[NOTE] In this blog or as I choose to call it BLOB (Web Lobby) I have never altered the archives that I can recall, except to add a link. The only editing has occurred within moments or hours of posting, as minor corrections. Maintaining this principle I refer to the previous post which I now amend.
In preface: While not meaning to defend any individuals particular choice of words, I do feel that they have a right to choose them their selves. Given the overall and most recent history of violence, and the Orwellian language and Homeland Security acts which have been used to overshadow and preempt not just freedoms but the value of dialogue, I find the inflammatory use of language a very small concern. Indeed it is a highest and best example of freedom as well as beautiful alternative to just saying “war is a last resort” while sabotaging our constitution and flaunting international laws and treaties.
To amend I will only highlight and add the comments that follow this section:
[From previous post] For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
The bold words leave much to the interpretation of the reader. I would emphasize these words in the kindest light, if I may use a wrong word in “kind”. While a reading of surrounding text may tend to further inflame, they may also further support the overall argument, which I will not be concerned with, given my preface. In fact if it takes outrageous language to get notice or productive dialogue, this seems the operating principle not only of our society but our leadership, if the are interested in dialogue at all. The outrageousness itself has no other value.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
What's good for the goose? Goose the gander!
American Perspectives?
It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.
Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",
followed by:
“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.
This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].
The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.
For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?
It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.
Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",
followed by:
“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.
This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].
The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.
Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.
For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.
* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
ON MESSAGE; SS CRISIS
The crisis is that the president has a serious problem with language.
Either in saying what he means and/or meaning what he says.
Not to mention being responsible for connecting dots from whatever he means to his actual actions, let alone results.
Either in saying what he means and/or meaning what he says.
Not to mention being responsible for connecting dots from whatever he means to his actual actions, let alone results.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Only the begining.
Congratulations to the people of Iraq and the powers that be, there is now democracy in Iraq. This is their due, despite what most sides would agree count, and that would be the results. So now the counting begins, and as a counter* myself, hopefully not where the nightmares begin.
Terrorists must know that they cannot win, but we must know that votes count. Saying so does not make it so. Having held elections is not the definition of success. Elections are a sign of progress. But progress can only be relative** and must continue. Neither progress nor success erases the past, nor avoids whatever truth is yet to come.
*As a participating observer and counter in the Washington state recount of the governnor's race.
** Of course democracy is relative too. Or as a Republican lawyer claimed who was also observing, not what we live under in this Republic. He may have been just yanking my chain, but we had what I thought was a serious and honest discussion.
Side-bar*** It is interesting that in Washington the votes of felons are not suppose to count, but they can design the machines that do the counting.
Terrorists must know that they cannot win, but we must know that votes count. Saying so does not make it so. Having held elections is not the definition of success. Elections are a sign of progress. But progress can only be relative** and must continue. Neither progress nor success erases the past, nor avoids whatever truth is yet to come.
*As a participating observer and counter in the Washington state recount of the governnor's race.
** Of course democracy is relative too. Or as a Republican lawyer claimed who was also observing, not what we live under in this Republic. He may have been just yanking my chain, but we had what I thought was a serious and honest discussion.
Side-bar*** It is interesting that in Washington the votes of felons are not suppose to count, but they can design the machines that do the counting.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
THE MOST HONORABLE SENATOR
Senator Mark Dayton deserves keen interest and congratulations for standing up to the administration and calling liars what they are. He also stood up for the confirmation process as not just a rubber stamp. Some may argue that a president has a right to choose his own people, but the constitution says something else, or it is a waste of words which many are still wasting and making others die for. The only argument for the President having liars or incompetents as his representatives is that they truly represent him, but that does nothing to reduce the responsibility of our representatives.
Thanks also to Ed Schultz for presenting a few qoutes from Senator Dayton that I will try to link here.
Thanks also to Ed Schultz for presenting a few qoutes from Senator Dayton that I will try to link here.
Friday, January 21, 2005
A simple message.
Building a New Majority by Scott Galindez, touches on what the Democrats must do to not just win but to lead this country in a direction we can be proud of.
We must stand for social and national security and tax fairness while working for freedom at home and abroad.
But we must not take our eyes off the concerns that there will be more WMD. The proclamation of freedom in his speech must be put in perspective. It is not just that there is “no justice without freedom” but also no freedom without justice.
Which comes first, is an important question, not asked or ignored.
We must stand for social and national security and tax fairness while working for freedom at home and abroad.
But we must not take our eyes off the concerns that there will be more WMD. The proclamation of freedom in his speech must be put in perspective. It is not just that there is “no justice without freedom” but also no freedom without justice.
