Exercise Lie or Confusion [Original of letter edited and printed in KC Journal. 2-11-03]
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English
Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.
Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Uniting?
A reply to John Carlson's yet to be published or read column. Sent 2-22-03
His column was printed 2-23-03.
John Carlson asks; "What are the anti-war marchers actually for?" Maybe one who marched could answer better, but they marched with my heartfelt support. That question may have been one reason for any hesitancy if that. However it should be simple. They are for peace, and not war. They are for the multitude of methods of working for peace and for preventing war. Are they united under one method of getting there? I think not.
To say they are only against something (as I assume a day before reading his piece) is as wrong as saying hawks are only for war. To say protesters must unite in favor of one idea is as wrong as saying that the war has only one goal. To disarm Iraq is it? Fine, the message is getting clearer. Thanks to whom? Regime change? That too has had its evolution in terminology. Thanks to whom?
Tough talk may have pushed the world to where it is, but it may not get it out of it’s spot so easy. Maybe George Bush has been a uniter not a divider. Did he foresee whom he would unite? It will depend on if he can get out of the corner, he seems to have painted himself into, and upon what he has united the world. It is finishing the job and how we, if united, will be moving on to the next job that will be tricky. Let us hope we are not all in the same corner.
A reply to John Carlson's yet to be published or read column. Sent 2-22-03
His column was printed 2-23-03.
John Carlson asks; "What are the anti-war marchers actually for?" Maybe one who marched could answer better, but they marched with my heartfelt support. That question may have been one reason for any hesitancy if that. However it should be simple. They are for peace, and not war. They are for the multitude of methods of working for peace and for preventing war. Are they united under one method of getting there? I think not.
To say they are only against something (as I assume a day before reading his piece) is as wrong as saying hawks are only for war. To say protesters must unite in favor of one idea is as wrong as saying that the war has only one goal. To disarm Iraq is it? Fine, the message is getting clearer. Thanks to whom? Regime change? That too has had its evolution in terminology. Thanks to whom?
Tough talk may have pushed the world to where it is, but it may not get it out of it’s spot so easy. Maybe George Bush has been a uniter not a divider. Did he foresee whom he would unite? It will depend on if he can get out of the corner, he seems to have painted himself into, and upon what he has united the world. It is finishing the job and how we, if united, will be moving on to the next job that will be tricky. Let us hope we are not all in the same corner.
Sunday, February 23, 2003
Backlog of Writing to Others.
[Replying to a Radio Host who had Joan Smith on-air for KIRO710 radio in Seattle, Washington.]
Here! Here! For Joan Smith's "It is about time the US got over 9-11" and her appearance on Seattle radio. The host could not get over his own hyperbole to see his error. It goes over my head how he can get from "get over" to "forget it". Getting over it, is not to forget it. And as he reads my e-mail, he [probably]goes "Huh?"
[His] hyperbole in reaction is getting in the way of thinking. It is a matter of moving on and how we determine how. Not only determining how we react, but determining and being honest about, and even knowing how and if we can pre-empt.
September 11th made me sick! Does that mean we have to behave as sick people? Her defense of her logic was even better than her writing. None of us will forget, and yes it is healthy to get over.
Some callers called into question her writing, when they could not even see literally. If we cannot even agree on language, we will never even know the meaning of Sept. 11th. While some may say there is no meaning, others will certainly run with it. Then the radio had the message from President Bush to the U.N. "When you say something, does it mean anything?" Well put. Do we know what he means?
Here! Here! For Joan Smith's "It is about time the US got over 9-11" and her appearance on Seattle radio. The host could not get over his own hyperbole to see his error. It goes over my head how he can get from "get over" to "forget it". Getting over it, is not to forget it. And as he reads my e-mail, he [probably]goes "Huh?"
[His] hyperbole in reaction is getting in the way of thinking. It is a matter of moving on and how we determine how. Not only determining how we react, but determining and being honest about, and even knowing how and if we can pre-empt.
September 11th made me sick! Does that mean we have to behave as sick people? Her defense of her logic was even better than her writing. None of us will forget, and yes it is healthy to get over.
