Issue:Could be an opportunity for VDSS - Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/22/2005 | Democrats: Machines must get vote:

Specific: "Jordan B. Yeager, an attorney for the Democratic Committee, told the commissioners at yesterday's year-end meeting in Doylestown that the state election code and the state constitution require the referendum."


Comment: Maybe a call is in order.

A Few obeservations with using a bit of emotional intelligence:

Alaska's Senator Stevens was visibly upset that the Arctic drilling amendment to a defense appropriations bill was removed. His dismay was expressed on the floor of the senate while wearing a tie for the graphic novel character - "The incredible HULK". I think that tie took away some of the impact of his message. Or was he saying I tried to sneek one passed you and I got caught? He may not know. But the tie was saying something as loudly as any of the emotion of his words. It is a shame that the clarity of his message was lost.

-------

I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the President of the United States. I want to be able to follow the emotional reasoning of his policies, words, actions. When I find myself in disagreement with someone - I look to resolve it. I think that if I can empathize with his being - "walk a mile in his shoes" it might be possible to accept him and support his policies. He only wants to do well for the country. beyond that last sentence, I start having difficulty.

It occurred to me recently, that there is at least one fundamental issue. The word "Mankind" has a different interpretation for the President from my understanding. When I think of "mankind" there is a vagueness to it. This ambiguity is derived from the fact that I cannot know or imagine all of the possibilities of what it means. I sense that the President feels he must know.

This in important because his policies involve a lot of anger and revenge. It involves physical pain. He does not see bad guys as human. The History Channel had a show on the WWI Christmas Truce. This is the real story of how ordinary foot soliders from both sides came together at Christmas for a period.

The thought is that in order for peace, this kind of activity must be imaginable. The history suggests the profitability of such sentiments. The Administration does not clarify the nature of the "evil", and therefore one cannot begin to imagine peace with "evil" - so a perpetual state of war will continue.

It suggests that this could be a motivation for the administration. Not even oil is as valuable to the administration and his supporters than a permenant state of war. No one made a buck from peace.

Peace on Earth - 'tis the season. Oh wait - even here Bill O'reilly thinks Christmas is being attacked and eeds defending. The History Channel offers yet another instructive lesson with a show on the History of Christmas. The word that comes to mind from watching the show - evolution.

Christmas in America, according to the broadcast, has not been the same since day one and has been changing. December 25th is not really the actual birth date of Jesus Christ - according to the experts in the show. According to the show it was an accomodation by the church to pagan to bring them into the "fold". It was an evangelical move of sorts. It seems there was a pagan "sun" god name Mithra who was celebrated to be born on the 25th.

The evergreen christmas tree in America was an accomodation to recent immigrants of the "old country" as another means to celebrate.

Many of the things that are considered "traditional" are not religious at all. The are habits or customs started with the design to bring people together in the cold of winter.

Bill O'Reilly would have Christmas be cast in stone and never change. This is predictable of the "conservative" mindset. Never improve, never change - is that why the President is always reminding us of how far we've come? Is it possible that he thinks America is better off with a reality of his choosing that will not change? A culture that will stagnate. A culture full of fear of the new and changing? That's the neo-con ideology. That's a culture that can be politically controlled and mainpulated for profit by the corporations and not the individual.

Issue:Credibility of the President - Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls - New York Times:

Specific:"without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases"

Comment:What are the preventive measures to stop the President from changing the definitions of who is a threat to national security - as Richard Nixon did as part of the Watergate scandal. What is to stop the President from using the results of this power for purely domestic purposes? When does the opponent of his policy become a threat to national security?

Issue:The best explanation I've heard - What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics | csmonitor.com:

Specific:"Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom any more than Ptolemaic astronomy and for exactly the same reason: They are both poor accounts of the phenomena they seek to explain and both much improved upon by other available theories."

Issue:Consequences - What Consequences? CNN.com - Transcript of Bush speech - Dec 18, 2005:


Specific: "I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. "

Comment:The man does not have to face a re-election. The Judicial Branch has minds sympathetic to his political philosophy. Congress is controlled by his party. When he leaves office, he will have health care and personal protection for the rest of his life.

What consequences could he imagine? What is a threat ? He has proven time and again that he is not swayed by polls. He as indicated that he doesn't make mistakes. There is the questions about his reading/news habits. Either he is in touch with the news and lied about not reading the papers or actually is in the "Bubble" that Newsweek perceives and is not getting all the information. He has a network dedicated to spinning news to being favorable to him.

