Progress versus Process? Not.
sent to King County Journal today re: 11-11-03 edition
It is very interesting the gubernatorial campaign's "Rossi says he needs $5 million" is the lead story and the Second Opinion page lead is Thomas Friedman's "Iraq's No. 1 priority: a leader". Finding a leader should be our No. 1 priority.
However there is one other thing I find interesting: The process.
Rossi blames the process for our problems in Washington, while Friedman sees it as the solution to ours in Iraq. It seems that if we were fighting for democracy we would not blame it for our difficulties and short-change it for our progress.
We have even let terrorists get credit for using it (democracy and our own freedoms that come with it) to our own loss while we stab it in the back.
It would be nice to make progress without a process, but as Bush joked in his first press appearance "things would be easier if I were dictator." We might all wish that we could dictate to some degree, but it is what we should be fighting. Here before we go there.
If we put progress before all else, will we focus on the process of democracy itself? How will we help others if we ignore our own process of profit motive not to mention voting methods? I hope the media will do its share in focusing on the process that others would try to recreate in our own image, but it will take our focus as well. Progress takes process and change together.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
My Context
[The Journal word count was 250 words and the New York Times wants no more than 150, limiting me to the style I chose rather than to actually try to put in context what Safire failed to do.]
For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend
For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works
[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal
For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend
For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works
[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal
New York Times
Safire Search Context,
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]
In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.
It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.
After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.
[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]
In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.
It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.
After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.
[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]
Safire Proved Urban Legend Monger
and Scandalous Hypocrite
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]
There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.
He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.
After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.
* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.
** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]
There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.
He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.
After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.
* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.
** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Deserting our troops, evading our principles.(10-3-03)
"Deserting Our Troops" by Steven Rosenfeld(tompaine.com) raises a very interesting question.
Would the hesitance to keep baseline medical records for our troops have anything to do with the possibility that DU (depleted uranium) if shown to cause cancer would then be considered a WMD of similar nature to a dirty bomb? Would not a cancer causing agent be a chemical or biological weapon (if not even nuclear), hence prohibited if not at least hypocritical? (Sweeping aside the vast difference between DU and actual fissionable material, the administration at least sweeps the slate of information or any basis for knowledge, discussion or debate.)
This, combined with the treatment of terrorist suspects, would make a mockery of why we went to war. If any weapons we can conceive of are OK for our own use and violating any rights crucial to a war on terrorism are justified, then what baseline do we even have to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?
A hypocritical if not cynical attitude is their weapon of first report, going back to the candidate Bush saying he "trusted the people not the government" and was a "uniter not a divider", then blaming critics for not supporting our troops while not even protecting them.
Recent retreat to programs, potential and intent to acquire as an excuse for preemption rather than "eminent threat" are not new excuses but missed by the media or buried by the outright incompetence or intention of the original run-up to war.
Still today Cheney is defending preemption as a choice between the threat of dictators and terrorist or doing nothing. No wonder they see no choice when they can't see the alternatives nor the similarities.
"Deserting Our Troops" by Steven Rosenfeld(tompaine.com) raises a very interesting question.
Would the hesitance to keep baseline medical records for our troops have anything to do with the possibility that DU (depleted uranium) if shown to cause cancer would then be considered a WMD of similar nature to a dirty bomb? Would not a cancer causing agent be a chemical or biological weapon (if not even nuclear), hence prohibited if not at least hypocritical? (Sweeping aside the vast difference between DU and actual fissionable material, the administration at least sweeps the slate of information or any basis for knowledge, discussion or debate.)
This, combined with the treatment of terrorist suspects, would make a mockery of why we went to war. If any weapons we can conceive of are OK for our own use and violating any rights crucial to a war on terrorism are justified, then what baseline do we even have to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?
A hypocritical if not cynical attitude is their weapon of first report, going back to the candidate Bush saying he "trusted the people not the government" and was a "uniter not a divider", then blaming critics for not supporting our troops while not even protecting them.
