing it.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Censorship or just Business?
A belated comment on the firing of Mike Malloy:
Dear Mike:
Here is a comment I sent Air America Radio.
"Listening to Mike Malloy's last broadcast (August 25th) on Air America Radio, I am trying to determine if it was anything he said that lost him his job, assuming that maybe he crossed a line: However having listened up to the point that he came up with the bumper sticker WWYD?, [What would you do?] I feel that he actually was mellower than I had expected not being a regular, just due to the time slot.
I don't know if he foresaw his fate, or it is just financial, but I can accept that you are not necessarily in this for anything more than financial reasons. I just hope that that is the case and not some sort of displeasure with his message. His most extreme words cannot compare to the reality of this world, that must be challenged with reason or it will only be for force."
Having finished listening your (hopefully not) last program, there may be many places where you crossed a line, but as I said above and to a friend, compared to reality "there is no line". Well that is not exactly what I said, but I progress (as opposed to digress).
Now I can send you my improved well wishes.
Roger Out.
P.S. the above format is such as I had already shared this issue with a friend from Canada. In the overall lineup of Air America, you were not (necessarily) my favorite, but it may have just been your time slot (or being too similar in "sentiment"). After all the fine talents, it was usually just too much, to get jacked up all over again so late in the day, not wanting to cross any lines myself. But I must say, I really enjoyed your "last program" and look forward to wherever you end up.[italic words added now]
P.P.S. Listening again I get to the point where Bush says "there is no point in having a philosophical discussion" ? Appointing justices it was all about philosophy. Did anyone ask what was the philosophy? Not the media or the politicians. But we have leapt to the answers.
Dear Mike:
Here is a comment I sent Air America Radio.
"Listening to Mike Malloy's last broadcast (August 25th) on Air America Radio, I am trying to determine if it was anything he said that lost him his job, assuming that maybe he crossed a line: However having listened up to the point that he came up with the bumper sticker WWYD?, [What would you do?] I feel that he actually was mellower than I had expected not being a regular, just due to the time slot.
I don't know if he foresaw his fate, or it is just financial, but I can accept that you are not necessarily in this for anything more than financial reasons. I just hope that that is the case and not some sort of displeasure with his message. His most extreme words cannot compare to the reality of this world, that must be challenged with reason or it will only be for force."
Having finished listening your (hopefully not) last program, there may be many places where you crossed a line, but as I said above and to a friend, compared to reality "there is no line". Well that is not exactly what I said, but I progress (as opposed to digress).
Now I can send you my improved well wishes.
Roger Out.
P.S. the above format is such as I had already shared this issue with a friend from Canada. In the overall lineup of Air America, you were not (necessarily) my favorite, but it may have just been your time slot (or being too similar in "sentiment"). After all the fine talents, it was usually just too much, to get jacked up all over again so late in the day, not wanting to cross any lines myself. But I must say, I really enjoyed your "last program" and look forward to wherever you end up.[italic words added now]
P.P.S. Listening again I get to the point where Bush says "there is no point in having a philosophical discussion" ? Appointing justices it was all about philosophy. Did anyone ask what was the philosophy? Not the media or the politicians. But we have leapt to the answers.
Can things get any better?
Before the 2004 election I warned: Do not bet on things not getting worse.
They can.
But now can things get any better than this?
Thanks to Air America Radio and Raw Story : Friends of Hillary hint she may pull out of presidential race
"I would not be surprised if she were to decide that the best contribution she can make to her country is to forget about being president and become a consensus-maker in the Senate," said a leading Democratic party insider. "She believes there is no trust between the two political sides and that we can’t function as a democracy without it."
I might be surprised but encouraged.
And thanks to truthout.org and The Independent UK "Deluded": Extraordinary Attack on Blair by Cabinet
"His diminishing stock of political authority was laid bare when ministers such as Jack Straw and Douglas Alexander made clear their opposition to his hard-line stance."
And thanks to Peter Werby[Sept 1st broadcast] : worldcantwait.org
YES!
They can.
But now can things get any better than this?
Thanks to Air America Radio and Raw Story : Friends of Hillary hint she may pull out of presidential race
"I would not be surprised if she were to decide that the best contribution she can make to her country is to forget about being president and become a consensus-maker in the Senate," said a leading Democratic party insider. "She believes there is no trust between the two political sides and that we can’t function as a democracy without it."
I might be surprised but encouraged.
And thanks to truthout.org and The Independent UK "Deluded": Extraordinary Attack on Blair by Cabinet
"His diminishing stock of political authority was laid bare when ministers such as Jack Straw and Douglas Alexander made clear their opposition to his hard-line stance."
And thanks to Peter Werby[Sept 1st broadcast] : worldcantwait.org
YES!
Friday, September 01, 2006
Filtering the Filter.
U.S. offers $20 million to monitor Iraq stories
Contract winner would watch tone of U.S. and foreign war coverage
Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
President predicts victory despite disillusionment
Define "tone": See 27, 28, 29 or twice removed from message, once removed from messanger, as in "killing the". Once removed from perspective, twice removed from reality. As in "filtering the".
Define "ideological": "suggestive of ideas" once removed from ideology, not the enemy or the weapon, a struggle for some, but not decisive.
Before I waste more words, I will cut the to point that it is the tone and ideology of the administration that wastes so much, and will waste even more to continue the "trickle down" while they only tinkle real information, while the tone and ideology is fouled up.
Contract winner would watch tone of U.S. and foreign war coverage
Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
President predicts victory despite disillusionment
Define "tone": See 27, 28, 29 or twice removed from message, once removed from messanger, as in "killing the". Once removed from perspective, twice removed from reality. As in "filtering the".
Define "ideological": "suggestive of ideas" once removed from ideology, not the enemy or the weapon, a struggle for some, but not decisive.
Before I waste more words, I will cut the to point that it is the tone and ideology of the administration that wastes so much, and will waste even more to continue the "trickle down" while they only tinkle real information, while the tone and ideology is fouled up.
The beginning to start to end.
Compassion is the only way to peace
D'VORAH KOST - Seattle Post-Intelligencer -
GUEST COLUMNIST
"We become fully human when we are aware of another's suffering as if it were our own. When we forget empathy, the peace we are striving for will be unattainable."
This was very well put in a piece that is worth a full read.
My comments:
When we deny the feelings of others,
we deny our own.
When we deny the force of others,
we deny our own.
My two sense worth
or sentiments worth.
Let those without denial
cast the first word.
Acceptance of being
in another's shoes
is the hardest fit.
D'VORAH KOST - Seattle Post-Intelligencer -
GUEST COLUMNIST
"We become fully human when we are aware of another's suffering as if it were our own. When we forget empathy, the peace we are striving for will be unattainable."
This was very well put in a piece that is worth a full read.
My comments:
When we deny the feelings of others,
we deny our own.
When we deny the force of others,
we deny our own.
My two sense worth
or sentiments worth.
Let those without denial
cast the first word.
Acceptance of being
in another's shoes
is the hardest fit.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Heroes of History
Bloggermann
Thank you, Keith Olbermann
There is Fascism, Indeed.
THANK YOU, MSNBC
Also for:
Dean Replies to Rumsfeld
P.S. I attach the link below, to maybe return to later.
Thank you, Keith Olbermann
There is Fascism, Indeed.
THANK YOU, MSNBC
Also for:
Dean Replies to Rumsfeld
P.S. I attach the link below, to maybe return to later.
Denial of Tyranny
Bush Team Casts Foes as Defeatist
Blunt Rhetoric Signals a New Thrust
Bush: "They're not political speeches," he said. "They're speeches about the future of this country, and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."