What consequences?

The line for the Mel Brooks movie "Blazing Saddles" comes to mind in combination with executive order to spy on American. "..Badges??, we don't need to stinking Badges..."


Address:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/index.html

Issue:Material to Remember when reading about the surveillance story - George Bush and God A hot line to heaven Economist.com:

Specific: "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president. "

Comment:To what ends will someone who holds such a belief go to identify enemies and protect what he believes needs protecting?

Evaluate the logic in the Valeire Plame story and Bob Novak's recent revelations, in combination with the President's faith and the surveillance story. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the War on Terrorism and Iraq is motivated for reasons other than the protection of the American people?

Remember, New Orleans was a democratic town, and the rebuilding is still a second tier consideration for the administration in terms of dollars. The President didn't cause it in anyway. He has not responsibility for rebuilding it - except that he pledged that he would.

The War effort is rumored to get another 150 billion dollars to the 3.1 Billion that New Orleans is getting.

What are the true motivations of this President and administration. He is having credibility issues and the logic of his policies are not synchronized to making sense.

--------------
Address: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861"

Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005: Drudge is a NEO-CON sympathizer - Is the Cold War Over?

Specific: "NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers 'news break' is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that 'months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.'

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many 'explosive newsbreaking' stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

'STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration' is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing... "


COMMENT:The observation is that Drudge is more alarmed that the NYT didn't reveal something than he is of the Federal Government not revealing something. He is more concerned about the power of the NYT, than the power of the Federal Government.

This suggests that he is less concerned about the "body politic" the individuals than the government.

A theme that I've seen else, but was less inclined to accept, is the notion that the middle class is under attack. This presentation by Mr. Drudge and this policy of surveillance combined with the Administration secretiveness suggest a social category is indeed under attack.

The elevation of concern about China's market by financial media elites supports a notion that maybe the neo-con feels that the need to clear out the American middle-class in order to make room for the rise of a Global middle-class to be dominated by foreign markets like China. Perhaps Corporate American board room feel they can maintain growth by courting the markets of the developing world - like Inda and China.

Perhaps the cold war is not over - but it simply partner have changed. Who brung ya to the dance is not who you go home with.

-----------------
Address:"http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm"

Issue:Credibility - Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - New York Times

Specific: "Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications"

Comment: There are 2 aspects of this that are troubling. First and foremost is that it was without judicial branch supervision. The President did not feel encumbered by any sense of check or balance. The other is that it has been 3 years it has been going on.

Remeber, this is an administration that has been inclined towards propaganda and disinformation. So, when after 3 years, we NOW find out that about the surveillance - is it reasonable to believe that it was ONLY international calls?

I recognize that "conspiracy" thinking can enables one to jump to conclusions too soon. That is a bad thing to do. To be avoided. Let's face it, even the President did that concerning WMD. Oh, excuse me - he had faulty intelligence.

But it is worth noting that social click's do exist. Social groups don't have to be secretive to not share information. They simply do not communicate. So as I have suggested on past occasions, there could be a social group that happen to be in control of both the federal government and a popular political party - that simply does not communicate. The Neo-Cons could be should a group.

Is this group something to be discussed? Just not over the phone. Where can one have privacy?

Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Commentary on the President's most recent Iraq speech

I watched the speech and wrote down a couple of notes that may or may not make sense without a fuller context - but here goes.

In terms of the word "victory" - there is some kind of specific objective event that has a temporal delineation. When the clock runs to 0:00 in football, the game is over and the winner is known. In WWII, victory was known with the bombing of Hiroshima. The cold war ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.

These are icon that mark the moment of victory. What will be the icon for the end of the War on Terrorism and define the victor?

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and therefore will never go away. Only the people who are defined as terrorists will change.

Islamo-facism is not a state specific principle, so what will be the Hallmark of the end? China is still communist, so did the collapse of the Berlin Wall really end the cold-war against communism?

The President made the observation that the Terrorist can't defeat our military - and he is right in the traditional sense. But this is an unconventional enemy in and unconvetional form of warfare, so why is the President committed to defining victory in rhetorically conventional terms?

Should not victory and defeat be defined for this unconventional war in unconventional or non-traditional terms? Is this President doing that?

Hurricane Katrina wiped out an entire American City - and America survived. It can be argued that we thrived based on the 3rd quarter GDP figures.