Recent retreat to programs, potential and intent to acquire as an excuse for preemption rather than "eminent threat" are not new excuses but missed by the media or buried by the outright incompetence or intention of the original run-up to war.
Still today Cheney is defending preemption as a choice between the threat of dictators and terrorist or doing nothing. No wonder they see no choice when they can't see the alternatives nor the similarities.
Europe and U.N. and many of U.S. see...
Foundations for Hope
(Unprinted Letter to Editor King County Journal:9-29-03)
A September 29th letter , "U.N. not best choice" asks why the anti-Americanism in Europe? The question itself is only one interpretation. He goes on to blame the U. N. for the choice between doing nothing and using force, while minimizing political matters.
The writer may find it easy to see why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us, but he cannot see where Europeans and the U. N. value "political matters" like "honest debate". I can certainly see why he would see these as having no connection, when it was the administration that framed it as a choice between using force and doing nothing. And then expects to find hope?
The only hope is that we can improve our practice of democracy before we force it on others. Our founding documents have many words of hope but I don’t recall much about forcing it on others. There are many words we need to practice more or we have little hope of even working with others.
It should not be odd that when "political matters" are minimized or made a mockery of that the result is having little choice but force. The choice between "political matters" and mockery should be made in every election and should have been clear in 2000.
How ironic there seems an undebated not to mention unfunded and unfounded mandate for "democracy". For those I waste irony on, I am sure I must probably make clear: yes we should hope and do more for democracy.
[updated editing 1-29-09]
(Unprinted Letter to Editor King County Journal:9-29-03)
A September 29th letter , "U.N. not best choice" asks why the anti-Americanism in Europe? The question itself is only one interpretation. He goes on to blame the U. N. for the choice between doing nothing and using force, while minimizing political matters.
The writer may find it easy to see why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us, but he cannot see where Europeans and the U. N. value "political matters" like "honest debate". I can certainly see why he would see these as having no connection, when it was the administration that framed it as a choice between using force and doing nothing. And then expects to find hope?
The only hope is that we can improve our practice of democracy before we force it on others. Our founding documents have many words of hope but I don’t recall much about forcing it on others. There are many words we need to practice more or we have little hope of even working with others.
It should not be odd that when "political matters" are minimized or made a mockery of that the result is having little choice but force. The choice between "political matters" and mockery should be made in every election and should have been clear in 2000.
How ironic there seems an undebated not to mention unfunded and unfounded mandate for "democracy". For those I waste irony on, I am sure I must probably make clear: yes we should hope and do more for democracy.
[updated editing 1-29-09]
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
(from an email of 9-25-03)
Move On and Look Back.
Dear Honorable Leaders:
Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.
My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.
After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.
Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!
I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."
If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.
The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.
On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?
Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?
The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.
Move On and Look Back.
Dear Honorable Leaders:
Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.
My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.
After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.
Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!
I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."
If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.
The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.
On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?
Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?
The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
A"neo" Con: More Contra"Dictions".
The President confidently and impressively painted a black and white picture of the war on terrorism before the United Nation. He hinted at having more to talk about in this fight and for progress in other areas, but sovereignty in Iraq would be “neither hurried nor delayed” by “other” countries.
It would have been an unquestionably convincing presentation if not for the lack of clarity on either "black" or "white". Terrorism, WMD and human rights are very important issues, but much more discussion about what constitutes these areas is not likely to follow from the intransigence indicated by such unfounded and contradictory inflexibility.
The President confidently and impressively painted a black and white picture of the war on terrorism before the United Nation. He hinted at having more to talk about in this fight and for progress in other areas, but sovereignty in Iraq would be “neither hurried nor delayed” by “other” countries.
It would have been an unquestionably convincing presentation if not for the lack of clarity on either "black" or "white". Terrorism, WMD and human rights are very important issues, but much more discussion about what constitutes these areas is not likely to follow from the intransigence indicated by such unfounded and contradictory inflexibility.
Friday, September 19, 2003
“Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.
You may recall that congress changed the name of French fries to "freedom fries" in their cafeteria over their lack of agreement in the United Nations. Now Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee is trying to change them back, while some Republicans are more likely to add France to the “Axis of Evil” for their continued insistence on bringing Democracy to Iraq sooner rather than later, if ever. So the rally cry should be. “Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.