Cut and run?
Having your cake and eating it too?
As I said before if this is not political, what are we killing and dying for?
Politics is the only choice between tyranny and anarchy.
The result may be denial and tryanny, their only friends are fear and anarchy if politics is not the path.
Blunt Rhetoric Signals a New Thrust
Bush: "They're not political speeches," he said. "They're speeches about the future of this country, and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."
Cut and run?
Having your cake and eating it too?
As I said before if this is not political, what are we killing and dying for?
Politics is the only choice between tyranny and anarchy.
The result may be denial and tryanny, their only friends are fear and anarchy if politics is not the path.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
...what about the damage to your Presidency?
Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq
Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".
Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.
Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.
On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:
Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.
I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq
Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".
Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.
Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.
On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:
Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.
I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
War on Democracy
Media Impeached
Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent "interview" accusing Democrats who support candidates like Lamont and oppose the war in Iraq of supporting ‘al Qaeda-types' should be the last of the free ride that the administration and the Republican National Committee get from the "free press". Any opportunity that they wish to spread their lies must come at the cost of actually facing questions.
If journalists cannot do their jobs in that regard, maybe they could at least pass on the opportunity to politicians who will ask them and answer questions as well. If they fail to do the job at least there may be the opportunity to know they aren’t up to their jobs.
The continual linkage of September 11th and Iraq, and the trashing of acts of democracy should be categorized as un-American and many of the details investigated as un-constitutional, and impeachable. In many minds the media is already impeached.
Democrats who question must be supported over Republicans who can’t face the press, but are fine with using it for their own ends. The media should be pressed to question both sides, not just spew their answers.
[Letter to USA Today of August 17th, 2006]
Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent "interview" accusing Democrats who support candidates like Lamont and oppose the war in Iraq of supporting ‘al Qaeda-types' should be the last of the free ride that the administration and the Republican National Committee get from the "free press". Any opportunity that they wish to spread their lies must come at the cost of actually facing questions.
If journalists cannot do their jobs in that regard, maybe they could at least pass on the opportunity to politicians who will ask them and answer questions as well. If they fail to do the job at least there may be the opportunity to know they aren’t up to their jobs.
The continual linkage of September 11th and Iraq, and the trashing of acts of democracy should be categorized as un-American and many of the details investigated as un-constitutional, and impeachable. In many minds the media is already impeached.
Democrats who question must be supported over Republicans who can’t face the press, but are fine with using it for their own ends. The media should be pressed to question both sides, not just spew their answers.
[Letter to USA Today of August 17th, 2006]
Saturday, August 26, 2006
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike"
Just When You Thought You'd Seen Everything: Hoekstra's Hoax
By Ray McGovern t r u t h o u t | Perspective
"The paper amounts to a pre-emptive strike on what's left of the Intelligence Community, usurping its prerogative to provide policymakers with estimates on front-burner issues - in this case, Iran's weapons of mass destruction and other threats."
I think this rejuvinates my enthusiasm for my earlier post, [see comment]
By Ray McGovern t r u t h o u t | Perspective
"The paper amounts to a pre-emptive strike on what's left of the Intelligence Community, usurping its prerogative to provide policymakers with estimates on front-burner issues - in this case, Iran's weapons of mass destruction and other threats."
I think this rejuvinates my enthusiasm for my earlier post, [see comment]
Thursday, August 24, 2006
The links that connect
The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine
...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.
Maybe I heard something like this:
In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]
Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]
Or maybe what I failed to say:
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]
* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine
...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.
Maybe I heard something like this:
In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]
Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]
Or maybe what I failed to say:
This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]
* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
U.S. Spy Agencies Criticized On Iran
GOP-Led Panel Faults Intelligence
Based on the above sub-title of the article alone a conclusion that it should be filed under another slam dunk of something was merited. A slam dunk of intelligence period and in all forms.
But a key paragraph proves that:
The report relies exclusively on publicly available documents. Its authors did not interview intelligence officials. Still, it warns the intelligence community to avoid the mistakes made regarding weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war, noting that Iran could easily be engaged in "a denial and deception campaign to exaggerate progress on its nuclear program as Saddam Hussein apparently did concerning his WMD programs."
How could any fair and balanced person analyse let alone criticize or come to a conclusion "exclusively on publicly available documents" and "not interview intelligence officials"? Only by having a conclusion that you do not want any facts to get in the way of or for intelligence not to be in the picture.
This is not to say that there are many who do not know, but if one knew, then what? That is farther out of the frame. Just because they fear not to act, because they don't know, does not mean, to act, will not be harder work.
GOP-Led Panel Faults Intelligence
Based on the above sub-title of the article alone a conclusion that it should be filed under another slam dunk of something was merited. A slam dunk of intelligence period and in all forms.
But a key paragraph proves that:
The report relies exclusively on publicly available documents. Its authors did not interview intelligence officials. Still, it warns the intelligence community to avoid the mistakes made regarding weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war, noting that Iran could easily be engaged in "a denial and deception campaign to exaggerate progress on its nuclear program as Saddam Hussein apparently did concerning his WMD programs."
How could any fair and balanced person analyse let alone criticize or come to a conclusion "exclusively on publicly available documents" and "not interview intelligence officials"? Only by having a conclusion that you do not want any facts to get in the way of or for intelligence not to be in the picture.
This is not to say that there are many who do not know, but if one knew, then what? That is farther out of the frame. Just because they fear not to act, because they don't know, does not mean, to act, will not be harder work.
Bush shifts blaim to opponents.
Bush shows pessimism on Iraq
President shifts tone as he makes case for U.S. policy
This is more a start to the war against Democrats and if that fails like most he tries, he has already set it up to blaim the Iraqis when he really needs to get the troops out to save his party.
These comments are made with only a quick glance at the article and the press conference still playing.
President shifts tone as he makes case for U.S. policy
This is more a start to the war against Democrats and if that fails like most he tries, he has already set it up to blaim the Iraqis when he really needs to get the troops out to save his party.
These comments are made with only a quick glance at the article and the press conference still playing.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Right and Wrong Preemptive Pardon.
The heading above reflects a very large field for this administration but my point refers to my post Impeachable and Imprisonable.
I was correctly preemptive in my claim that "the administration could not follow old ones" a day before the court ruling. It is fully represented in my letter to a local paper. Politics of Terror: Democrats, don't fear national security issue
I was erroneous in reflecting the idea of "impeachment being the limits of what a president may suffer." Removal from office is the most one can suffer from impeachment. But other legal ramifications and remedies may be possible. Another concern mixed into this confusion is that impeachment is unpardonable, and that convictions are needed before pardons are obtained.
In much earlier conversations(not necessarily blogged) I also claimed that Bush is lucky that impeachment is the worst he could get, but of course that is another one of my rare errors. I have also made reference more than once, maybe not in blog, that I would welcome being wrong, and we would be lucky if I were more wrong.
I was correctly preemptive in my claim that "the administration could not follow old ones" a day before the court ruling. It is fully represented in my letter to a local paper. Politics of Terror: Democrats, don't fear national security issue
I was erroneous in reflecting the idea of "impeachment being the limits of what a president may suffer." Removal from office is the most one can suffer from impeachment. But other legal ramifications and remedies may be possible. Another concern mixed into this confusion is that impeachment is unpardonable, and that convictions are needed before pardons are obtained.
In much earlier conversations(not necessarily blogged) I also claimed that Bush is lucky that impeachment is the worst he could get, but of course that is another one of my rare errors. I have also made reference more than once, maybe not in blog, that I would welcome being wrong, and we would be lucky if I were more wrong.
Reality Comedy vs. Faux news.
