Intelligent Design? More Irony.

Going back two posts to the reality of cause and effect that seems to be denied by Bush, it should be obvious that Cindy Sheehan's important question(What is the noble cause?)is normally addressed preemptively in order for there to be any success in a project. Just how can anyone expect to reach a goal that is shifting and undefined, not to mention prepared for properly without all the input available.

Support for our troops and support for our president must remain separate issues, or they cannot be fighting for our freedoms, let alone democracy. Success in Iraq cannot come from a leader who cannot face the issues honestly and uses the troops as the latest justification. Success or withdrawal from Iraq cannot be done without the honest intention to actually leave and a plan to do it.

Is this a political agenda? Thank God that that is what America is about, politics rather than many alternatives. Denial that it is, is the political agenda of those that would just take power and decide later and alone how they can succeed.

Opposition to war does not mean opposition to success, just to the method of operation that is not so apparent.

Denial of the physics or philosophy of cause and effect will not be the way to succeed. Realizing that others operate under the same laws of nature will explain why force is met with force. Words may not always be important but connecting them to actions and realizing they get reactions whether they are understood or not, would go a long way toward success if we can work together to define it.

UN-REALITY AND CAMP CASEY

I must read more(On the WP "unreality" and on Camp Casey messaging), but it seems that the qualifiers or the choice of words still leave a lot of wiggle room (in the WP piece) when it comes to knowing what they really mean or when they intended it. My "pre-"cursory analysis is that we should now focus on what the noble cause "was" as it will always depend on what the definition of "is" is. Now seemingly "post-war on terror" and with the on going "struggle" a look back at what the reasons were may lay in "following the money" and not only holding the administration and its "willing" corporate sponsors(profiteers) accountable but congress and the media as Cindy Sheehan has noted many times.

Having not finished reading the following, they may deserve some credit for this line of thought:
CINDY'S MESSAGE:
HOWARD DEAN'S:
IRAN NEXT?: (Why we need to remember the unreality!)

Jumping to the conclusion(with a re-read needed), in other words did we really intend to win something that was going to be ongoing and unconnected? The next project(U.N or Iran] will be a different matter but what will have changed?
[Sorry needed to rant or question/hit and run.]
But...If I may project further, that others may take more responsibility.

[NOTE: as I post this I have now read the below link.]

Dateline: August 10th, 2005

[you will just have to trust, that is the date I saved these words]

Evolution v. Quantum Philosophy: FLIP/FLOP
[Black and white or ones and zeros.]
Connections...
Changes...
Absolutes...

They have flipped and guarantee flop. Based on the concept that there may be two types of thinkers: those that deal with reality and those that think it is chosen.

The Will to Power? The power of Will? Intentions play a big role in relationships and this breaks down into the two realms of Science and Religion. Will is recognized in ourselves and the supernatural. Is there really a difference? A relatively easier question is how we relate to others, and well as the world. Maybe a better model would have it as the material and the spiritual worlds. Two realities that are hard to deny but are realms that are separate yet maybe connected. Religions are not the master of the spiritual world any more than money is the master of the material. But there is no denying that intentions play a role in manifesting some reality.

The principle that there are absolutes, and that there should not be flip flop or understanding of others to better relate in this world is the main problem with the Neo-Con or Non-Thinking administration. Bush is reported to place intuition above intellect. Others report that his intuition is flawless. That is easy when one’s intellect does not recognize flaws and hypocrisy is the height of reality in that one can choose between schools of thought that often preempt facts, not to mention cause and effect.

8-10-05
Roger Larson

[Again, trust the date, but the subject I had in mind, may be more obtuse.]

ONE PARTY: HOLD THE LOCKSTEP!

Maybe things would not be so bad in a dictatorship. However, Plato thought about it and passed. The main problem being finding a good dictator or one benevolent to all. But maybe we should experiment with one party rule. The Republicans have done the latest research in this field and now that we know what does not work, except for those that want to trade charges about who is holding whose breath, we can breath a sigh of resignation and just have Democratic rule.

This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.

One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.

[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson

The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?

OUT OF THE BLUE? NOT!