You may recall that congress changed the name of French fries to "freedom fries" in their cafeteria over their lack of agreement in the United Nations. Now Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee is trying to change them back, while some Republicans are more likely to add France to the “Axis of Evil” for their continued insistence on bringing Democracy to Iraq sooner rather than later, if ever. So the rally cry should be. “Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.
As for the $87 Billion for post-war(?) Iraq...
there are questions from TrueMajority,
but how we got there and where we go now are not closed questions.
Regarding Misleading Intelligence... [culled from Inslee Iraq Forum]
*Whereas there has been Intelligence failure or a failure of intelligence.
*Whereas both big "I" and small "i" intelligence are important in declaring war and maintaining or discussing our position in the world.
*Whereas both are important in being successful on many issues as well as maintaining our nations position and credibility in the world.
*Whereas both Congress and the Intelligence community both depend on the credibility of information or it's providers to do their jobs.
*Whereas the public was asked to trust these representatives and agencies by the President himself.
Therefore be it resolved: that congress pass both House Resolutions as co-sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee.
H.R. 2625 to establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq.
H. Res. 307 to establish a select committee on Iraq intelligence.
(One HR involves the executive branch's collection, interpretation and presentation of intelligence as opposed to the latter's focus on the intelligence structure.)
FURTHER... important questions should be asked and answered.
*1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
*2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
*3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
*4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
*5. Was congress following at least this closely?
Regarding Billions for Iraq...
TrueMajority has a petition drive.
there are questions from TrueMajority,
but how we got there and where we go now are not closed questions.
Regarding Misleading Intelligence... [culled from Inslee Iraq Forum]
*Whereas there has been Intelligence failure or a failure of intelligence.
*Whereas both big "I" and small "i" intelligence are important in declaring war and maintaining or discussing our position in the world.
*Whereas both are important in being successful on many issues as well as maintaining our nations position and credibility in the world.
*Whereas both Congress and the Intelligence community both depend on the credibility of information or it's providers to do their jobs.
*Whereas the public was asked to trust these representatives and agencies by the President himself.
Therefore be it resolved: that congress pass both House Resolutions as co-sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee.
H.R. 2625 to establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq.
H. Res. 307 to establish a select committee on Iraq intelligence.
(One HR involves the executive branch's collection, interpretation and presentation of intelligence as opposed to the latter's focus on the intelligence structure.)
FURTHER... important questions should be asked and answered.
*1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
*2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
*3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
*4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
*5. Was congress following at least this closely?
Regarding Billions for Iraq...
TrueMajority has a petition drive.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Let us remember September 11th, 2001.
Words will not suffice to list the reasons or explain, but as one network frames it, it is A Brave New World. Therefore let us make sure it is not a fear based New World.
Actions may speak louder than words, but let us also remember that dying for a cause is not the same as killing for a cause. If that is not clear enough, or even too obvious, that is our dilemma.
We must focus on our words before our actions, or our actions will always be followed.
Words will not suffice to list the reasons or explain, but as one network frames it, it is A Brave New World. Therefore let us make sure it is not a fear based New World.
Actions may speak louder than words, but let us also remember that dying for a cause is not the same as killing for a cause. If that is not clear enough, or even too obvious, that is our dilemma.
We must focus on our words before our actions, or our actions will always be followed.
Monday, September 08, 2003
[Belated post of material submitted to the panel on 8-21-03.]
INSLEE IRAQ FORUM
Dear Congressman Inslee (and panel):
Thank you for holding the forum on Iraq. A forum on intelligence may be more accurate. The goal should be to prevent failures in both. It should be clear that the failure is all in one’s head: that head being the head of our great country.
Punditry aside, though not necessarily accuracy, important questions should be asked and answered.
1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all
intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
5. Was congress following at least this closely?
While many more questions could follow from this line, of seemingly unanswered questions, I feel they do have answers. I feel that if not answered, at least, not answering them could have had predicted results. These are not simple questions, and answers and events are even more complicated. But I posed, if not answered, many of them before.