Maybe MSNBC is checking my blog:
Joe Scarborough covers the controversy between Comedy Central and Fox News.
My opinion is that there is more news in the entertainment of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert than either in whatever it is that Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are going for. As for Joe Scarborough, he at least may have more balance of news and comedy even if his views are not balanced. Here he at least has two guests that are not "yes men" or women, even if he does not exactly get it.
[Reviewing my posts, the closest I came to what I recalled as a comment comparing the news of Comedy Central to the comedy of Fox news was a suggestion for a real news network with Jon Stewart as number one anchor. My campaign to tranfer duties of Comedy Central to news and Fox News to comedy, may have went out in an actual email to interested parties.]
Joe Scarborough covers the controversy between Comedy Central and Fox News.
My opinion is that there is more news in the entertainment of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert than either in whatever it is that Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are going for. As for Joe Scarborough, he at least may have more balance of news and comedy even if his views are not balanced. Here he at least has two guests that are not "yes men" or women, even if he does not exactly get it.
[Reviewing my posts, the closest I came to what I recalled as a comment comparing the news of Comedy Central to the comedy of Fox news was a suggestion for a real news network with Jon Stewart as number one anchor. My campaign to tranfer duties of Comedy Central to news and Fox News to comedy, may have went out in an actual email to interested parties.]
President Bush
Forcefullness: Bush is speaking slow again.
Not portrayed in the above clip
is the claim that the course of his critics
would be "a d i s a s t e r ".
Then he repeats and speaks fastly, but goes on and on, in the August 21st press conference. [Link attached 8-24, one hand arguing the other, see webcast]
Not portrayed in the above clip
is the claim that the course of his critics
would be "a d i s a s t e r ".
Then he repeats and speaks fastly, but goes on and on, in the August 21st press conference. [Link attached 8-24, one hand arguing the other, see webcast]
Saturday, August 19, 2006
CUT THAT
BU** SH** OUT! [see note]
Munch Munch. At the G-8 a few weeks ago, Bush had some ideas for Putin between chomps, that the U.N. should tell Syria, to tell Hezbollah to cut that S*** out. If that is the "nature" of how the world works, then please try it in his own back yard. The two above expletives represents links to the RNC.
Dems Rejoice: Ruling Weakens Terrorist Surveillance Program
Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security
The linkage of Democrats and liberal judges to a weakening of anything are a cut and run from their sworn duty to uphold the constitution and fight for democracy. The only enemy the Republicans can defeat are the phantom "do nothings". No body wants to stop law enforcement or the military from any efforts to protect America, they only expect that we do so under the constitution or they have literally ripped the heart out of the foundation of this nation and the hope of the world.
Picture this:
An elephant with King George the 43rd, stomping on the constitution and strangling the founding fathers in their graves.
Note: The links actually represent a lot of "hard work" meaning a filtering of opinions that may have individual merit as opinions or snippets of facts, but the image of Democrats as terrorist reflect the intention that must be shoveled back with the image above.
Munch Munch. At the G-8 a few weeks ago, Bush had some ideas for Putin between chomps, that the U.N. should tell Syria, to tell Hezbollah to cut that S*** out. If that is the "nature" of how the world works, then please try it in his own back yard. The two above expletives represents links to the RNC.
Dems Rejoice: Ruling Weakens Terrorist Surveillance Program
Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security
The linkage of Democrats and liberal judges to a weakening of anything are a cut and run from their sworn duty to uphold the constitution and fight for democracy. The only enemy the Republicans can defeat are the phantom "do nothings". No body wants to stop law enforcement or the military from any efforts to protect America, they only expect that we do so under the constitution or they have literally ripped the heart out of the foundation of this nation and the hope of the world.
Picture this:
An elephant with King George the 43rd, stomping on the constitution and strangling the founding fathers in their graves.
Note: The links actually represent a lot of "hard work" meaning a filtering of opinions that may have individual merit as opinions or snippets of facts, but the image of Democrats as terrorist reflect the intention that must be shoveled back with the image above.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Understanding the nature?
Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong
"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"
"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"
Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?
If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.
Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.
I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."
There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".
* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong
"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"
"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"
Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?
If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.
Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.
I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."
There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".
* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Impeachable and Imprisonable?
[There is no support for the idea that law enforcement would be unable to prevent terror attacks without new and unconstitutional laws, but there is that the administration could not follow old ones, let alone even now keep democracy, Iraq and terrorism straight.]
The above line was my conclusion to a letter submitted to a local paper yesterday.
Today a court backs me up. However the constitution prevails, the fact that the law which the president violated provides for imprisonment for it's violation is probably superceded by that articles of impeachment being the limits of what a president may suffer.
Federal judge orders end to wiretap program
Says warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional
Someone should be going to jail or be impeached.
The only question, is how many of each?
The above line was my conclusion to a letter submitted to a local paper yesterday.
Today a court backs me up. However the constitution prevails, the fact that the law which the president violated provides for imprisonment for it's violation is probably superceded by that articles of impeachment being the limits of what a president may suffer.
Federal judge orders end to wiretap program
Says warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional
Someone should be going to jail or be impeached.
The only question, is how many of each?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
LIBERAL MEDIA: A BOGEYMAN
Do the media have a liberal bias?
My contribution: [Sent to the Seattle Times, not printed, 08-02-06]
LIBERAL MEDIA A BOGEYMAN
Is there a liberal media bias? That depends on what your definition of bias is. Ring any bells? Maybe enough said. My view is that there is an anti-reality bias and maybe even conservatives could agree. We just don’t agree on presenting reality. Defined in Encarta as: an unfair preference or dislike for something. That leaves us with the disagreement over what is fair. I guess it is fair that both syndicated columnists blamed the people.
The odd thing is that the conservative believes for all people that "newsworthy events" are seen through their own belief systems but that she does not shape the news. By expecting that news reporters must balance the news; that reality is balanced, is itself a bias. Her belief and that of other conservatives creates a bias that the media is supposed to be balanced, when reality is not. Not any more than that two columnists from Harvard represents balance or Harvard, would more good news represent reality.
With just a little less bias from conservatives and less fear of bias from the media, we probably "couldn’t handle the truth." Just because there is so much bad news, does not mean it is liberal bias. The unfairness in that Clinton was impeached and that headlines don’t hold congress and the administration more accountable, may be my bias. But that does not mean that the media facing more reality and doing their jobs would not feed the myth that they are too liberal. A myth that keeps reality from changing our course. A culture of fear needs a bogeyman.
My contribution: [Sent to the Seattle Times, not printed, 08-02-06]
LIBERAL MEDIA A BOGEYMAN
Is there a liberal media bias? That depends on what your definition of bias is. Ring any bells? Maybe enough said. My view is that there is an anti-reality bias and maybe even conservatives could agree. We just don’t agree on presenting reality. Defined in Encarta as: an unfair preference or dislike for something. That leaves us with the disagreement over what is fair. I guess it is fair that both syndicated columnists blamed the people.
The odd thing is that the conservative believes for all people that "newsworthy events" are seen through their own belief systems but that she does not shape the news. By expecting that news reporters must balance the news; that reality is balanced, is itself a bias. Her belief and that of other conservatives creates a bias that the media is supposed to be balanced, when reality is not. Not any more than that two columnists from Harvard represents balance or Harvard, would more good news represent reality.
With just a little less bias from conservatives and less fear of bias from the media, we probably "couldn’t handle the truth." Just because there is so much bad news, does not mean it is liberal bias. The unfairness in that Clinton was impeached and that headlines don’t hold congress and the administration more accountable, may be my bias. But that does not mean that the media facing more reality and doing their jobs would not feed the myth that they are too liberal. A myth that keeps reality from changing our course. A culture of fear needs a bogeyman.