Some callers called into question her writing, when they could not even see literally. If we cannot even agree on language, we will never even know the meaning of Sept. 11th. While some may say there is no meaning, others will certainly run with it. Then the radio had the message from President Bush to the U.N. "When you say something, does it mean anything?" Well put. Do we know what he means?
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Who is doing the posturing and could it be that some have principles.
(from Feb. 6th, 2003)
William Safire had a seemingly brilliant piece, "It’s better to err on the side of Iraq hawks" covering the "I told you so" posturing that will occur "post-war". His conclusion is indeed very serious, reflecting the benefits or casualties that will occur, if either side is wrong.
However his analysis reflects a bias in two ways. His assumption that this occurs post-war, and his characterizations and breaking down. He assumes that "Iraq hawks" will prevail and that those who "express reservations about removing him from power at this particular moment, or without U.N. approval" will fail. Hence allowing him to put the ifs on the side of the opposition and more certainty if not flexibility on the side of his argument. It could not help but have a justified point, the way he has postured.
The characterizations are further misconstrued. Given the assumptions it is fine to leave "hawks" as is, but those who have "reservations"? The many views that are held in opposition to the war are reflected throughout his argument. The concern that war be "at this particular moment" and "without U.N. approval" does not seem to be addressed. If this were not confusing enough, his thinking hints at the argument that one would be better off without the other. Post-war it would only make sense that some will hold on to their principles and appear as posturing. But pre-war where would the "hawks" be without the "opposition"? Will those willing to work for peace get anywhere with "hawks" that won’t address notions of patience or approval?
(from Feb. 6th, 2003)
William Safire had a seemingly brilliant piece, "It’s better to err on the side of Iraq hawks" covering the "I told you so" posturing that will occur "post-war". His conclusion is indeed very serious, reflecting the benefits or casualties that will occur, if either side is wrong.
However his analysis reflects a bias in two ways. His assumption that this occurs post-war, and his characterizations and breaking down. He assumes that "Iraq hawks" will prevail and that those who "express reservations about removing him from power at this particular moment, or without U.N. approval" will fail. Hence allowing him to put the ifs on the side of the opposition and more certainty if not flexibility on the side of his argument. It could not help but have a justified point, the way he has postured.
The characterizations are further misconstrued. Given the assumptions it is fine to leave "hawks" as is, but those who have "reservations"? The many views that are held in opposition to the war are reflected throughout his argument. The concern that war be "at this particular moment" and "without U.N. approval" does not seem to be addressed. If this were not confusing enough, his thinking hints at the argument that one would be better off without the other. Post-war it would only make sense that some will hold on to their principles and appear as posturing. But pre-war where would the "hawks" be without the "opposition"? Will those willing to work for peace get anywhere with "hawks" that won’t address notions of patience or approval?
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
NEXUS REVIEW
It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.
The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience? This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).
It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.
The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience? This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).
Friday, February 07, 2003
OH REALLY FOG
OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
A MOMENT OF SILENCE For Challenger Crew.
Words were inadequate to express the feelings of Saturday morning February 1st, 2003. The president’s words were just right. Not only for what he said, but for what he did not. He avoided taking too much meaning from a tragedy. Things will go on. It is not that any tragedy is less than another, but that we may gain experience in handling them or not. While some may seem jaded or inured, it may be that they feel as much or more for others. What was needed was a moment of silence before we turn back to reading the signs.
Words were inadequate to express the feelings of Saturday morning February 1st, 2003. The president’s words were just right. Not only for what he said, but for what he did not. He avoided taking too much meaning from a tragedy. Things will go on. It is not that any tragedy is less than another, but that we may gain experience in handling them or not. While some may seem jaded or inured, it may be that they feel as much or more for others. What was needed was a moment of silence before we turn back to reading the signs.
Saturday, February 01, 2003
FORWARD
My post “The French. Why do they hate us?” was a commentary I wrote replying to the Slate writer, Christopher Suellentrop. I had intentions of endorsing Thomas Friedman’s ideas in “ Thinking about Iraq (3)” in the NY Times or as the King County Journal titled it: "Mr. President, here is a deal on Iraq". It suggests that the Arab world negotiate Saddam Hussein’s exile.