In almost anticipatory caution I recorded these, by following (with wonder) our leaders own words (or those of his supposed employees), from just before the 2000 campaign’s conclusion.
In the patriotic spirit of contribution,
always,
Roger Larson
INSLEE IRAQ FORUM
Dear Congressman Inslee (and panel):
Thank you for holding the forum on Iraq. A forum on intelligence may be more accurate. The goal should be to prevent failures in both. It should be clear that the failure is all in one’s head: that head being the head of our great country.
Punditry aside, though not necessarily accuracy, important questions should be asked and answered.
1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all
intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
5. Was congress following at least this closely?
While many more questions could follow from this line, of seemingly unanswered questions, I feel they do have answers. I feel that if not answered, at least, not answering them could have had predicted results. These are not simple questions, and answers and events are even more complicated. But I posed, if not answered, many of them before.
In almost anticipatory caution I recorded these, by following (with wonder) our leaders own words (or those of his supposed employees), from just before the 2000 campaign’s conclusion.
In the patriotic spirit of contribution,
always,
Roger Larson
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.
“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!
One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.
Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.
In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.
[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]
One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.
Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.
In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.
[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]
Monday, August 04, 2003
FADS away?
"Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away...otherwise known as privatization and globalization."
The previous post was sent to the local paper as well as the Senators Dorgan and Wyden and by late afternoon the project was killed. (Or at least some aspects of it.) Admiral Pointexter took credit that day for the controversy and reportedly offered to leave the administration, so they let him. Just as four other high figures in the administration took responsibility for erroneous WMD in the state of the union, they and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion) Bush is still around.
Today Lou Dobbs in a column on the Economy in that same local paper writes a titled piece: "Left and right joined in attack on progressive thought" leads me to a mutation[*] of MacArthur’s going away. "Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away, otherwise known as privatization and globalization." But Dobbs is right, and correct too in that progressive thought is needed, but also thinkers that know the difference and don’t use the label liberal as their only argument. If someone believes in principles, they would discuss openly and have the courage to debate them rather that wander around between them and keep the dead wood that fuels his fire.
On a related matter, maybe. Secretary of State Powell is reported to be leaving at the start of the next administration. NOT? Do we have more strategy from the Office of Strategic Information (Slash) Influence? Here are some choices. Either he did or he didn’t let someone know that piece of information. Either it was clear or it was vague or something close to that or different. More choices are that the source made it up, or concluded from other information or was wrong.
Here is my choice. Powell is not being listened to, he wants to be listened to, the president can now claim to be listening. Powell will make his decision later, if he lasts that long.
[*] [3-28-08: Update- quotation mark is facetious as I am mangling MacArthur, but also meant fade not fad, but was it? I left it. The (Slash) was the link to the futures.(minor editing and link insertion)]
The previous post was sent to the local paper as well as the Senators Dorgan and Wyden and by late afternoon the project was killed. (Or at least some aspects of it.) Admiral Pointexter took credit that day for the controversy and reportedly offered to leave the administration, so they let him. Just as four other high figures in the administration took responsibility for erroneous WMD in the state of the union, they and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion) Bush is still around.
Today Lou Dobbs in a column on the Economy in that same local paper writes a titled piece: "Left and right joined in attack on progressive thought" leads me to a mutation[*] of MacArthur’s going away. "Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away, otherwise known as privatization and globalization." But Dobbs is right, and correct too in that progressive thought is needed, but also thinkers that know the difference and don’t use the label liberal as their only argument. If someone believes in principles, they would discuss openly and have the courage to debate them rather that wander around between them and keep the dead wood that fuels his fire.
On a related matter, maybe. Secretary of State Powell is reported to be leaving at the start of the next administration. NOT? Do we have more strategy from the Office of Strategic Information (Slash) Influence? Here are some choices. Either he did or he didn’t let someone know that piece of information. Either it was clear or it was vague or something close to that or different. More choices are that the source made it up, or concluded from other information or was wrong.