Independence Fence?
From the Washington Post Clinton Gives Lieberman A Lesson in Independence seems to be of more portent than the pre-primary prediction that the Lieberman Lamont race would be a watershed for Democrats or knocking them off the fence on the Iraq war. I had been reticent about jumping on that bandwagon with enthusiasm, and it was probably due to the double standard or rather nuance that others had in their positions.
President Clinton points out "...there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.' "
That is the fence that is hard to ride.
But the more important point that should be made is that Republicans are cutting and running. If only the Republicans would back off every state like it has Connecticut:
"We are not making any endorsement in Connecticut," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. "The Republican Party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race and so we're not."
Give all Americans a choice between a Democrat and a Non-Republican, and make law and order and national security the issues while they are at it.
President Clinton points out "...there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.' "
That is the fence that is hard to ride.
But the more important point that should be made is that Republicans are cutting and running. If only the Republicans would back off every state like it has Connecticut:
"We are not making any endorsement in Connecticut," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. "The Republican Party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race and so we're not."
Give all Americans a choice between a Democrat and a Non-Republican, and make law and order and national security the issues while they are at it.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Pitbully Soapbox
Why They Hate Us
by Julia E. SweigThe Los Angeles Times
senior fellow Council on Foreign Relations
www.truthout.org
Panic as Policy
by Erik Leaver
research fellow Institute for Policy Studies
www.ThomPaine.com
Hoping for Fear
by Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Democrats must stand for law and order, peace and security, not war and terror.
We really are for "war as a last resort", after exhaustive diplomacy.
War is hard work. Peace should be worked for just as hard.
Given the huge costs and the disasterous results, we have a heckuva budget, not to mention wiggle room to work with.
[This was just going to be the links to the two(then three) sites, but could not just leave them without comment.]
by Julia E. SweigThe Los Angeles Times
senior fellow Council on Foreign Relations
www.truthout.org
Panic as Policy
by Erik Leaver
research fellow Institute for Policy Studies
www.ThomPaine.com
Hoping for Fear
by Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Democrats must stand for law and order, peace and security, not war and terror.
We really are for "war as a last resort", after exhaustive diplomacy.
War is hard work. Peace should be worked for just as hard.
Given the huge costs and the disasterous results, we have a heckuva budget, not to mention wiggle room to work with.
[This was just going to be the links to the two(then three) sites, but could not just leave them without comment.]
Monday, August 14, 2006
34-Day War
Just before I left for a 4 day boat trip, a friend expressed concern about a term that he had heard. The Status Quo Ante had been used in reference to a resolution to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. There must be something to it, since Al Franken was also concerned about it's new usage. The meaning that things go back to as things were before the war seems a huge flip-flop from no cease fire until there is lasting resolution of the causes of the Middle East conflict. Whether this is lasting is still to be seen, but after 2 to 3 billion in damages to Lebanon and nearly 1000 lives lost.
On the war on terror front, the facts about the major plans for blowing up airlines are still coming out, or rather could have been timed differently. Britain and U.S. disagree on when was the right timing for breaking that investigation while Lieberman accuses Lamont of being a threat to the war on terror.
This is just a quick note as I may catch up on the last four days but things will move on.
On the war on terror front, the facts about the major plans for blowing up airlines are still coming out, or rather could have been timed differently. Britain and U.S. disagree on when was the right timing for breaking that investigation while Lieberman accuses Lamont of being a threat to the war on terror.
This is just a quick note as I may catch up on the last four days but things will move on.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Advice to State
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on This Week , suggests a major diplomatic effort in the Middle East. I would agree, but the administration knows too little about the meaning of the word "diplomacy". As I alluded to earlier, a major effort to get through to Bush would likely be needed before there could be any results.
Advice to Democrats
Cokie Roberts' view of the Connecticut race, on This Week, that it will be a mistake to take the Democrats to the left, is the wrong advice. Her intentions are hard to question, but seem to be less than sincere. She is either of the best intentions, trying to be unbiased, or is trying to to seem unbiased, but maybe less than enthusiastic would be closer.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Cost of Course
From no less than David S. Broder, no lefty
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic."
As Reagan would say: "There you go again." Well I use this to refer to my post which I just lost as time expired.
[NOTE: After doing all this work, a second time, I then notice that the lost post is up. LESSONS OF WAR. Sorry for the redundancy, and it is unedited, but I will leave it up as I must go off in another reality or discipline.] [a navigation aid: use CTRL F in these links to save "hard work".]
My point: Reality is about many disciplines, not just discipline. Hmmm, I've never been to the point before, maybe there is something to beginning from scratch.
In this case economics over just the economy. Work not just hard work.
Well this does not mean that I won't have tangents, in fact that is what linking the fields implies.
My second or original point, is that economics has more to do with history than winning. Actually I may be getting farther from the course I took in the lost post. But two examples are Vietnam and Afghanistan. We lost one and are losing the other. We are doing business with one and the other beat the Soviet Union, and we are still losing.
Then there is the "pottery store" or simple minded advice that still is in play and not fully understood.
This is where I have more experience that I even knew, forgetting that my first job was printing store signs. I also have wandered a few shops or two and feel that it was "You break it, you bought it." Doesn't that flow better both literally and economically. Despite the fact that it is not the Pottery Barn policy, it is ironic or not that Thomas Friedman is involved in this. Only a sloppy or slanted writer would confuse the credit to his words. As far as I can tell, the course often depends on reading signs. and getting their meaning straight. Owning something is a whole lot better sounding than whatever work it takes to get it.
I don't know if you get this sign but the post was a whole lot shorter and straighter than the one lost.
Maybe Woodward and Russert got it, but Powell probably used too many words for Bush. See Wikipedia
[8-19-10: labels and link added]
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic."
As Reagan would say: "There you go again." Well I use this to refer to my post which I just lost as time expired.
[NOTE: After doing all this work, a second time, I then notice that the lost post is up. LESSONS OF WAR. Sorry for the redundancy, and it is unedited, but I will leave it up as I must go off in another reality or discipline.] [a navigation aid: use CTRL F in these links to save "hard work".]
My point: Reality is about many disciplines, not just discipline. Hmmm, I've never been to the point before, maybe there is something to beginning from scratch.
In this case economics over just the economy. Work not just hard work.
Well this does not mean that I won't have tangents, in fact that is what linking the fields implies.
My second or original point, is that economics has more to do with history than winning. Actually I may be getting farther from the course I took in the lost post. But two examples are Vietnam and Afghanistan. We lost one and are losing the other. We are doing business with one and the other beat the Soviet Union, and we are still losing.
Then there is the "pottery store" or simple minded advice that still is in play and not fully understood.
This is where I have more experience that I even knew, forgetting that my first job was printing store signs. I also have wandered a few shops or two and feel that it was "You break it, you bought it." Doesn't that flow better both literally and economically. Despite the fact that it is not the Pottery Barn policy, it is ironic or not that Thomas Friedman is involved in this. Only a sloppy or slanted writer would confuse the credit to his words. As far as I can tell, the course often depends on reading signs. and getting their meaning straight. Owning something is a whole lot better sounding than whatever work it takes to get it.
I don't know if you get this sign but the post was a whole lot shorter and straighter than the one lost.
Maybe Woodward and Russert got it, but Powell probably used too many words for Bush. See Wikipedia
[8-19-10: labels and link added]
Lessons of War
From a less than left writer David S. Broder no less:
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic".