Which comes first, is an important question, not asked or ignored.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Who is "Lighting a Fire"?
President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.
If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.
We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.
If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.
Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.
We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Juxta-Boogey
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 11 January 2005
Let Bin Laden Stay Free, Says C.I.A. Man
By Tony Allen-Mills
The Times UK
Sunday 09 January 2005
Taken separately, they seem far fetched, yet together are they any more sensible?
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 11 January 2005
Let Bin Laden Stay Free, Says C.I.A. Man
By Tony Allen-Mills
The Times UK
Sunday 09 January 2005
Taken separately, they seem far fetched, yet together are they any more sensible?
Neo-Context
SUGGESTED READING:
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.
Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".
These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?
The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
USE THE PROCESS OR LOSE IT.
Boxer to Stand With Conyers
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Report SEE LINK
The Boxer Rebellion
Thursday 06 January 2005 @ 11:06
A wee bit of history to start with.
http://truthout.org/fyi/ Must scroll down the blog.
Friends:
Now there will be the debate, but as I understand it, it will be to reject the Ohio electors. Then there will be a vote.
This is a process. I may not have it down 100%, but that should not take away from the theory that it is the duty of congress to approve the electoral vote. To make a determination. To play politics? Of course that is hard to rule out.
But to stand for principles, that should be the point. I may not have it too properly worded, and even if one did, there would be those with different perspectives and arguments, but that too is the process.
Nothing is perfect. Especially in politics. But as soon as you have two perspectives or personalities of power, you have politics. Let the pen be mightier than the sword, or principles will be no more than tin-foil hats.
So the goal should now be that congress correct the mistakes now, to the best of the processes abilities. If that is politics, let it show.
Enough? Move-on out.
Monday, January 03, 2005
IF YOU HAVE A SENATE SEAT, STAND UP!
If you have a senate seat and voted for the Iraq war resolution
If you have a senate seat and won with a broad margin of support
If you have a senate seat and narrowly won with the support of progressives
If you intend to run for that seat or higher office, or even if you just believe in exporting democracy
You must stand up for democracy at home.
Stand up for the congressional effort to Object to Ohio Electors and investigate the violations of voter's rights in Ohio.
READ THE LINK!
This one too! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
If you have a senate seat and won with a broad margin of support
If you have a senate seat and narrowly won with the support of progressives
If you intend to run for that seat or higher office, or even if you just believe in exporting democracy
You must stand up for democracy at home.
Stand up for the congressional effort to Object to Ohio Electors and investigate the violations of voter's rights in Ohio.
READ THE LINK!
This one too! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123104W.shtml
Anyway...
I may be slightly facetious but I like facts. I also like doing what Condoleeza Rice thinks she is good at.(see Rice Lacuna : Memo)Drawing conclusions from the titles of pieces or from only the slimmest of facts, which Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld says change anyway.
Anyway...from How Bush Really Won Quoting George Bush from November 3rd, 2004 "I have won what I call political capital and now I intend to spend it."
I guess a few million votes may merit some capital, but only compared to 2000 and given the point that it was only the Supreme Court that selected him, I guess we can still call it political. I was going to note that it was the Electoral College or rather Florida and now Florida and Ohio that gave him some capital and we have yet to see how much, let alone what he means by spending it. Are we lost yet?
Now I may read the link or just save it as a hysterical document.
[Updated: 4-1-08 top new link added]
Anyway...from How Bush Really Won Quoting George Bush from November 3rd, 2004 "I have won what I call political capital and now I intend to spend it."
I guess a few million votes may merit some capital, but only compared to 2000 and given the point that it was only the Supreme Court that selected him, I guess we can still call it political. I was going to note that it was the Electoral College or rather Florida and now Florida and Ohio that gave him some capital and we have yet to see how much, let alone what he means by spending it. Are we lost yet?
Now I may read the link or just save it as a hysterical document.
[Updated: 4-1-08 top new link added]
Cleaning House
I must edit the previous post to read "Those are big ifs(Period)."
For that is more in line with the link's point.
I must also note my negligence in not making any comment on the worlds worst disaster. But what could be said. At least I will not lay blame for the occurance nor note those that have found reasons in the past for events.
That said, it will be a blessing if a coming together in hard times results, or another disaster if the opposite occurs.
Going back another post, "Political Differences?" There may not be much to regret there, but that it did pass but with only a slight change in some wording that makes me wonder about the worth of the whole thing anyway. Let's hope that there is not reason to revisit it too soon nor a closing of the door on a wholesale reconsideration or adjustment.