Here is my choice. Powell is not being listened to, he wants to be listened to, the president can now claim to be listening. Powell will make his decision later, if he lasts that long.
[*] [3-28-08: Update- quotation mark is facetious as I am mangling MacArthur, but also meant fade not fad, but was it? I left it. The (Slash) was the link to the futures.(minor editing and link insertion)]
Market of Strategic Information Slash Influence Is Too Right!
A small news item July 29th, pg. A12 deserved more attention. "Pentagon betting plan attacked" was a fair title for the disturbing program aimed at intelligence gathering but too little useful information was provided. In such a system, traders would and apparently (in some cases) already do, bet on outcomes of foreign policy, elections and military actions. Other sources (MSNBC) indicate it would start with 100 experts and expand, then the sponsors DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) claim that they would not be able to identify traders who sign up.
It sounds similar to the former fiasco Office of Strategic Information/Influence, now titled a Futures Market. Reports on 9-11 have indicated the poor handling of the volume of Intelligence that was already there and now they expect to have help from the economic forecasting arena? Not to mention the idea that misinformation that was hypothetically strategically planted somehow missed processing by any Office in the Administration that would keep things straight.
Markets may be efficient indicators of the futures, but they may be too efficient for interpretations that would be meaningful in time. Setting aside the aspect that DARPA would be sponsoring or turning a blind eye to insider trading, which would admittedly be a required component, how would they separate trading by terrorists from ideologues and analysts from capitalists? Not that there is anything wrong with some of that.
Efficiency would have been if voters had taken warning from the markets (in 2000) at the risk of a Bush election.
A small news item July 29th, pg. A12 deserved more attention. "Pentagon betting plan attacked" was a fair title for the disturbing program aimed at intelligence gathering but too little useful information was provided. In such a system, traders would and apparently (in some cases) already do, bet on outcomes of foreign policy, elections and military actions. Other sources (MSNBC) indicate it would start with 100 experts and expand, then the sponsors DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) claim that they would not be able to identify traders who sign up.
It sounds similar to the former fiasco Office of Strategic Information/Influence, now titled a Futures Market. Reports on 9-11 have indicated the poor handling of the volume of Intelligence that was already there and now they expect to have help from the economic forecasting arena? Not to mention the idea that misinformation that was hypothetically strategically planted somehow missed processing by any Office in the Administration that would keep things straight.
Markets may be efficient indicators of the futures, but they may be too efficient for interpretations that would be meaningful in time. Setting aside the aspect that DARPA would be sponsoring or turning a blind eye to insider trading, which would admittedly be a required component, how would they separate trading by terrorists from ideologues and analysts from capitalists? Not that there is anything wrong with some of that.
Efficiency would have been if voters had taken warning from the markets (in 2000) at the risk of a Bush election.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Fact:
I hope people are looking up the word in a dictionary, but for Encarta the first three definitions have something to do with truth, the fourth is a term of law, so he certainly would not use that one. Anyway, this must mean truth can change or maybe we will wait for the dictionary to change.
What can change is that a fact can be trustworthy or not. That is apparently what has changed. Then not, again.
I do believe that the president claimed that critics were wrong and that he should be trusted with the decision. That seems not to have changed, while the facts have. Not. That seems to have changed or it never mattered.
You can have your cake and eat it too, but crow...
I hope people are looking up the word in a dictionary, but for Encarta the first three definitions have something to do with truth, the fourth is a term of law, so he certainly would not use that one. Anyway, this must mean truth can change or maybe we will wait for the dictionary to change.
What can change is that a fact can be trustworthy or not. That is apparently what has changed. Then not, again.
I do believe that the president claimed that critics were wrong and that he should be trusted with the decision. That seems not to have changed, while the facts have. Not. That seems to have changed or it never mattered.
You can have your cake and eat it too, but crow...
Thursday, July 10, 2003
FACTS CHANGE?
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.
Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?
Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.
With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.
Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.
The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???
Did congress know that and when did they know it?
Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.
Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?
Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.
With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.
Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.
The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???