As noted before(I will have to find where)economics may be more a factor in history and war than winning. (Well, I never put it that way exactly.) There are those that ignore the importance of economics in reality(as in all the various fields or disciplines of study), but do tend to focus on just a winning economy. That may be a little closer to the point, and if not even less understood.
Here are two examples: a.) We are now doing business with Vietnam. Versus not with North Korea. b.) Reagan's words tore down the Berlin Wall, or Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
Again it may not be clear to those that see winning a military war as the only way to win. Money is power, but not everybody wins.
War is hard work. Peace is hard work. Facing realities is hard work.
Enough from me, before I give you more hard work.
By the way. "You break it, you bought it." comes to mind. Besides that fact that pottery bard[*] does not have that policy, I don't know if a point has been made that it is misquoted as "You break it, you own it".
{Use Ctrl f to find each quote in each article) Many do not want to face who pays.
[* 8-19-10] Noting typo
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic".
As noted before(I will have to find where)economics may be more a factor in history and war than winning. (Well, I never put it that way exactly.) There are those that ignore the importance of economics in reality(as in all the various fields or disciplines of study), but do tend to focus on just a winning economy. That may be a little closer to the point, and if not even less understood.
Here are two examples: a.) We are now doing business with Vietnam. Versus not with North Korea. b.) Reagan's words tore down the Berlin Wall, or Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.
Again it may not be clear to those that see winning a military war as the only way to win. Money is power, but not everybody wins.
War is hard work. Peace is hard work. Facing realities is hard work.
Enough from me, before I give you more hard work.
By the way. "You break it, you bought it." comes to mind. Besides that fact that pottery bard[*] does not have that policy, I don't know if a point has been made that it is misquoted as "You break it, you own it".
{Use Ctrl f to find each quote in each article) Many do not want to face who pays.
[* 8-19-10] Noting typo
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Executing (the) Constitution
Investigations foiled may be just a matter of "plausible incompetence".
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
Law change a matter or "plausible denial" OF DUTY to uphold the constitution and RIGHT to delay justice.
White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts
Terrorism: The bogeyman that is needed for a culture of fear.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
Law change a matter or "plausible denial" OF DUTY to uphold the constitution and RIGHT to delay justice.
White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts
Terrorism: The bogeyman that is needed for a culture of fear.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Hatred Hits Home:
6 Shot at Jewish office is the Seattle Times headline on Saturday morning.
Gumman "said he hates Israel" : was a subheading.
Sunday: Community responds with sorrow, unity
Subheading: Rabbi Mirel: Hatred will not be our legacy
Sometimes people are skeptical of the metaphor that "Every cloud has a silver lining", but sometimes it is just a must that we take good from evil.
Gumman "said he hates Israel" : was a subheading.
Sunday: Community responds with sorrow, unity
Subheading: Rabbi Mirel: Hatred will not be our legacy
Sometimes people are skeptical of the metaphor that "Every cloud has a silver lining", but sometimes it is just a must that we take good from evil.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The irony?
Bu-- sh--: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over."
The reality is that Bush needs to get the Fox News Gang and the Swiftboaters to stop doing this s--- and the course will change.
If our so-called MBA President cannot be held accountable period, how can he expect results from others that may or not have control.
The parental metaphor that Lakoff notes and John Dean has lately come to appreciate was mentioned by this blogger as more simply: Do as I say, not as I do.
The childish metaphor works too: You started it. No, you started it.
But before we get to the did nots, we get to the: I don't care who started it, but darned if each has the same answer for finishing it.
The reality is that Bush needs to get the Fox News Gang and the Swiftboaters to stop doing this s--- and the course will change.
If our so-called MBA President cannot be held accountable period, how can he expect results from others that may or not have control.
The parental metaphor that Lakoff notes and John Dean has lately come to appreciate was mentioned by this blogger as more simply: Do as I say, not as I do.
The childish metaphor works too: You started it. No, you started it.
But before we get to the did nots, we get to the: I don't care who started it, but darned if each has the same answer for finishing it.
Bush Signs
Voting Rights Act Extension
Signing statements aside, a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. piece means what difference does it make. Link to be provided later, but there was a notorius Rolling Stone article about stolen elections.
Signing statements aside, a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. piece means what difference does it make. Link to be provided later, but there was a notorius Rolling Stone article about stolen elections.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Shock and Awe
or
Proportion or share: the how & why of where statistics lies.[People count, the math kills.]
In Lebanon the death count (400) is proportional to 32 THOUSAND Americans dying. The share of "displaced and destitute" (750,000) would be 60 MILLION.
This is not to endorse with "shock and awe" one heckuva formula for peace, but that words matter in any equation, preemptive or not.
And that there must always be room for give and take.
Proportion or share: the how & why of where statistics lies.[People count, the math kills.]
In Lebanon the death count (400) is proportional to 32 THOUSAND Americans dying. The share of "displaced and destitute" (750,000) would be 60 MILLION.
This is not to endorse with "shock and awe" one heckuva formula for peace, but that words matter in any equation, preemptive or not.
And that there must always be room for give and take.
This was my take
even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East
While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".
One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.
There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.
Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.
Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]
[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace
Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.
And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?
HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East
While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".
One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.
There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.
Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.
Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]
[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace
Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.
And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?
HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bush never says he will not follow unconstitutional laws.
[THIS POST WAS LOST OR RATHER SAVED IN A DRAFT FILE FROM July 25th, 2006 and Published October 11th, 2007: COMMENTS MAY FOLLOW BELOW]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’
Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.
Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.
New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.
"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."
If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.
It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]
Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.
[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]
Monday, July 24, 2006
More Breaking Filters
The WTO may be a good failure.
US Accused of "Stone-Walling" as World Trade Talks Collapse
The ABA may force change.
American Bar Association Objects to Bush's "Signing Statements"
But the old guard will try to stay the course, speaking of Nixon.
Aziz Huq | Wiretapping Unbound
These are what I have referred to as QCON, Quick Comment On News.
There I go again.
US Accused of "Stone-Walling" as World Trade Talks Collapse
The ABA may force change.
American Bar Association Objects to Bush's "Signing Statements"
But the old guard will try to stay the course, speaking of Nixon.
Aziz Huq | Wiretapping Unbound
These are what I have referred to as QCON, Quick Comment On News.
There I go again.
What politics is about.
Progress for People
Hands Off Connecticut
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
My Tangent or Triangulation:
Much of what I may leave unsaid may be because if tables were turned I would not say them, but I do not think this is the case. While outside influence on a state's political race interferes with the local voter's intentions, it also flies back out of the state to others who feel that they understand what the party does not.
Until there is a viable third party and a change in primary and general election processes that can eliminate the hazzard that a third party will win it for the wrong side, outside help should focus on the general elections rather than in primaries. And for the dissappointed, there is value in voting for the lesser of two evils, provided that your vote does not put in office the greater.
For the voter in the primary, vote your conscience, it is not throwing a vote away or voting for the other guy. But come the general, things are black and white and you must vote for a viable winner or be satisfied that you will possibly be putting in a loser.
What I was alluding to:
Nuclear escalation as Pakistan builds plutonium reactor
In my post July 20th, 2006 "Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan."]
How I felt about it is put well by William Rivers Pitt in:
The Pin in the Grenade
In my post July 20th, 2006 "Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan."]
How I felt about it is put well by William Rivers Pitt in:
The Pin in the Grenade
Friday, July 21, 2006
The long and the short of it.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
Conservatives without Conscience on authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do" (1.5 pages)
And The Hidden Power
or con-science. [From The New Yorker: by JANE MAYER
The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror. 13 pages]
** This was worth a repeat. [see bottom of 7-20-06: Phase II? post]
Conservatives without Conscience on authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do" (1.5 pages)
And The Hidden Power
or con-science. [From The New Yorker: by JANE MAYER
The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror. 13 pages]
** This was worth a repeat. [see bottom of 7-20-06: Phase II? post]
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Stupid Intelligence.