For that is more in line with the link's point.
I must also note my negligence in not making any comment on the worlds worst disaster. But what could be said. At least I will not lay blame for the occurance nor note those that have found reasons in the past for events.
That said, it will be a blessing if a coming together in hard times results, or another disaster if the opposite occurs.
Going back another post, "Political Differences?" There may not be much to regret there, but that it did pass but with only a slight change in some wording that makes me wonder about the worth of the whole thing anyway. Let's hope that there is not reason to revisit it too soon nor a closing of the door on a wholesale reconsideration or adjustment.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Give an inch?
Going “incremental” is intriguing as long as it is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It may be worth considering the “Option 5” of a 2002 Treasury Dept. study which involves lifetime savings and retirement accounts. It is thought that the administration will hold off on radical tax reform until the social security and budget are dealt with. Those are big ifs (period). (edit: 1-3-05)<em>DELETE(or rather “until”s.) [A more careful reading shows they were only ifs. ] They are also somewhat tied to any tinkering with taxes.
It may be worth giving an inch as long as we don't pay for a mile. But that is dangerous if too many hope to have their cake and eat it too.
It may be worth giving an inch as long as we don't pay for a mile. But that is dangerous if too many hope to have their cake and eat it too.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Political Differences?
The action taken to hold up the vote on the intelligence reform bill comes from a desire to hold partisan the safety of the country. One feature raised as an issue, is the battlefield intelligence capabilities that some want to insert in the bill. This seems a bad policy given the problem with the filters our system has. It would seem to short circuit the command structure, such as it is. Another irony is that the bill is not going to be voted on since there is not a majority of the majority party in favor of it. This I guess is not an irony, since when it came to getting bills out of committee they complained that a minority had something to do with it.
Certainty out-sources faith.
[Saved from 10-18-04 10:03:00 AM]
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
It may not be those that think they know that are the problem, but those that don’t know they only think. Faith by definition rules out knowing. Faith believes in something that cannot be known. It has nothing to do with knowing what others should believe.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with religion and government but with the freedom to progress with faith in society. Far from the being about the issue of marriage, is the actual divorce of reason from authority.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
CIA our job one.
I stumbled across a note to self, actually I believe from Ambassador Wilson: that Open Source is not an Intelligence Discipline. My caps but note my link below. Scroll down to Bicameral Brain and Intelligence for Commission
Point being, if the CIA’s job is to support the president, we do need another intelligence agency for the rest of us or the US proper. As Air America Radio's promo says… something about the truth requiring more than one perspective.
Note: the definition of open source is us.
Point being, if the CIA’s job is to support the president, we do need another intelligence agency for the rest of us or the US proper. As Air America Radio's promo says… something about the truth requiring more than one perspective.
Note: the definition of open source is us.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Some Hope Links.
From a procrastinator to prognosticator I almost forgot my progressive nature, but a few weeks before the election I was preparing to Kerry On, with or without Kerry.
Win or lose I will try to remain optimistic but this is a ray of hope.
Not that I did not smell a rat earlier, I Smell a Rat http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604Z.shtml, I had a feeling that others may be doing there job. See link below. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604W.shtml
Win or lose I will try to remain optimistic but this is a ray of hope.
Not that I did not smell a rat earlier, I Smell a Rat http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604Z.shtml, I had a feeling that others may be doing there job. See link below. Recount in Ohio a Sure Thing
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111604W.shtml
Thinking Right In Name Only?
We must call it Hi-Johning the Truth. I would call it Hijacking the truth, but what with homeland security and all that terrorism, it may be too scary a rallying cry. Now I may need to give thanks to the right subliminally for the John reference but it really surfaced in my mind as the more formal name for Jack, not the two Johns that they think they flushed.
In the search for a new face to put on our fight or indeed a party, I thought mainly of enthroning the truth as an aim, rather than letting it go down the drain.
[Hint: I may be caught up, but this is just a few words I may link something to later. It may be too obtuse or seeminginly tongue in cheek, but the point may hold water.]
[[Not an endorsement, but some credit for the theme may go to hearing of the link below to ThirdWay.com on my local www.airamericaradio.com radio station.]]
In the search for a new face to put on our fight or indeed a party, I thought mainly of enthroning the truth as an aim, rather than letting it go down the drain.
[Hint: I may be caught up, but this is just a few words I may link something to later. It may be too obtuse or seeminginly tongue in cheek, but the point may hold water.]
[[Not an endorsement, but some credit for the theme may go to hearing of the link below to ThirdWay.com on my local www.airamericaradio.com radio station.]]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)