Did congress know that and when did they know it?
Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.
Saturday, June 21, 2003
Not a lack of intelligence, just the use of intelligence.
In the last day or so, Resident Bush has emphasized the intelligence that we are sure about. He stated, (approximately)that anyone who knows the history of the Saddam regime knows that he possessed biological and chemical weapons. Further that he had used them. There is no lie or contradiction in this belief. It is just that we are uncertain Bush knows the meaning of "history" or intelligence, or indeed "possessed" or "used". For these are all past tense.
Now we have a Resident who may not know what "was" is.
If intelligence has some evidence, we must find out who provided it to him and how it was filtered for him. It is more than knowing where the buck stops, but where did it start?
In the last day or so, Resident Bush has emphasized the intelligence that we are sure about. He stated, (approximately)that anyone who knows the history of the Saddam regime knows that he possessed biological and chemical weapons. Further that he had used them. There is no lie or contradiction in this belief. It is just that we are uncertain Bush knows the meaning of "history" or intelligence, or indeed "possessed" or "used". For these are all past tense.
Now we have a Resident who may not know what "was" is.
If intelligence has some evidence, we must find out who provided it to him and how it was filtered for him. It is more than knowing where the buck stops, but where did it start?
Sunday, June 01, 2003
NOTE TO READERS:
There is nothing new to report, just a more artistic or poetic version of an earlier situation. How true? Check for double meanings. How subtle? Others may be more intentional. Vague? A strategy, not necessarily mine.
Just a little ramble here, to point out that nothing has changed only versions are being spun. Some versions were already apparent to many of us. Hype? I try to avoid. But that is what the administration used, and even got caught up in. They fell for their own hype, got carried away, and still don't know why they can't handle it. The truth, they thought we could not handle. The hype it turns out may be their downfall.
Caution! Blurred metaphors, both ahead and before.
There is nothing new to report, just a more artistic or poetic version of an earlier situation. How true? Check for double meanings. How subtle? Others may be more intentional. Vague? A strategy, not necessarily mine.
Just a little ramble here, to point out that nothing has changed only versions are being spun. Some versions were already apparent to many of us. Hype? I try to avoid. But that is what the administration used, and even got caught up in. They fell for their own hype, got carried away, and still don't know why they can't handle it. The truth, they thought we could not handle. The hype it turns out may be their downfall.
Caution! Blurred metaphors, both ahead and before.
SELF EN-TITLED...RULES
[11-10-11 title upgraded and link added.]
(Defining our way to wars), Or beating around the Encarta* Bush.
Fighting terrorism, the cause,
finding Patriotism, the effect.
We fight the terrorists: defined
Somebody using violence for political purposes:
somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping,
and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *
We become the patriots: defined
Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports
or defends his or her country and its way of life. *
In need of an un-redefined way out,
Still in need of defining a way in.
Still having a ways to go.
Still going… I intentionally borrowed, no Bush or Blair intended.
Uncertain the rules allowed, the matter is now embedded.
Uncertain an asterisk did it, I did not wish to take too much credit[**].
The following: Take it or leave it.
* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©
& (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
You thought it was all over, so if you’re not with it, you’re again it.
[11-10-11 links not provided to Encarta, since it requires registration. See upgrade of title above and additional link.]
(Defining our way to wars), Or beating around the Encarta* Bush.
Fighting terrorism, the cause,
finding Patriotism, the effect.
We fight the terrorists: defined
Somebody using violence for political purposes:
somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping,
and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *
We become the patriots: defined
Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports
or defends his or her country and its way of life. *
In need of an un-redefined way out,
Still in need of defining a way in.
Still having a ways to go.
Still going… I intentionally borrowed, no Bush or Blair intended.
Uncertain the rules allowed, the matter is now embedded.
Uncertain an asterisk did it, I did not wish to take too much credit[**].
The following: Take it or leave it.
* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©
& (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
You thought it was all over, so if you’re not with it, you’re again it.
[11-10-11 links not provided to Encarta, since it requires registration. See upgrade of title above and additional link.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)