The Center for American Progress quoted leading conservative Sen. Rick Santorum "Making people struggle a little bit is not the worst thing." http://snowe.senate.gov/articles/art901703_3.htm
My thought is: Well shouldn't the wealthiest deserve the best?
Next in line, I ran into www.tompaine.com/opinion and a piece by Jonathan Rowe they summarized as "The Social Roots of Partisanship". That gets a big ROGER THAT !!! [SEE LINK !!!]
I think it is also our story and message in progress!
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
ROGER THAT ! !
[SEE LINK !!]
Thanks to THE AMERICAN PROSPECT History 101
Do I hear an echo?
We may not be all singin' in the same choir, but some try to get it together. Having too many voices is better than only having one note, and being tone deaf.
The echo? See previous post below May 10th, Bush has done more for credibility... i.e. Helping us hit bottom.
Thanks to THE AMERICAN PROSPECT History 101
Do I hear an echo?
We may not be all singin' in the same choir, but some try to get it together. Having too many voices is better than only having one note, and being tone deaf.
The echo? See previous post below May 10th, Bush has done more for credibility... i.e. Helping us hit bottom.
Hope or Heap Upon Bluster
The president had a very important speech before the War College last night. On top of the resolution proposal to the U. N. Security Council this leaves quite a bit of material to analyze. But this was the basic scope of the material: a five-point plan, the U.N. resolution and oh… the replacement of Abu Ghraib with a new high security prison presumably that will detect digital cameras.
The primary purpose was to put it all together for the American people and the world to have the persistence and patience to continue on the basic path that has been their plan for some time.
1. June 30th Iraqi sovereignty
2. Provide security for Iraqi democracy
3. Continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure
4. Build international support
5. 1st elections no later than Jan. 2005
Other than the destruction of Abu Ghraib, it sounds like we’ve heard it all before. His presentation had a clear forceful nature that could give hope to the American people. But the only thing clear is that he hoped for more meaning by saying each word so clearly as to have more force.
The primary purpose was to put it all together for the American people and the world to have the persistence and patience to continue on the basic path that has been their plan for some time.
1. June 30th Iraqi sovereignty
2. Provide security for Iraqi democracy
3. Continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure
4. Build international support
5. 1st elections no later than Jan. 2005
Other than the destruction of Abu Ghraib, it sounds like we’ve heard it all before. His presentation had a clear forceful nature that could give hope to the American people. But the only thing clear is that he hoped for more meaning by saying each word so clearly as to have more force.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
JUST CAUSE OR JUST BECAUSE?
A PARALLEL CAUSE FROM ANOTHER ANGLE.
My sympathies, NOT EXACTLY. But it is not beating around the Bush. (SEE NEW LINK: Campaign to De-Elect the President )
My sympathies, NOT EXACTLY. But it is not beating around the Bush. (SEE NEW LINK: Campaign to De-Elect the President )
Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages
THANKS TO COMMONDREAMS.ORG (SEE NEW LINK for report on administration propaganda)
Given the propensity for the administration to blame the media while manipulating it, I would suggest a campaign for truth. The fair and balanced media outlets must join together to hold those who advertise accountable. Any campaigns that distribute false information without sources should be penalized with higher costs the next time around. This would cover either the time involved correcting the erroneous information or presenting the rest of the story. In a particular candidates case triple damages would be appropriate that could cover the airtime that will be given to each opponent in a race.
Of course this would be very odious to manage and indefensible on free speech grounds but after all they are paying for it. The side that declares there are absolutes or that things are black and white should especially appreciate this campaign. The irony here is that, sure it would be difficult to asses the use of partial information. But all media should strive to uphold the Fox motto, of fair and balanced reporting. That means that every point of view is balanced by each and every aspect that can be an argument against it. It is not a simple point counter-point, for each point of darkness could need or spark a thousand points of light.
Given the propensity for the administration to blame the media while manipulating it, I would suggest a campaign for truth. The fair and balanced media outlets must join together to hold those who advertise accountable. Any campaigns that distribute false information without sources should be penalized with higher costs the next time around. This would cover either the time involved correcting the erroneous information or presenting the rest of the story. In a particular candidates case triple damages would be appropriate that could cover the airtime that will be given to each opponent in a race.