Actually this is a smart link titled Israel's Stupid-Smart Moves which is not too long, but a tricky read. Tricky maybe only in that I want to add my two cents worth. It is written by Michael Shtender-Auerbach who "writes on foreign policy for The Century Foundation and is press director for the Security and Peace Initiative, Century's joint venture with the Center for American Progress."
[I am not familiar with him, but have good feelings about his affiliations.]
It is about the negotiations or movement that must take place and the players that it may take, and well worth the "hard work" of a page and a half read.
The following section from it needs more attention:
"This past weekend, the participants at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, rushed out a statement calling on the parties to agree to the following immediate steps to bring an end to the violence: The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; an end to the shelling of Israeli territory; an end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and the release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians. While this is certainly a sign of international consensus, thus far, little has been done to bring the concerned parties together in agreement." [My italics and bold: These steps reflects a balance but the release of the arrested Palestinian portion is not getting much press.]
My two sense is that what must be avoided is what maybe some wish for, lack of movement or rather staying the course "...which could trigger an Israeli assault on Syria and Iran - a scenario that would change the face of the Middle East and eliminate any hope for regional stability."
Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan.]
This may be my shortest two cents yet.
Follow-up: 11:28 AM US at Odds With Allies on Mideast Conflict
Credit: TruthOut.org
Unread: Bush's vision, and the region, appear to be near collapse
There I go again, but the title gets right to the point, and I will. How can you negotiate with terrorists? How can you negotiate with authoritarians? Actually I am answering the questions with the problem. If rubber stamp is the answer, does one stamp fit all?
[I am not familiar with him, but have good feelings about his affiliations.]
It is about the negotiations or movement that must take place and the players that it may take, and well worth the "hard work" of a page and a half read.
The following section from it needs more attention:
"This past weekend, the participants at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, rushed out a statement calling on the parties to agree to the following immediate steps to bring an end to the violence: The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; an end to the shelling of Israeli territory; an end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and the release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians. While this is certainly a sign of international consensus, thus far, little has been done to bring the concerned parties together in agreement." [My italics and bold: These steps reflects a balance but the release of the arrested Palestinian portion is not getting much press.]
My two sense is that what must be avoided is what maybe some wish for, lack of movement or rather staying the course "...which could trigger an Israeli assault on Syria and Iran - a scenario that would change the face of the Middle East and eliminate any hope for regional stability."
Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan.]
This may be my shortest two cents yet.
Follow-up: 11:28 AM US at Odds With Allies on Mideast Conflict
Credit: TruthOut.org
Unread: Bush's vision, and the region, appear to be near collapse
There I go again, but the title gets right to the point, and I will. How can you negotiate with terrorists? How can you negotiate with authoritarians? Actually I am answering the questions with the problem. If rubber stamp is the answer, does one stamp fit all?
Phase II?
Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
WW III or 2006 election?
Reports have it that Newt Gingrich, on the day before his Meet the Press comments on WW III, spoke before for a partisan political crowd explaining that for the 2006 election they needed to be talking about war. [I got this through a radio source and would look forward to finding a link]
I feel that that is what I read between the lines of the links we do have, and a host of other deja vu build-up to previous elections and wars.
Meanwhile, the reasons they need this distraction? Could it be?
The word "Distraction" unfairly minimizes their failures in foreign policy and diplomacy.
Here is a flash on Impeachment
Articles of Impeachment
These may be what they really need distraction from. While a quick check with FOX News for the latest... Hezbollah sleeper cells in America.
The numbers are staggering or is the fact that they are not picking them up staggering.
I feel that that is what I read between the lines of the links we do have, and a host of other deja vu build-up to previous elections and wars.
Meanwhile, the reasons they need this distraction? Could it be?
The word "Distraction" unfairly minimizes their failures in foreign policy and diplomacy.
Here is a flash on Impeachment
Articles of Impeachment
These may be what they really need distraction from. While a quick check with FOX News for the latest... Hezbollah sleeper cells in America.
The numbers are staggering or is the fact that they are not picking them up staggering.
WW III ?
It began with Bush at the G-8. While he was being caught at the G-8 with an awkward microphone(see comment 7-18-06), Newt Gingrich was describing WW III on Meet the Press. That being the recent (58 year) conflict between Isreal and the Hezbollah or rather Isreal and Lebanon.
These comments are just to bring into context the last few posts.
Now for some worthy reads.
"Open War" in the Middle East [difficulties at TruthOut.org prevent me from providing the link]
Bush faces backlash on the right
My basic view is that some see value in this conflict, while too few in power see value in work toward a ceasefire, or even in talking about it.
These comments are just to bring into context the last few posts.
Now for some worthy reads.
"Open War" in the Middle East [difficulties at TruthOut.org prevent me from providing the link]
Bush faces backlash on the right
My basic view is that some see value in this conflict, while too few in power see value in work toward a ceasefire, or even in talking about it.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
PHASE II: We need some movement!
Here is a look at the Middle East conflict through the filter of Bush,
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.
--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.
---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.
Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.
---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners
Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...
THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.
His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?
Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.
Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.
* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.
--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.
---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.
Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.
---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners
Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...
THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.
His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?
Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.
Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.
* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.
Welcome to TheLiaisonReport Upgrade
Comments now welcome.
Please pardon the additional advance to the use of videos.
Hint: I make the first comment and add these links on the weekend events that have transpired. [Note: actual first comment ended up pre-emptively on the previous post.]
Bleaping Leaking mic?
Politics by other means
Bureaucracy to blame?
Diplomacy by other means
Summary: WW III or the means of Trickle Down.
Summary II: Thanks to Gingrich and Biden and Meet the Press
"When in doubt..." (sending sigals)
Bonus leak: Novak
Please pardon the additional advance to the use of videos.
Hint: I make the first comment and add these links on the weekend events that have transpired. [Note: actual first comment ended up pre-emptively on the previous post.]
Bleaping Leaking mic?
Politics by other means
Bureaucracy to blame?
Diplomacy by other means
Summary: WW III or the means of Trickle Down.
Summary II: Thanks to Gingrich and Biden and Meet the Press
"When in doubt..." (sending sigals)
Bonus leak: Novak
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
THE COUNCIL OF NICE
versus THE COURSE OF TRICKLE DOWN:
What we need is a Council of Nice, and anyone who does not want to be, can go to a place of their own choosing or can choose who will tell them where to go, and see if that gets them there.
But seriously, it would be nice if we had a benevolent dictator, but would that really stop the blaming?
Talk about having a polarized choice...this should at least argue for more choice, but others think that even the argument is not needed. Where will that get us?
Apparently they think the ultimate place, and that is hard to argue.
[This was composed following the June 30th 20/20 and saved in draft after a few posts on their message board into July 1st and first emailed in present form on July 8th.]
THE LIAISON REPORT:
Between Common Sense and Kant
[Just a quick tangent on the topic of where this is coming from:]
My thinking is somewhere between what Bush thinks is common sense and just thinking that one is thinking. It may be all about me: a wannabe pundit, benevolent dictator and general do-gooder. But seriously, somewhere between what the press should have been wondering and where Bush wonders not.
But back from that tangent, a new book apparently has done much of the research on what I merely quipped about.[Hint: Not so far fetched, as the principle is that we would all love to be dictators.] But of course most people do not want to filter through what academics have worked on, but that is the point of his book, there are those that think they are free and those that don't know they are not. It may not be that simple, but it's title is: Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.