I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but questions leaping out are another matter. What about Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak? The only one not talking is Judith Miller. She chose to protect her sources. For a journalist admirable, for a pawn of the administration, what? The missing link seems to be the two sources that Robert Novak used. One Karl Rove*, the other still unknown. Another journalist? Is confirming that one heard something from an unknown source a confirmation? Is forgetting the source a defense? Is protecting bad sources or administration leaks a journalists job? Is it job security or a defense against charges of treason?

I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?

Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.

Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.

Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.] 

* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl

Reaction to Preemption of Fear by Fear Itself.

FIRE KARL ROVE!*

He is a threat not only to Democracy but possibly our liberty and our lives.

Rove's words reflect the biggest difference between the administration, not conservatives, and Americans, all of them including liberals. That is, that for the administration's political purposes, war is not the last option. And if you want to unite us, knowing what you mean, and meaning what you say, should be your top priority for the sake of America and the world.

The whole policy of preempting fear by fear itself, must be ended!

If this is not the policy, you better check in on what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are saying as well.

PEOPLE MUST SPEAK NOW! OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR WAR!

* correction Carl read Karl 6-12-14

From Pillar to Post?

Is truth really relative?
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.

The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.

Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.

BIG TENT v. MESS TENT

Do I need to explain the frame?

BUSH'S WAR

THE FRAME

REGIME CHANGE

I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.

To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)

The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.

The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.

If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.

(Below Sent to Local Papers)

It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.

Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.

Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.

Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.

Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA

More Mess Age: GO DEAN!

Repeat till it sinks in!

Leap Frog the Propaganda!

Trickle Down MESS of Truth!

DEAN MESS IS THE MESSAGE!

It is hard to react to the reactions but it all seems a lot of overreaction.

The Dean mess is the message.
A "Big Tent" versus "THE MESS" Tent.
The Bush mess is the "Mess Age".

If generalizing were a crime, there would be a lot of pundits and pols in lock-up.
If the particular truth were told, the media is much of the mess.
If context is ignored, you only have "the con" text.
If Dean is not dividing, then what would be the need for a "BIG TENT"?
If Dean is the focus, then what about the mess we are in?
If the media overreacts to Dean, at least the multiple reactions include issues that the troops are working on.

That is the dilemma of staying on message.
You may get a "Mess Age".

Liberals Rethinking? Not in their hands.

In regard to the "Gang of 14" compromise, I would like to point out the seemingly binding nature of it and the "extraordinary circumstances" pertaining to the President not seeking "advice and consent". It seems that it is in the hands or principles of the Republican 7 that they abide by Part II, B for any other nominations, given the refusal by the President and others in congress to recognize the constitutional principle of equal branches of government. Any indication to the contrary by these seven would void the agreement!

Risking fulfillment of the agreement would only be worth it if we can politically win the understanding of moderates while keeping the hearts of progressives.

Any comparison of future or pending nominations to the conceded nominees would be invalid, as that is what they were negotiated for.

Groundwork for Impeachment?

Two weeks ago Sunday, when I broached the subject of politics with a friend, I guess I was sort of laying the ground work of an I told you so, when I noted the sailor in San Diego and the Military Justice finding the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq illegal.
He had a rather firm reaction of missing the days when they shot deserters. I did not bother to say something about the worst Bush being able to get is impeachment. We are one step closer.

Evolution of a Mugging or The Revolution of Irony

Mixing metaphors, the process was taken to the woodshed on the so called compromise or "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations". It may be more of a mutual sacrifice. On one side, the three nominees that will make the cloture vote are a gift from the centrist Democrats. On the other side the "right" to end the filibuster by breaking the rules was sacrificed by the centrist Republicans. If this was done for the sake of the rules and tradition of the senate, then it seems that principles were held hostage by those republicans for the sake of getting past this or just those nominees. The only hope is that with advice and consent there will never be sent more nominees with potential to be filibustered, and that there will never be reason to vote against their principles again.

[6-2-05: Comment and final link added below]
The continued comments that nominees are due an up or down vote indicate the degree that this deal depends on the integrity of the 7 Republicans who are standing up (with the Democrats)for the rules and traditions of the U.S. Senate and the constitution.]