Of course this would be very odious to manage and indefensible on free speech grounds but after all they are paying for it. The side that declares there are absolutes or that things are black and white should especially appreciate this campaign. The irony here is that, sure it would be difficult to asses the use of partial information. But all media should strive to uphold the Fox motto, of fair and balanced reporting. That means that every point of view is balanced by each and every aspect that can be an argument against it. It is not a simple point counter-point, for each point of darkness could need or spark a thousand points of light.
Friday, May 14, 2004
ROGER THAT!
Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times presents a mea culpa of sorts in Dancing Alone.
ROGER THAT! Will be a new alert feature.
[SEE LINKS]
Not necessarily completely endorsing all his points, I mean it to be strongly worth reading and generally in line with my thinking. One caveat is that any change in direction by the administration should be welcomed but should not give them a second chance to learn more from failures.
If that is having your cake and eating it too, well, I don’t want to unilaterally disarm of rhetoric.
ROGER THAT! Will be a new alert feature.
[SEE LINKS]
Not necessarily completely endorsing all his points, I mean it to be strongly worth reading and generally in line with my thinking. One caveat is that any change in direction by the administration should be welcomed but should not give them a second chance to learn more from failures.
If that is having your cake and eating it too, well, I don’t want to unilaterally disarm of rhetoric.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Bush has done more for credibility and privatization than any president has ever… with irony.
For some reason the abuse that is so “abhorrent” to Bush and the administration is not a shock to me. I was wondering why, though I like many have not seen it all yet. For the reason one may see Molly Ivins, “Putting the ‘con’ in neo-Con” which I have not read more than a few paragraph of, but it hit a spot that had crossed my mind and the title may be sufficient. Though not in my immediate experience, there have been reports of abuses and tragedies that have occurred on or just off college campuses as well as similar abuse that occurs in the military and for some reason have even been institutionalized and rationalized to some degree. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001924049&zsection_id=268883724&slug=ivins10&date=20040510
More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.
It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294
The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.
Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.
Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.
More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.
It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294
The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.
Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.
Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
WHEN DOES THE JOKER CROSS THE LINE?
WHAT LINE?
In the Nation section of the King County Journal, 5-5-04 (AP, by Ron Fournier). “Bush uses humor to soften Kerry criticism.”
“The President must speak clearly and mean what he says.” Bush said.
But speaking clearly does not clearly mean anything if it is not clear you know what you mean. It is not even clear if this was supposed to be humor. I have heard him answer questions very clearly and in fact repeat answers even more clearly thinking it had even more meaning that way. See why he had to appear with Cheney before the 9-11 commission.
Even in cases he knows what he means the clear words have alternate interpretations. He was a uniter not a divider, so he united the Democrats and the Arab world. Separately of course, I must be clear there is no linkage. Though there is more linkage between the U.S. and Saudi leaders. He trusts the people not the government. He did not say whom he would trust when he is in the government and not the people. Let us hope he will get clearer. I at least know I may come across obtuse, ironic and/or nuanced, which he is none of.
In the Nation section of the King County Journal, 5-5-04 (AP, by Ron Fournier). “Bush uses humor to soften Kerry criticism.”
“The President must speak clearly and mean what he says.” Bush said.
But speaking clearly does not clearly mean anything if it is not clear you know what you mean. It is not even clear if this was supposed to be humor. I have heard him answer questions very clearly and in fact repeat answers even more clearly thinking it had even more meaning that way. See why he had to appear with Cheney before the 9-11 commission.
Even in cases he knows what he means the clear words have alternate interpretations. He was a uniter not a divider, so he united the Democrats and the Arab world. Separately of course, I must be clear there is no linkage. Though there is more linkage between the U.S. and Saudi leaders. He trusts the people not the government. He did not say whom he would trust when he is in the government and not the people. Let us hope he will get clearer. I at least know I may come across obtuse, ironic and/or nuanced, which he is none of.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
For reference to previous post.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001913288_chapman27.html
Seattle Times, April 27th, 2004
Seattle Times, April 27th, 2004
HISTORY A GUIDE TO LOOKING AHEAD, NOT A DISTRACTION
Bruce Chapman’s "Let's not be distracted from the dangers ahead" reminds me fighting terrorism is a priority and not booting Bush the biggest danger ahead. Chapman though distracts by laying blame that "much of the left and the media are trying to focus the public's attention…through a rear-view mirror."
Far from looking ahead, Chapman notes that chemical weapons have been found in Jordan, forgetting that was not before the fall of Baghdad. Chapman blames Iran's financial sponsorship and U. N. corruption as if the U.S. had no part in investigating or preventing them. On homeland security he is right. Yet the violin teacher’s admonition to "Play better" may be the best advice, not blaming others or existing laws and processes.