See Democracy in a Republic is not Black and White
Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness. for my comments about the problem of following no matter what.
For those who hate "hard work":
Some people will tell you where to go. Others will take you there.
What we need is a Council of Nice, and anyone who does not want to be, can go to a place of their own choosing or can choose who will tell them where to go, and see if that gets them there.
But seriously, it would be nice if we had a benevolent dictator, but would that really stop the blaming?
Talk about having a polarized choice...this should at least argue for more choice, but others think that even the argument is not needed. Where will that get us?
Apparently they think the ultimate place, and that is hard to argue.
[This was composed following the June 30th 20/20 and saved in draft after a few posts on their message board into July 1st and first emailed in present form on July 8th.]
THE LIAISON REPORT:
Between Common Sense and Kant
[Just a quick tangent on the topic of where this is coming from:]
My thinking is somewhere between what Bush thinks is common sense and just thinking that one is thinking. It may be all about me: a wannabe pundit, benevolent dictator and general do-gooder. But seriously, somewhere between what the press should have been wondering and where Bush wonders not.
But back from that tangent, a new book apparently has done much of the research on what I merely quipped about.[Hint: Not so far fetched, as the principle is that we would all love to be dictators.] But of course most people do not want to filter through what academics have worked on, but that is the point of his book, there are those that think they are free and those that don't know they are not. It may not be that simple, but it's title is: Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.
See Democracy in a Republic is not Black and White
Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness. for my comments about the problem of following no matter what.
For those who hate "hard work":
Some people will tell you where to go. Others will take you there.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Reality Based Reality Thanks to Keith Olberman
It took a little digging into my recent postings to find this. [And this about "war on the press"added here 7-6-06]
The Leaker in Chief, or Commander in Trickle Down.
Kudos to Keith Olberman for if not reading between my lines(see above), reading between some lines. Attack on the New York Times is a culture war and partly a code. [Terrorism and politics]
The Biased Media:
Thank Gore for the Internet
Thank the internet for Media Matters
Thank O'Reilly for Olbermann
[Note 7-6-06: link in [] above added, but there is still a loop in the bottom three see "frendly advice". Thank Gore for Olbermann]
The Leaker in Chief, or Commander in Trickle Down.
Kudos to Keith Olberman for if not reading between my lines(see above), reading between some lines. Attack on the New York Times is a culture war and partly a code. [Terrorism and politics]
The Biased Media:
Thank Gore for the Internet
Thank the internet for Media Matters
Thank O'Reilly for Olbermann
[Note 7-6-06: link in [] above added, but there is still a loop in the bottom three see "frendly advice". Thank Gore for Olbermann]
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Gitmo Got More
I don't know if it is mentioned here and I must look over my previous work, but the big news is the 8-4 [* should read 5-3 SEE BELOW]vote overruling Bush on his preemption and rendering of the constitution. Justice Roberts was sidelined because of conflict of interest rules that he upheld by recusing himself from the decision on a case that he had earlier ruled on.
That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.
Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.
[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]
That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.
Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.
[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Give an inch, Take a mile.
Congress gave much more than an inch with the Patriot Act, yet the President still takes a mile or more.
Lawyer, Michelle Boardman says, "The separation of powers is working when we have this sort of dispute." But not when the president signs a bill but plainly makes exceptions. That is not separation of powers but misuse and disuse of powers.
Again the branches legislate, execute and interpret law, but the people or the press must be left to figure out who will enforce the law. Needing both law and politics in need of more respect than the Dangerfield* we are in.
* An allusion to the playing field that we create with law and politics that is now in so much danger as Rodney Dangerfield would have said, "gets no respect".
Lawyer, Michelle Boardman says, "The separation of powers is working when we have this sort of dispute." But not when the president signs a bill but plainly makes exceptions. That is not separation of powers but misuse and disuse of powers.
Again the branches legislate, execute and interpret law, but the people or the press must be left to figure out who will enforce the law. Needing both law and politics in need of more respect than the Dangerfield* we are in.
* An allusion to the playing field that we create with law and politics that is now in so much danger as Rodney Dangerfield would have said, "gets no respect".
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
White House "given" some breathing room...
by the Washington Post. In a relatively informative piece there seemed an attempt to shore up the administration, while posing minimal questions or contrasting sources. I wish I could be more strident or direct than that, but it leaves the impression that either Democrats had nothing to say or things are back to recent normal for journalism, sharing the lack of responsibility for checks and balances.
Meanwhile: "...Rove won't be charged with any crimes..."
"...frees him for election duty..."
But it seems clear it is not just "...the news media being complicit in the White House’s conduct." but in my view if he retains his job with the administration, that it was policy to out a CIA agent for political gain and mislead the public for political gain. The reasoning seems simple. Bush either condones someone who lied to him or for him or never intended to get to the bottom of it.
Meanwhile: "...Rove won't be charged with any crimes..."
"...frees him for election duty..."
But it seems clear it is not just "...the news media being complicit in the White House’s conduct." but in my view if he retains his job with the administration, that it was policy to out a CIA agent for political gain and mislead the public for political gain. The reasoning seems simple. Bush either condones someone who lied to him or for him or never intended to get to the bottom of it.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Memories...or Excusing Pre-quashing
The Phoenix rises and who got burned or left on the hook.
Orwell roles in his grave should suggest two possibilities that at best may be one. Either there is an intention to make the best of a bad situation or the worst of a good situation. Meaning and I am rarely so direct: A and/or B. There is a better target for indictment or the target was the new press.
OK, so I am not so direct, but commentary is "hard work".
May the press be the THE PHOENIX not the quashee.
Orwell roles in his grave should suggest two possibilities that at best may be one. Either there is an intention to make the best of a bad situation or the worst of a good situation. Meaning and I am rarely so direct: A and/or B. There is a better target for indictment or the target was the new press.
OK, so I am not so direct, but commentary is "hard work".
May the press be the THE PHOENIX not the quashee.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Other News as Noted Prior.
One legal theory or piece of education that I may have derived is that people get away with what they can until they get caught. I think that that is probably a very valid legal truism, and the only way that laws are changed.
SIMPLY: the Congress makes, the Executive administers, and the Courts decide law.
I was going to say interprets, which may be more valid, but since Bush is the decider, and trusts the people not the government, I guess we are all left to interpret, or rather left behind the right. Actually I have waddled into a bit of a conundrum here. Another word I pulled out of reserve. Con-Un-Drum. Hint: Hinges on choice between interpret and decide and the corps-media...
Well, out from that ramble bush, the issue: Someone has to break a law to go to court to see if they are convicted or the law is overturned. So, along with the press which is another job that needs accountability, some serve by upholding their oath to defend the constituion as Fort Lewis soldier, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada has.
Unlike the His Unprecedence the President there is precedence.
And noted here a year ago and where military judge finds war illegal. Is there a Rosa Parks medal of justice?
Now just as people should be innocent until proven guilty, if they have the courage to violate the law, they should be given the privilege of facing the consequences.
SIMPLY: the Congress makes, the Executive administers, and the Courts decide law.
I was going to say interprets, which may be more valid, but since Bush is the decider, and trusts the people not the government, I guess we are all left to interpret, or rather left behind the right. Actually I have waddled into a bit of a conundrum here. Another word I pulled out of reserve. Con-Un-Drum. Hint: Hinges on choice between interpret and decide and the corps-media...
Well, out from that ramble bush, the issue: Someone has to break a law to go to court to see if they are convicted or the law is overturned. So, along with the press which is another job that needs accountability, some serve by upholding their oath to defend the constituion as Fort Lewis soldier, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada has.
