They certainly aren't counting the Chicken Hawk down.
Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.
They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."
They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."
Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?
Monday, April 25, 2005
Let's Do the Frist: or Onward Fristian Soldiers!
After the last post, I opened my local paper and read the AP report on Justice Sunday, and Frist does seem to be out of touch with the "Agenda" of the so called "choir" to which he spoke, but that is part of the plan.
He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.
Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.
He is probably their Sheppard in Fox clothing. His lack of connection to the reality for which they stand, makes him seem moderate and he is the likely standard bearer for the next crusade, while DeLay is the Wolf thrown to the Lambs or the "so called Lib media" that pulls the wool over the sheeple.
Sorry for running with metaphors but lets hope they trip up on this.
Borrow and Twist- a surfing metaphor?
Oh what a web we weave or mobius strip we ravel. I was going give a shout out earlier as a wake-up for the upcoming Justice Sunday events, but they may hopefully make it through the “so called Liberal” media filters. But cutting through the mangled message is not that difficult if you follow the borrow and twist method that has been my habit: You must simply take their statements or labels and sort out the facts. Well maybe not even that.
The so called aim of JCCCR.org is "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith". There basically is no judicial war on faith except theirs. They are actually fighting for their Truth and they are against anything else, especially Faith. Faith by definition is not Truth but actually depends on not knowing or having facts. It is even divorced from logic. Even this concept is not exactly absolute, but relative. Having knowledge, be they facts or understanding, does not rule out faith.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith. Truth is also part of the process, but understanding and faith are not strangers to it.
All links in this post were only glanced at, either during or after the process. The Al Franken Show and the mention of upcoming guests, from Andrew Sullivan.com to People for the American Way also deserve some credit for getting me rolling, but I probably missed some valuable comments while processing this and going overboard with definitions and links.
The so called aim of JCCCR.org is "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith". There basically is no judicial war on faith except theirs. They are actually fighting for their Truth and they are against anything else, especially Faith. Faith by definition is not Truth but actually depends on not knowing or having facts. It is even divorced from logic. Even this concept is not exactly absolute, but relative. Having knowledge, be they facts or understanding, does not rule out faith.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith. Truth is also part of the process, but understanding and faith are not strangers to it.
All links in this post were only glanced at, either during or after the process. The Al Franken Show and the mention of upcoming guests, from Andrew Sullivan.com to People for the American Way also deserve some credit for getting me rolling, but I probably missed some valuable comments while processing this and going overboard with definitions and links.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
QCON: Bolt of Hope
Quick Concept:Questioning Conservatives
Have some from the other side seen the light?
Have some from the other side seen the light?
The People's Business?
Bush today: “Sometimes politics gets in the way of the people's business.” Speaking of “on the one hand” or “on the other hand”, I was torn between thinking of it as the nadir or zenith, but it seems the core of his logic.
He wants his nominee and he wants it now.
So much for "strict father", sounds like pre-tantrum baby.
Further comment would have to rely on the “cause and effect” of whatever he means. And which comes first? People or business. Not to mention whatever the alternative to politics is. This seems the epitome or Dao(Dow) of cutting through and being full of it.
I could have done without a link, but there is possilby some link to the question of which comes first.
He wants his nominee and he wants it now.
So much for "strict father", sounds like pre-tantrum baby.
Further comment would have to rely on the “cause and effect” of whatever he means. And which comes first? People or business. Not to mention whatever the alternative to politics is. This seems the epitome or Dao(Dow) of cutting through and being full of it.
I could have done without a link, but there is possilby some link to the question of which comes first.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Don’t count your Chicken Hawks before they splat!
On the apparent success in getting further consideration of John Bolton’s nomination to U. N. Ambassador , I would like to give the CIA (Counter Intuitive Associating) analysis or as I would describe the purpose of The Liaison Report as walking the line between "on the one hand", and "on the other hand".
On the one hand Bolton has some undesirable behaviors. On the other hand he represents the administration’s principles. On the one hand that is not the way a diplomat should work. On the other hand he is honest about how the administration does work.