Memo of Understanding

It may not make good blogging, media or politics, but the more I read the Memo of Understanding.. not only the more I understand it but have hope that it is binding.
In brief:
Part I: Pending
A. on 3 nominees vote to cloture.
B. on 2 reserve right to vote cloture
Part II: Future
A. right to filibuster or cloture up to individual
B. Commit to oppose rules change in the 109th congress except by the rules, meaning not by simple majority.

Now it is back to politics, which is also media and blogging. This seems to be more binding than some of them may understand or will admit. But then again, we are back to politics and the rest.

Vaccination for our Castor Oil.

With the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, we must vaccinate ourselves from what one of the participants of the Gang of 14 called the castor oil which the compromise was. With the veto expected on the Stem Cell bill, we will see that it is not a matter of an up or down vote, or majority rule. It is not even a matter of morality. It is a matter of politics or Bush trying to reason. (Tangent later.)

The vaccination must come to the argument David Brooks made and to which Al Franken agreed was a precedent with the Owen vote, bringing down the barrier of what constitutes where “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”

In my opinion this is a risky bet but on principle the barrier has not been dropped. The three nominees were part of the compromise made as part of upholding the filibuster. These nominees should set no precedence that would change their view that the filibuster is constitutional and for the best of the country. This logic is binding to the extent that in Part II, B. they have agreed not to change the rules with a majority vote.

Temporary Victory for Filibuster

Here are two titles I hope not to need:
Tyranny of the Centrist Minority
or Senate Committee of Faith Based Principles

There maybe be hope, but it may be only postponement.

I commend the coming to an agreement, but there seems little that holds either side to whatever they agreed to. It seems that it would only be binding on the participants with both sides having reserved their rights to change their mind later, which is not very reassuring.

The agreement is only for them to come to a vote. Now we can hold Senators accountable for a vote and this agreement. Meaning only that the filibuster will not succeed on three nominees, but with little promise that we not return to more divisiveness.

Concern about Compromise.

(Comments in Email: 11:45 am PST.)
This is either the poorest example of journalism
or the most obvious reason we are in trouble,
but can anyone figure out a compromise that will work,
that fits the parameters McCain noted where future nominees are not blocked and current filibuster rules remain unchanged?

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE WEEK OR HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION:
“We’re having difficulty coming up with exact language which would portray that desire. It’s tough,” McCain told “Fox News Sunday.”

"Dealmakers to meet over judges standoff." See link.

Filibuster Final Draft

FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.

What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.

The Mother of All Flushes

Going back to my old style of writing I have a quick filter of the highly filtered news. On the recent scandal at Newsweek or rather “Setup”
or UN Like Rather setup: It reminds me of the old WMD falderal. How? Well it begins with what is the truth or where do we begin?. I take back my comment on old style since I seem to have evolved a bit if nothing much else has changed. But the truth about WMD as well as the facts or which came first their existence or removal? If the disrespect for the Koran exists and there has been more than one report of that occurring it is the administrations job to prove that these did not occur. The problem here is that the truth is not something that you can pick or choose nor kill the messenger for trying to get at. I certainly have no first hand knowledge, but it seems that facts are beside the issue of checking reports and proving the negative. It seems that there are many reports of the Koran landing somewhere no matter what you call it. It seems that Newsweek ran their piece by the Defense Department, with some changes made. So the farthest from this frame is to blame the messenger.

[I had to attach the link, to give some credit as it is still unread. But it is another irony or hypocrisy (depending if you or left or right brain thinking) in the UN Oil for Food scandal being a Weapon of Media Distraction from taking responsibility for our own actions.].

Preemption not Prevention but Prediction

I have yet to more than barely read the following three sites, politicalwire.com timesonline.co.uk guardian.co.uk. which I found simply by doing a search for Downing Street Memo
But it is clear to me that this information must have been filtered through what is known as open source intelligence well before the congress voted on the Iraq Resolution. Just as it may be difficult for real information to pass through the “objective filter” which the president calls his staff, there is much that is poorly strained in reaching the public as well as our representatives.
My post is evidence of my conviction at that time.

More than just filtering the facts, reading between the lines before the dots are connected seems the only way to analyze the administration. It seems that my theory that people will follow what you do whether or not they know what you mean can also be taken preemptively, and that is also a two-way street. Preemption is not just prevention, it can be prediction, unless you count on someone to know better.