Unlike the His Unprecedence the President there is precedence.
And noted here a year ago and where military judge finds war illegal. Is there a Rosa Parks medal of justice?
Now just as people should be innocent until proven guilty, if they have the courage to violate the law, they should be given the privilege of facing the consequences.
Rough Draft or Quick Vent
Here is my reply yesterday, which I don't want to waste, and need to use as a preamble to other news.
Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.
REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"
Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.
However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.
[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]
Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.
Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.
The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.
Peace and Progress be with you, Roger
P.S.
One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.
FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying
Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.
REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"
Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.
However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.
[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]
Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.
Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.
The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.
Peace and Progress be with you, Roger
P.S.
One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.
FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying
Monday, June 05, 2006
Fooled and fooled again?
Or stolen and stolen again.
'00! -- '04 -- No More!
No news is good news.
Good news is bad news.
Bad news is not news.
'00! -- '04 -- No More!
No news is good news.
Good news is bad news.
Bad news is not news.
Friday, May 26, 2006
What Rumsfeld probably never said:
You may never know everything that the enemy knows, but they can easily know that you are not saying what they know and you say you know.
They also may know that your friends know that you are not saying what they know and you said they knew.
Anyway on a related matter:
Not knowing what one means nor saying what one means, it is similar to a one handed poker game or blind bluff.
They also may know that your friends know that you are not saying what they know and you said they knew.
Anyway on a related matter:
Not knowing what one means nor saying what one means, it is similar to a one handed poker game or blind bluff.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Establish-ment words.
"The ruling was attacked by supporters of the law, which was passed by the Legislature with bipartisan support in 2004."
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"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."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"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."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
Headings or Leads?
Looking back for my post on "cut and run" I must return to that search later. To be inserted here- __ ( ) : But here is the post scripted evidence of more of that theory. Or are the scripted posts? Congress cuts $500 million in military spending or vets benefits? House subcommittee cuts $2.4 billion in foreign aid or Iraq reconstruction? You read and it may not be there. But my point: is how often are there two votes that are unanimous in the Republican controlled House or even subcommittee? If that is not evidence of something I know what it is: Politics, yet not necessarily a win or a loss, just some are running and some may be working. The other commonality is that they are from Bush, the running, not the working.
Another light is on the perspective of the so-called "Liberal Media": are they fair and balanced or just con-fusing?
It need be noted that the links provided above were not the minimal AP sources from my local paper that sent me off on this commentary.
Another light is on the perspective of the so-called "Liberal Media": are they fair and balanced or just con-fusing?
It need be noted that the links provided above were not the minimal AP sources from my local paper that sent me off on this commentary.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Comprehensive English or Reform Immigration?
If English as a national language is enforced, what are the penalties and can we begin with George Bush. Is this not ironic that the Declaration of Independence was about King George III and we may now require English as a common unifying language from the same George that is the decider.
Note that there seems a parting of the waters as to the usage itself: Republicans "national" :63-34 and Democrats "common and unifying" 58-39
OR IS IT? Pronoun vs. Verb?
Or is it? Symbolism vs. Meaning?
Which is more meaningful and which is less government? Which one will be the end of it, and which will mean more government?
I must caution that I have not fully read the articles I link here, but as noted by many Bush is not read to well either. Note: like Bush it may seem that my grammar is in error but the joke actually means something in the "too" vs. "to" sense. Hence I am allowed to "cherry-pick" and leave you the same opportunity.
To paraphrase a pick, it doesn't seem to do much.
But what will be next?
Not so clear is that this is only part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, feeding the frenzy that may mean nothing.
Going back to my earlier post brought forth to today on Lou Dobbs Tonight, three concur that it will not be this year.
Note that there seems a parting of the waters as to the usage itself: Republicans "national" :63-34 and Democrats "common and unifying" 58-39
OR IS IT? Pronoun vs. Verb?
Or is it? Symbolism vs. Meaning?
Which is more meaningful and which is less government? Which one will be the end of it, and which will mean more government?
I must caution that I have not fully read the articles I link here, but as noted by many Bush is not read to well either. Note: like Bush it may seem that my grammar is in error but the joke actually means something in the "too" vs. "to" sense. Hence I am allowed to "cherry-pick" and leave you the same opportunity.
To paraphrase a pick, it doesn't seem to do much.
But what will be next?
Not so clear is that this is only part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform, feeding the frenzy that may mean nothing.
Going back to my earlier post brought forth to today on Lou Dobbs Tonight, three concur that it will not be this year.
Why conservative...
Republicans love to select justices but hate justice. Because of the whole concept of separation of powers and checks and balance.
Bush the United
Bush the Unitary*
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.
A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).
It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.
* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.
(i) = intentionally construed.
** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.
*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Values Head On!
THE FRAME WORKS!
The Progressive Identity Complex
The Four Confusions:
(or the Conservative Mantra)
Up the Ying-Yang?
What they believe and what they believe we are not.
A balancing act that only binds us.
Our "opposite: while progressives believe we're all in it together, conservatives believe we're all on our own and we're all out for ourselves."
(italics are quotes interspersed with my comments)
[ALL LINKS THANKS TO TOMPAINE.COM]
More Footnotes or Foot WORK:
THE AMERICAN DREAM
EXPORTING DEMOCRACY
WELL... Trickle-Down
The Progressive Identity Complex
The Four Confusions:
(or the Conservative Mantra)
small government, low taxes, strong defense and traditional values.
Up the Ying-Yang?
What they believe and what they believe we are not.
A balancing act that only binds us.
Our "opposite: while progressives believe we're all in it together, conservatives believe we're all on our own and we're all out for ourselves."
(italics are quotes interspersed with my comments)
[ALL LINKS THANKS TO TOMPAINE.COM]
More Footnotes or Foot WORK:
THE AMERICAN DREAM
EXPORTING DEMOCRACY
WELL... Trickle-Down
Monday, May 01, 2006
MAY DAY IN PEORIA!
Disenfranchisement of Labor: Nothing New.
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their condition. For this use the nation needs these Territories." (Italics included,p.111-112) *
Not necessarily in May, nor politically correct, but these are the words of Abraham Lincoln in Peoria in 1847.
Lincoln had other interesting comments on issues that could shed light on our direction or needed course change or that there actually may be something new. Namely that if labor is not a right, then it is a substance whose abuse should be penalized, or the flow of both Manifest Destiny and Freedom are ebbing.**
HAPPY LAW AND ORDER DAY!
What was started in American was supplanted by power.
That is the same old thing.
* Hint: to update this reading replace the interest groups of Lincoln's time with labor, immigrants, corporations, and whatever needs or territory means?
** Things would be interesting if either Lincoln or FDR had made even more progress, not that loyal oppositition is not worthy, or at least it should be.
"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their condition. For this use the nation needs these Territories." (Italics included,p.111-112) *
Not necessarily in May, nor politically correct, but these are the words of Abraham Lincoln in Peoria in 1847.
Lincoln had other interesting comments on issues that could shed light on our direction or needed course change or that there actually may be something new. Namely that if labor is not a right, then it is a substance whose abuse should be penalized, or the flow of both Manifest Destiny and Freedom are ebbing.**
HAPPY LAW AND ORDER DAY!
What was started in American was supplanted by power.
That is the same old thing.
* Hint: to update this reading replace the interest groups of Lincoln's time with labor, immigrants, corporations, and whatever needs or territory means?
** Things would be interesting if either Lincoln or FDR had made even more progress, not that loyal oppositition is not worthy, or at least it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)