There is something fresh about this honesty in the grander scheme of things, it is only on closer look that the principle and particulars of honesty fall apart. If this is (not?) the principle that moves America forward, it is at least the principle that the administration operates under.
As encouraging or intriguing as the links here prove to be, replacing Bolton will not replace the behavior and policies of the administration without more "hard work".
On the one hand Bolton has some undesirable behaviors. On the other hand he represents the administration’s principles. On the one hand that is not the way a diplomat should work. On the other hand he is honest about how the administration does work.
There is something fresh about this honesty in the grander scheme of things, it is only on closer look that the principle and particulars of honesty fall apart. If this is (not?) the principle that moves America forward, it is at least the principle that the administration operates under.
As encouraging or intriguing as the links here prove to be, replacing Bolton will not replace the behavior and policies of the administration without more "hard work".
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Spreading Irony and Con Text
President Bush will become know as the Irony President. I believe I have noted that before.
But the previous post was in haste, and the context intentionally left open.
It was brought to mind by the ironic use of President Roosevelt's words by the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration.
But the previous post was in haste, and the context intentionally left open.
It was brought to mind by the ironic use of President Roosevelt's words by the Judeo-Christian Council on Constitutional Restoration.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
THE TAO OF DUB-YA
THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF GEORGE DUB-YA BUSH:
“I trust the people not the government”
“I am a uniter not a divider.”
I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.
Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.
It is very simple.
He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,
so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.
And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,
in not trusting government.
Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.
If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.
He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.
The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.
“I trust the people not the government”
“I am a uniter not a divider.”
I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.
Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.
It is very simple.
He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,
so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.
And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,
in not trusting government.
Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.
If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.
He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.
The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
My Take:
[editor's note: 4-7-05 Schiavo link added below and here]
Those who depart from party dogma may deserve some credit, but it also may be political. Hopefully the kind of political that represents having some principles and actually standing up for them, though these may be divorced from the relevant facts, not that facts are partisan or dogmatic either. On the other hand it does not mean that they have stood up for a principle if they are just considering their own political skin.
My prediction is that there will be a backing off by the administration in the face of reality and politics. This is about the 2006 election, as well as “activist judges” whatever they are. My further prediction is that the difference will be told in whether it is a matter of their holding their powder for later. We must remain activist on principles and further the debate.
They will have other "talking points" that must not distract us from ours.
Those who depart from party dogma may deserve some credit, but it also may be political. Hopefully the kind of political that represents having some principles and actually standing up for them, though these may be divorced from the relevant facts, not that facts are partisan or dogmatic either. On the other hand it does not mean that they have stood up for a principle if they are just considering their own political skin.
My prediction is that there will be a backing off by the administration in the face of reality and politics. This is about the 2006 election, as well as “activist judges” whatever they are. My further prediction is that the difference will be told in whether it is a matter of their holding their powder for later. We must remain activist on principles and further the debate.
They will have other "talking points" that must not distract us from ours.
QCON: In this case Quick CONcept!
TALKING POINTS:*
OURS: Things we should talk about.
THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.
Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.
What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.
Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?
Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.
Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?
*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.
[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]
OURS: Things we should talk about.
THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.
Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.
What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.
Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?
Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.
Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?
*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.
[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Stop grandstanding on the Schiavo tragedy
Please sign the MoveOn Petition
I did, with my added comments:
Also stop spending money on fake news PERIOD!
Stop producing news or using public relations firms.
The press would be glad* to report if you show up and answer questions.
And stop lying on the floors of the House and Senate.
Hold members of congress responsible for their words, their source of information and make sure they and the American public get reliable news.
THANK YOU
* I am not so sure I believe this, but it would be nice if the only reporting came from actual opportunities to ask questions from both sides and actual investigating, without simply taking it straight from the mouths of pols or their shills.
I did, with my added comments:
Also stop spending money on fake news PERIOD!
Stop producing news or using public relations firms.
The press would be glad* to report if you show up and answer questions.
And stop lying on the floors of the House and Senate.