It was unintentional that this reply to Francophobes, was so appropriate in addressing a few comments Friedman made, but was also useful as a forward to supporting his plan. I guess with the crack he made about France and Germany wanting us to step into a mess in Iraq, the plan none-the-less, could be something that they could consider supporting. In finding a contact for the Embassy of France website, there was an interesting post there (“Situation in Iraq”) by the Minister of Foreign Affairs explaining the role of France, the European Council, the United Nation, the UN Security Council in the international arena.
Suffice to say that it gave me hope that not only was Suellentrop’s conclusion soon to be shown wrong, but that they had much more on the ball that may or may not mean they could support the Friedman plan.
My post “The French. Why do they hate us?” was a commentary I wrote replying to the Slate writer, Christopher Suellentrop. I had intentions of endorsing Thomas Friedman’s ideas in “ Thinking about Iraq (3)” in the NY Times or as the King County Journal titled it: "Mr. President, here is a deal on Iraq". It suggests that the Arab world negotiate Saddam Hussein’s exile.
It was unintentional that this reply to Francophobes, was so appropriate in addressing a few comments Friedman made, but was also useful as a forward to supporting his plan. I guess with the crack he made about France and Germany wanting us to step into a mess in Iraq, the plan none-the-less, could be something that they could consider supporting. In finding a contact for the Embassy of France website, there was an interesting post there (“Situation in Iraq”) by the Minister of Foreign Affairs explaining the role of France, the European Council, the United Nation, the UN Security Council in the international arena.
Suffice to say that it gave me hope that not only was Suellentrop’s conclusion soon to be shown wrong, but that they had much more on the ball that may or may not mean they could support the Friedman plan.
The French. (Why do they hate us?)
Because we are dumb and they don’t. First I must qualify that "we" here means some of us(are dumb), and "they" means most of them(the French, don’t hate us). Second, most of us need to use dictionaries more frequently than emotions.
Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.
The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.
But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?
Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?
[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link
Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.
The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.
But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?
Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?
[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link
Some may find my sports analogy of too light a matter. But sports analogies should be of great concern if soccer (being the original football) is any indication of future world affairs. It is at least worth keeping mind, given the behavior of fans, both inside and outside stadiums. And certainly lends nothing to the theory that at least team (or national) sports are a worthwhile activity.
Monday, January 27, 2003
Defense is Not Offensive A short analogy.
A sports analogy or Bushism: “The best defense is a good offense”, was just disproved. In the Superbowl yesterday the #1 defense whipped the #1 offense. While war may not be like sports, maybe sports is more like life. It should be played by the rules. In war the refs are generally composed of the winners so that seems to work against the sports analogy for war. Of course no body is perfect, even the refs make mistakes, but that does not mean we should throw them out or limit challenges or replays.
Life and peace are another matter. They may need power and enforcement, but without the rule book they would mean nothing. Without the rule book, refs, challenges and replays, offense would just be offensive.
It is also interesting that the winners with their defensive philosophy were from Florida and the losers with their offensive philosophy, were from what some call the Left Coast. It seems that this time the results for Florida were much clearer. While in Oakland the disturbing behavior that filled the streets may have occurred whether their team or the analogy had been successful in this case.
A sports analogy or Bushism: “The best defense is a good offense”, was just disproved. In the Superbowl yesterday the #1 defense whipped the #1 offense. While war may not be like sports, maybe sports is more like life. It should be played by the rules. In war the refs are generally composed of the winners so that seems to work against the sports analogy for war. Of course no body is perfect, even the refs make mistakes, but that does not mean we should throw them out or limit challenges or replays.
Life and peace are another matter. They may need power and enforcement, but without the rule book they would mean nothing. Without the rule book, refs, challenges and replays, offense would just be offensive.
It is also interesting that the winners with their defensive philosophy were from Florida and the losers with their offensive philosophy, were from what some call the Left Coast. It seems that this time the results for Florida were much clearer. While in Oakland the disturbing behavior that filled the streets may have occurred whether their team or the analogy had been successful in this case.