Instead Attorney General Ashcroft blamed the famous wall of the Gorelick memo, as if to say, "the dog ate my homework" while his evidence was a chewed up sports page. The memo "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations" was misread, not to mention an interpretation of Reagan and Bush I mandates. It concluded "That AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) will continue to be ‘walled off’…and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines". The bold emphasis and Italics should have been added earlier.
They fail even Monday morning quarterbacking. Showing that if the administration could read better not to mention "play better" there may never have been a 9-11 commission of the terrorist act to need a commission.
Far from looking ahead, Chapman notes that chemical weapons have been found in Jordan, forgetting that was not before the fall of Baghdad. Chapman blames Iran's financial sponsorship and U. N. corruption as if the U.S. had no part in investigating or preventing them. On homeland security he is right. Yet the violin teacher’s admonition to "Play better" may be the best advice, not blaming others or existing laws and processes.
Instead Attorney General Ashcroft blamed the famous wall of the Gorelick memo, as if to say, "the dog ate my homework" while his evidence was a chewed up sports page. The memo "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations" was misread, not to mention an interpretation of Reagan and Bush I mandates. It concluded "That AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) will continue to be ‘walled off’…and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines". The bold emphasis and Italics should have been added earlier.
They fail even Monday morning quarterbacking. Showing that if the administration could read better not to mention "play better" there may never have been a 9-11 commission of the terrorist act to need a commission.
GRID IRONY
It is ironic that the death of a football and military hero brings such glory and tribute while the photos of flag draped coffins create such controversy. Pat Tillman Jr. is remarkable for what he sacrificed just to share in the risk and responsibilities he felt he should. The many others who died may not have sacrificed as much just to go, but the truth of their ultimate sacrifice deserves no less respect or honor.
Further fuel to the irony are the depictions of flag draped coffins, if seen as political footballs, were kicked off by the fumbling or punting of the truth both preemptively and post mortem. More offensive are the claims, that those who oppose war feel any less respect or responsibility for our troops.
Further fuel to the irony are the depictions of flag draped coffins, if seen as political footballs, were kicked off by the fumbling or punting of the truth both preemptively and post mortem. More offensive are the claims, that those who oppose war feel any less respect or responsibility for our troops.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
DEFEAT BY GEORGE
Defeat By Daniel N. Nelson
Common Dreams Friday 2 April 2004
A piece I found difficult, but an echo it seems of my thoughts.
Common Dreams Friday 2 April 2004
A piece I found difficult, but an echo it seems of my thoughts.
A DEMOCRATIC WORLD?
Question mark added above.
The following article is more than some will wish to read and not what many would want to think. However, it is as I see the solution, rather than the excuse that has been used ironically and retroactively for preemption.
A DEMOCRATIC WORLD by George Packer
Can liberals take foreign policy back from the Republicans?
It gives me a cleaner perspective on my intended perspective. If my pieces have been difficult, try this. But I do not promise it will be easier.
The following article is more than some will wish to read and not what many would want to think. However, it is as I see the solution, rather than the excuse that has been used ironically and retroactively for preemption.
A DEMOCRATIC WORLD by George Packer
Can liberals take foreign policy back from the Republicans?
It gives me a cleaner perspective on my intended perspective. If my pieces have been difficult, try this. But I do not promise it will be easier.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
RUNNING WITH RHETORIC
James Baker III who fixed the vote for Bush in Florida as he himself described it speaking to Russian oil oligarchs, represents the Republican party, Exxon, the Saudi government, the governing council in Iraq and does all of this out of an office in the White House? And a caller on the Dave Ross show asks Greg Palast if they (Cheney et al cabal) are taking anything under the table? Oh and this is not about oil or having your cake and eating it too? Or do as I say not as I do?
And Bush joked in his first media appearance things would be easier if he were dictator? Question mark belongs after both the resident and his joke. All other question marks replace quotes ironically.
(Upside down) Ed. Note: I have yet to figure out how to print stuff upside down, but ala Q&A or fun-books I should give footnotes or clues upside down for those having trouble with my writing style or MO. In this case an explanation: I escape responsibilities for direct quotes by using questions instead of quotations. Much as a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical administration. (Right side up: Sometimes my clues need footnotes.) I may have crossed the mobius loop of hypocrisy or irony. A visual I will refrain from footnoting.