Hold members of congress responsible for their words, their source of information and make sure they and the American public get reliable news.
THANK YOU
* I am not so sure I believe this, but it would be nice if the only reporting came from actual opportunities to ask questions from both sides and actual investigating, without simply taking it straight from the mouths of pols or their shills.
BU--SH-- v. Legalese
The previous post needs more filtering or at least a few more words. It may be just ironic that the links contained too many words and you had to do the “hard work” that the Center for American Progress did in their filtering of the following words.
Scott McClellan, 3/21/05:
"The legislation he [Bush] signed is consistent with his views.... The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."
Texas Law, Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
“If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment.... The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day.”
Having yet to fully read both of the previous links, it would be like sorting out Bu--Sh-- and Legalese.
Scott McClellan, 3/21/05:
"The legislation he [Bush] signed is consistent with his views.... The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."
Texas Law, Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
“If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment.... The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day.”
Having yet to fully read both of the previous links, it would be like sorting out Bu--Sh-- and Legalese.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
THE WORD
FROM ON HIGH:
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
TEXAS JUSTICE: HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 166. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
Can we say "Flip-Flop"?
Can we say "a uniter not a divider"?
Or is it simply the forked tongue of a Texas Rattler?
It's NOT JUST political. It's the whole ball game, or is it shooting match?
Where is that liberal media and where are the DubYa-Blamed filters now?
Who knows better now?
[I file the below LINK for adumbrative procrastination.]
Translation: I may have heard of it, there may be some connection, but I have yet to read much of it.
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
TEXAS JUSTICE: HEALTH & SAFETY CODE
CHAPTER 166. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
Can we say "Flip-Flop"?
Can we say "a uniter not a divider"?
Or is it simply the forked tongue of a Texas Rattler?
It's NOT JUST political. It's the whole ball game, or is it shooting match?
Where is that liberal media and where are the DubYa-Blamed filters now?
Who knows better now?
[I file the below LINK for adumbrative procrastination.]
Translation: I may have heard of it, there may be some connection, but I have yet to read much of it.
QCON: Politics?
Yes! QCON: [Quick Comment On the News] or Question Con, or Question Context, Question Content.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Friday, March 18, 2005
In Honor of "Hard Work"
For those who are currently wavering or wondering about the issue of Iraq, here is a piece "Why Iraq Withdrawal Makes Sense" by Norman Solomon , which I recommend for the courage needed to do the hard work that must come before war becomes the only "hard work" worth doing.
For those who may have missed it, President Bush used these words "hard work" several times in one of his most inspiring speeches. But it is not too much to ask as in (House Concurrent Resolution 35) to develop and implement a plan for "immediate withdrawal". Then we, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can get back to the "hard work" we will always have and should have done before the "war as a last resort".
While I would not encourage too much reliance on polls, it is part of a democracy. While Bush disavowed polls, he did say he trusts "the people not the government". Despite the embedded nature of government in journalism both here and in Iraq it is ironic and fortunate that polls do not reflect what the President wishes and what many, even progressives fall for: which is that in the current case, we and a continued military presence are the solution.
At least we must begin the "hard work" of discussion and hope that democracy here and abroad, and a trust of the people will mean the government will do the "hard work" of being open to debate. We got into this war with less than ideal candor. We will not end it without a greater degree of open mindedness and real "hard work".
For those who may have missed it, President Bush used these words "hard work" several times in one of his most inspiring speeches. But it is not too much to ask as in (House Concurrent Resolution 35) to develop and implement a plan for "immediate withdrawal". Then we, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can get back to the "hard work" we will always have and should have done before the "war as a last resort".
While I would not encourage too much reliance on polls, it is part of a democracy. While Bush disavowed polls, he did say he trusts "the people not the government". Despite the embedded nature of government in journalism both here and in Iraq it is ironic and fortunate that polls do not reflect what the President wishes and what many, even progressives fall for: which is that in the current case, we and a continued military presence are the solution.