Without being indifferent to the deaths in N.O. or in Iraq or even 9/11 - there is an observation to be made.

We have taken the best punches of nature and bad guys and survived and flourished. Is this not a notable fact for determining motivations of the Administration and the neo-con's of the Republican party?

It goes to control.

It is my understanding that the War on Terrorism is fast approaching 500 Billion dollars. If 100 billion have been committed to New Orleans I would be amazed.

What is the definition of Homeland Security in the context of these observations?

The President admitted it was his decision for go to war on faulty intelligence, and he would do it again. Why? What's the need?

It seems that if we could raise a culture to build and construct things that was as passionate as the gun culture, then destruction could be seem as an opportunity for renewal rather than revenge.

A HomeDepot culture instead of NRA culture, removes the ability for terroist to do us harm. A HomeDepot Culture would mourn the dead and care for the injured by rebuilding bigger and better. The NRA culture (lead by the NEO-CONs) seek revenge because it enhances different priorities that are not specific to the individual.

Issue:Bush Acknowledges Heavy Toll in Iraq - New York Times - but is that the point of my opposition?:

Specific:"For the first time, the president also put a number on the approximate numbers of Iraqis killed - 30,000 he said - since the beginning of the American-led invasion in March 2003"

Comment:Let's be clear. The President is a simplistic, straight-forward in his rhetoric. No shades of gray or subtly in him. So I will be on that level. Peace in the Middle-east is of great value.

There is a price.

Now we are simply haggling over the price. This should have been done before - not after.

Are we really haggling rhetorically about the price? Is this really about Peace in the Middle East? Is this really about protecting Americans and the Homeland?

30 thousand Iraqi's dead. More than 2 thousand American soldiers. Countless families disrupted or torn apart by the injuries to the mind and body.

Let me put something else to be considered on the bargaining table. The City of New Orleans. It has been better than 2 months since city was destroyed - does it matter if it was by a force of nature or the hand of man? This President sold us the Iraq war against Saddam by using the twin towers to amplify the fear of what happened in New Orleans - the destruction of an American city. So what if the destruction came from a storm cloud instead of a mushroom cloud.

It has happened, and the President is looking in the other direction. He choose violence and destruction, and would do it again. His Neo-con element would do it again. I believe it because it is the alogrithm or logic of this administration. They are seeking power and only power, for the sake of power and control.

If what motivated this administration was truly the welfare people of the United States, then New Orleans would be rebuilt before Baghdad, alternative fuels would be elevated to Moon-shot levels, and practical security like harbor protection, border security.

Ok, given that we have no choice - I ain't buying from this sales organization for nothing more than he got WMD wrong. If he was so wrong about that why should we trust him now? What's he going to be the next thing he is wrong about?

This President decided to change humanity by believing that it is better to lead with the power of fear than by reason.
This President decided to change humanity by playing on a human weakness - fear.
How long will a change based on a weakness last?
It is a good to build from something that is weak?

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is famous because of the empowering sensation of the logic and reason, than the man who said it. It plays on a strength - courage, logic and reason.

President Bush and the neo-cons do want "we the people" to feel empowered. This is why I reject this President or any poltical force or entity that does not want to enable one to be politically empowered. This is a principle.

For me th Iraq war debate is not about staying or going.
It's about the powershift involving the American citizen.
What's the price of this powershift? That's the debate

--------
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=0dfcf1cab7fc0691&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Issue:Characterisitic attiude of the element controlling the Republican Party -courant.com | Ann Coulter Cuts University Speech Short :

Specific:"'I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,' Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday. "

Comment: This is another indication of the character of the neo-con elements that are in control of the Republican party, White House and Congress.

Yes, she was indeed being heckled. I don't mind that she took a shot back. The character flaw is that it lacked humor and bite. It was a demonstration of a lack of thought that is the flaw.

If this was her first experience confronting a hostile crowd, a lack of thought would be understandable. But she has been out there for some time. It is clear that she is indifferent to what other think or feel about her opinion. This is characteristic of the controlling element of the Republican party.

Issue:Show Me the Science - The Archive - The New York Times

Specific: "Only an intelligent designer could have created such a..."

Comment: The advocates of "intelligent designer" are simply Earth focused. There are some observations from Astronomy that need to be addressed by these advocates.

Observation 1: The number of stars burning in the visible Universe is greater that number of human that ever lived. Even the most passionate advocate for God, believes that the stars are real. Is there something to be said about the priorities of the creation humanity and the creation of stars. Even the bible states that man was not created first - it was light - and presumably that means the stars - all of the stars. Is it reasonable to ask if there is purpose or function for creating so much for so little return?