And Bush joked in his first media appearance things would be easier if he were dictator? Question mark belongs after both the resident and his joke. All other question marks replace quotes ironically.
(Upside down) Ed. Note: I have yet to figure out how to print stuff upside down, but ala Q&A or fun-books I should give footnotes or clues upside down for those having trouble with my writing style or MO. In this case an explanation: I escape responsibilities for direct quotes by using questions instead of quotations. Much as a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical administration. (Right side up: Sometimes my clues need footnotes.) I may have crossed the mobius loop of hypocrisy or irony. A visual I will refrain from footnoting.
Friday, April 16, 2004
United Nations- Repeat of my April 5th Post.
United Nations
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM
SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times
My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.
Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."
This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops
Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM
SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times
My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.
Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."
This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops
Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.
URLs not appearing.
{Disregard this post as on 12-17-07, I am updating the links to the adjoining posts: Memo
Set up? Walled Excuse. ]
[ORIGINAL POST: links added]
Here are the URLs for the previous two posts.
Thanks to Democrats.com Daily News update, including their headline teasers for them. The beginings of my threads.
__Ashcroft Blames Commission Member Gorelick
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
__Was Gorelick's Appointment a Set Up to Derail the Inquiry and Smear Clinton?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004
Thank you.
Set up? Walled Excuse. ]
[ORIGINAL POST: links added]
Here are the URLs for the previous two posts.
Thanks to Democrats.com Daily News update, including their headline teasers for them. The beginings of my threads.
__Ashcroft Blames Commission Member Gorelick
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf
__Was Gorelick's Appointment a Set Up to Derail the Inquiry and Smear Clinton?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004
Thank you.
MEMO
Why was Gorelick appointed with this conflict of interest? It need not be a conflict of interest if it had been interpreted correctly as not a wall, but an opportunity to be organized and legal. Processes the administration has not shown too much concern for unless it is in a preemptive vein.
[12-19-07 link update]
[12-19-07 link update]
SET UP? WALLED EXCUSE.
"Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest"
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.
Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]
"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."
This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".
This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.
Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)
It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.
Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]
"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."
This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".
This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.
Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)
It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Another chicken and the egg controversy?
The end does not justify the means. Bush said something similar.
The end justifies the means. If the latter were followed, the former would be claimed.
If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end?
If the end does not justify the means, we still need to ask what justifies the end.
If the end justifies the means, asking questions threatens the truth.
If asking questions is threatened, how will we begin, let alone end?
Where does the buck start, let alone stop?
The end justifies the means. If the latter were followed, the former would be claimed.
If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end?
If the end does not justify the means, we still need to ask what justifies the end.
If the end justifies the means, asking questions threatens the truth.
If asking questions is threatened, how will we begin, let alone end?
Where does the buck start, let alone stop?
FINDING A SILVER BULLET IN A MUSHROOM CLOUD?
Having only seen a small portion and the conclusion of the Rice testimony it strikes me that they are still on thin ice. They look back at the need for a war footing. They achieved the need for a war footing.
There was a failure of intelligence and the structure of communications. The story begins there.
Taking responsibility would reduce the finger pointing. Finger pointing avoids responsibility. Denying either does both. They seem to only focus on avoiding while laying it, another chicken or the egg controversy.
Denying that a silver bullet could have prevented 9-11 avoids the fact that any actions taken on some information could have caused more than they could know to flip. Jumping to the assumption that there will be a mushroom cloud unless actions are taken, is a flop.
Something must change but without full debate it will not be for the better. That something must change does not mean that a better job could not have been done.
Maybe someone's thinking must change. Maybe it was already wrong.
To make substantial changes based on failure cannot guarantee seeing a silver bullet when you are lost in a mushroom cloud.
There was a failure of intelligence and the structure of communications. The story begins there.
Taking responsibility would reduce the finger pointing. Finger pointing avoids responsibility. Denying either does both. They seem to only focus on avoiding while laying it, another chicken or the egg controversy.
Denying that a silver bullet could have prevented 9-11 avoids the fact that any actions taken on some information could have caused more than they could know to flip. Jumping to the assumption that there will be a mushroom cloud unless actions are taken, is a flop.
Something must change but without full debate it will not be for the better. That something must change does not mean that a better job could not have been done.
Maybe someone's thinking must change. Maybe it was already wrong.
To make substantial changes based on failure cannot guarantee seeing a silver bullet when you are lost in a mushroom cloud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)