At least we must begin the "hard work" of discussion and hope that democracy here and abroad, and a trust of the people will mean the government will do the "hard work" of being open to debate. We got into this war with less than ideal candor. We will not end it without a greater degree of open mindedness and real "hard work".
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Democracy Battle Going Unclear
QCON- [Quick Comment On the News]
I.e. My take: Here are a few links that I have only glanced at that seem to paint the picture.
Democracy battles by George going uNclear
Democracy- by George by Juan Cole
Senate Votes to Allow Artic Drilling by Josef Hebert Associated Press
Budget Tug of War by Joel Havemann -- The Los Angeles Times
Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist /Preserving Checks and Balance
Bush budget drilling... the iceberg or the Titanic?
I.e. My take: Here are a few links that I have only glanced at that seem to paint the picture.
Democracy battles by George going uNclear
Democracy- by George by Juan Cole
Senate Votes to Allow Artic Drilling by Josef Hebert Associated Press
Budget Tug of War by Joel Havemann -- The Los Angeles Times
Democratic Leader Harry Reid's Letter to Bill Frist /Preserving Checks and Balance
Bush budget drilling... the iceberg or the Titanic?
TIP OF THE FLAME
Among the things that attract my attention are the various organizations that overlap in purpose. Checking the DNC petition, it seems that details were lacking in the wording * or maybe I just expect too much or need to work more myself, but I cannot help but feel that those we petition may not have it any clearer than many of us. Our own representatives may get it, but as Democratic Leader Harry Reid points out the PR problem as $3 million (that is as far as I read) we are already off on a few tangents that may be parallel.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Well it must be as overwhelming for our representatives as it is our inboxes.
Has anyone wondered about the $250 million in propaganda (Fake Media- PR) disguised as news but not even noted as governement sponsored nor public service messages, [Sorry I can't list a source for the figure] which government departments are spending to get out a message. That is our money trampling on our free speech.
I heard that Congressman Conyers in the House Judiciary is investigating something along these lines. (Clinton did it but two Questions0-- Were they noted as Public Service or Government announcements? and were they used by the media more frequently in the Red States)
I think that this is the tip of the iceberg that we are up against. The Judiciary has a few threads but there are other committees that need to take action, the FCC, the FEC, and the Ethics Committee, or are they all beyond hope?
Anyway I must move on... This may be what got me on this track. What I heard on Morning Sedition AM 1090 may have got my train going, though I could not find it on their blog, there are interesting particulars about propaganda and worse on today's Non-Partisan (IRI) International Republican Institute and Re: Conyers...HR 136 Gannon Resolution http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/fecblogltrpr31105.pdf Conyers Press Release FEC Weblog Exemption
Well, sorry for the overlapping nature of this, but that is the nature of our system. ( or the nature of my production or perception)
-- WMD = Weapons of Message Distortion, Dillusion, Delusion
-- Free Speech, just a question...
-- Courage, (Rather) but could we ask for clarity?
[[Text from the DNC Petition: ]]
To: The United States Senate
Republican Senate leaders have decided to fundamentally alter the role of Congress, giving George W. Bush unprecedented power to manipulate the legislative branch and the courts.
Democrats in the Senate, led by Democratic leader Harry Reid, are committed to preserving the right of our elected representatives to speak their mind on the floor of the U.S Senate.
I stand with Democrats in the fight to protect the system of checks and balances that have served our country for more than 200 years.
--
* This seems like it would be something that could be bipartisan, but it is unclear whether partisans know they are on the iceberg or the Titanic. Maybe they are afraid of charges of flip-flop or just getting too legaleese.
-- MY COMMENTS ON SIGNING Petition Free Speech
Protect the filibuster as a fundamental protection of minority voices. And stop the PR machine that is a Weapon of Message Distortion, Dilution and Delusion that is the tip of an iceberg to our Titanic state.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.
===========================================================
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".
They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.
It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.
The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.
I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".
Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson
Moving on:
I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.
I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.
Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.
That Train Keeps On Rolling.
Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.
Roger Larson
(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)
* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.
[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Soothing of inflammation.
[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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)