Observation 2: Does the theory of "Intelligent Design" rule out the possibility that life on Earth was seeded? Perhaps a comet or asteroid impact? Is it so far reaching to think that the elements of life remained separated in a ball of ice, until the heat and pressures of an impact, initiated a sequence?

Observation 3: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer.

Observation 4: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer with divinity.

Issue:Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/11/2005 | Robertson says Dover deserves snub from God: "Robertson says Dover deserves snub from God"

Specific: This goes to the radical notion that is controlling foreign policy, the republican party, supreme court nominations - aka the Bush administration.

Remember Reverend Dobson during Harriet Miers process.

Remember this same man of the cloth advocated the assasination of a specific head of state.

Remember that one should not try to bend the spoon with your mind, for that is impossible. One must realize that is not real. The spoon is behavior? - something to explore.

Issue:Can Democracy have a Holy War?

Source:BBC - Press Office - George Bush on Elusive Peace:

Specific:"Nabil Shaath says: 'President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ?' And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it.''

Comment:Should this be scary? What if the American people are not as afraid as the President and the Neo-Cons believe we should be of extremist? What will be their reactions?

Where is the logic and reason that was fundamental to American pragmatism. War was a response to a direct and viable threat - like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. War was almost a matter of practicality to defend one's country - not something fought by religious fanatics on both sides.

The BBC is a credible source. Their source being the Palestinian Prime Minister is curious. I question his motivations. Perhaps he feels that this kind of thing will came traction in the American media.

Perhaps it is indicative that so far this has not reached the MSM air waves. The wording is not quite the President in my estimation. Perhaps it is indicative of my inclinations that I should note it.

But on this day, the President has made yet another speech on the Terror War, telling us why we should be afraid. On this day, unnamed sources in the Pentagon have indicated that NYC subways are under threat again. MSNBC Keith Olbermann reported that this pattern has occurred at least 13 times before. I'll follow the President - as long as the threat is real(like a hurricane real) and he does not cry wolf. If this happens too many more times, when it does happen - I may be one who questions if it was caused Al-Qaida or disappointed Neo-Cons.

Issue:Rhetorical evidence of the Right Wing in pursuit of 1 party rule: power for the sake of power only - or - what state of society will satisfy this group?

Source:Wynton C. Hall on Harriet Miers, Supreme Court & 2006 on National Review Online:

Specific:"Virtually any of the usual names discussed ? Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, Priscilla Owens, etc. ? would have sent a clear signal to conservatives that Bush was still fighting their cause, that the licking of fundraising envelopes and endless precinct walking had all not been in vain.
But this threatens that. "

Comment: This comment evokes a sense of entitlement of the neo-conservatives. They feel their "due" is more important than what is good or best for the people. This is mindset in the Republican party that is not of my father's party.

They have the White House, The House, Senate and now the second Supreme court nomination. They have a justified war. They have lowered taxes and a good business cycle. How much more do "they" want? What else is there to want? It is this point that leads to my fear of this ideology in the republican party. That a group of people with all of this control of the country - and yet they feel entitled to more?

And yet it goes even further and deeper. Joe Scarborough gave voice to an opinion of the right to Katie Couric that I've heard a number of times in the past several days. The opinion is one of aggressive hostility. The opinion is that "they want the fight" "They want the nuclear option". The people of the party in control, whose ideology is in control still want "a fight".

What is wrong with this picture? Who or what are they fighting? Why is a fight good for the country right now after Katrina, Rita and high gas prices?

My new conclusion - is that this group is demostrating a pattern that can only lead to soviet style one-party rule and domination and cultural control and stagnation.

I am open minded. I've just finished Walter Isaacsons "Ben Franklin" and in college I've read about communism and the Koran. I am a fan of science fiction, so using my imagination to play out different social visions comes easily to me.

And yet I can't find a different social vision. This "they" - the controlling element of the Republican party - the neo-cons - want to drive the culture back to a time before all of the technological advances enabled their fiscal, social and consequently political power. They want the technology of the 90's and the culture of the fifty or earlier. Somehow they cannot realize that their is a connection that cannot be separated.

The constitution cannot be strictly adhered. The reason is simple - change. We a fifty different states - not 13 colonies. This nation has weapons enough to destroy the planet and yet the party that was fairly elected wants a strict adherence to a document written for and by a society, as if Old Ironsides, not the USS Ronald Reagan was the most powerful ship on the sea.