Thursday, January 23, 2003
Bush Boxed in Cover Up
BUSH BOXED IN COVER-UP or Democratic Ad Boxed To Go or IRONY "STILL GOING"
Within days of opening an Office of Global Communications * to declare the Iraq regime an "apparatus of lies" it looks like the president needs to focus on his local apparatus of "communications". In a blatant cover-up, right under his own nose, the president makes a mockery of his own words. Touting his economic package at a trucking warehouse in St. Louis, he wanted a stage depicting small business in America. His platform was in front of a printed backdrop of boxes stamped with "Made in USA" surrounding the words "Strengthening America’s Economy". But below the podium decorating the platform were boxes with conspicuous tape over some of the words. When reporters investigated they found the words "Made in China". A spokesperson credited the tape to White House volunteers. There may be economic lessons here too, but that is another box too full of irony.
The reporter’s quick claim of Boxgate was never so appropriate. For if his staff had destroyed the tape, they would have had to destroy the boxes which were the cover for his platform.
* [links and labels added 12-6-07]
Within days of opening an Office of Global Communications * to declare the Iraq regime an "apparatus of lies" it looks like the president needs to focus on his local apparatus of "communications". In a blatant cover-up, right under his own nose, the president makes a mockery of his own words. Touting his economic package at a trucking warehouse in St. Louis, he wanted a stage depicting small business in America. His platform was in front of a printed backdrop of boxes stamped with "Made in USA" surrounding the words "Strengthening America’s Economy". But below the podium decorating the platform were boxes with conspicuous tape over some of the words. When reporters investigated they found the words "Made in China". A spokesperson credited the tape to White House volunteers. There may be economic lessons here too, but that is another box too full of irony.
The reporter’s quick claim of Boxgate was never so appropriate. For if his staff had destroyed the tape, they would have had to destroy the boxes which were the cover for his platform.
* [links and labels added 12-6-07]
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Do as I say, not as I do.
It is more than ironic that the Bush administration opens an Office of Global Communications on the same day it declares the Iraq regime an apparatus of lies. Let’s look at some of the communications that have come from George W. Bush. “I trust the people not the government.” “I am a uniter not a divider.” His claim that he was president well before he was selected. Anyway then things get really fuzzy, running up to the “axis of evil”.
Let us be clear. There are some evil people in the world and something must be done about them. But calling them an axis gives them more credit than they deserve, not to mention leaving others out, both other evil and our allies. The most interesting thing he said lately about his problems developing a coalition to move on Iraq is that “It is like a rerun of a bad movie. I don’t want to watch anymore.” That is the problem with this administration. Not only is this worse than a rerun of any previous behavior in foreign policy it is likely to create spin-off behavior that we don’t want to watch either.
It is more than ironic that the Bush administration opens an Office of Global Communications on the same day it declares the Iraq regime an apparatus of lies. Let’s look at some of the communications that have come from George W. Bush. “I trust the people not the government.” “I am a uniter not a divider.” His claim that he was president well before he was selected. Anyway then things get really fuzzy, running up to the “axis of evil”.
Let us be clear. There are some evil people in the world and something must be done about them. But calling them an axis gives them more credit than they deserve, not to mention leaving others out, both other evil and our allies. The most interesting thing he said lately about his problems developing a coalition to move on Iraq is that “It is like a rerun of a bad movie. I don’t want to watch anymore.” That is the problem with this administration. Not only is this worse than a rerun of any previous behavior in foreign policy it is likely to create spin-off behavior that we don’t want to watch either.
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Sent to King County Journal 1-17-03.
Can we be any more clear?
Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.
Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.
In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.
Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.
Can we be any more clear?
Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.
Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.
In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.
Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.
Friday, January 17, 2003
The filibuster is now in the news as a method to counter judicial nominees that have previously been rejected. My view is that it is warranted on a case by case basis now if ever.
I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.
At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]
and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]
I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.
At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]
and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]
Thursday, January 16, 2003
[Instamessage to talk-show host (TSH) sounds like an analysis.]
Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?
(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )
Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?
Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.
Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.
It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.
Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?
(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )
Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?
Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.
Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.
It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Update: Hullabaloo!
[Sent to Seattle PI, 12-23-02]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM
The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.
If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?
If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.
[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM
The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.
If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?
If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.
[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]
Ideology and Process
[Printed in the Eastside Journal 12-16-02] Edited version of 12-6 post: IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
POLITICS
Voters too impatient
A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.
These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.
The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.
There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]
POLITICS
Voters too impatient
A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.
These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.
The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.
There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)