If "they" are not looking for 1 party rule, then there is an final agenda or a state of society that is being hidden - what is it?

What do they want from us?

Issue:CNN.com - Judge: Priest?likely killed two people in 2002 - Oct 3, 2005 - a possible good to come out of this?:

Specific:"Although Erickson cannot be charged, the victims' families requested the hearing to determine who was responsible for the killings.
The so-called John Doe hearing is used in only a few states, typically as an investigative tool. The hearing was closed to the public, but some reporters were allowed to attend."

Comment:Are there other uses or functionalities of a "John Doe" Hearing? Do other states have these? Could these be legally sanctioned for legal/partisan disputes?

Wow quite a bit has happened since the last time I wrote. There was Katrina and Rita, Justice Roberts, Tom Delay's indictment, Bill Frist's investigation, Judy Miller's release and testimony before the Grand Jury, and let's not the gambling hypocritical conversative Bill Bennett's comments. Where do I begin.

The question of federalism is an interesting starting point. This came up during the Katrina response. The functionality of governance was brought into question because of a Republican administration. This Neo-Con Republican administration pattern of the pursuit of power was highlighted recently by the suggestion that it was ok not to rebuild N.O. because it meant that those who came back would be better off financially and therefore more likely to be Republican.

Republicans do not hesitate to remind Democrats that the people decide to allow others to make the decisions, and therefore America is a Republic. We are not a direct democracy, so that if the people don't like the decision or lack thereof - they can be damned - until the next election. So they say.

This is true but does it absolve the individual of the responsibility to be engaged in some way? Can it be said of the N.O. levee's that not enough people were properly engaged - aisde from being informed. The American society did not properly take care of the people of N.O. 9th ward - before, during or after the hurricanes.

Issue:Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Chavez threatens extradition bid: "Chavez threatens extradition bid "

Comment:There is no specific sentence or point in the article. The thought that cross my mind is the question of Terrorism - ideology or tactic. The question of Free Speech versus Terrorism. There is a charge of "Terroristic threat" in the penal code -I believe.

As a slight aside thought is the notion the phrase - the "ends justify the means". Specifically, the rhetoric I keep hearing - that I heard over the weekend again - - to paraphrase from one of the Sunday morning talking head - "would you rather have Saddam in power instead of having sacrificing 1900?"

Issue:Iraqi Leaders Again Put Off Meeting on New Constitution - New York Times:

Specific:"It appears, however, that no agreement has been reached so far with the Sunnis on the question of federalism, which would essentially set up powerful local regions instead of a strong central government."

Comment:I would suggest that the all parties involved may be suffering a sort of Post-traumatic Stress disorder from their years under Saddam. I would further suggest that the heavy handedness of President Bush is causing the Iraqi's to not own the process. By "no owning" the process it is easier for those involve to dismiss. It seems to be a part of human nature to hestitate or balk at change when the idea of change is imposed. It seems to be a part of human nature to be resistant to the emotional commitment to an idea, when there is no reason - that you are being told.

I studied political science in college and history. I understand what is federalism. I probably wrote an essay justifying federalism in some way. The question I less sanquin about is the "need" for federalism. As a major in political science I could probably exlpain the value to an common Iraqi who was familiar with western tradition.

Is it reasonable to think that an ordinary Iraqi who only knows Arabic or Middle Asian tradition is going to easily emotionally commit to Federalism or other western forms of governance that did not originate in a form that is not of a tradition he/she is familiar? These are a percentage of the players deciding the Iraqi Constitution now.

I suspect that there is a sense of pressure coming from within Iraqi governance to Iraqi people that looks and feels like a Saddam lite - a Saddam without the murdering. That is coming from Uncle Sam looking over the shoulder of Iraqi governance.

As a student of political science I am intently watching, because I'm waiting to see some kind of move or speech or process in this Iraqi synthesis that has some kind of parallel to the American process. A "something" that says - if you build a nation with a constitution - you need to do xyz steps.

Issue:ABC News: Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks:

Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "

Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.

The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".

The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.

This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.

Issue:ABC News: Robertson Apologizes for Chavez Remarks:

Specific: "On Monday's telecast of his Christian Broadcasting Network show 'The 700 Club,' Robertson had said: 'You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.' "

Specific:On Wednesday, he initially denied having called for Chavez to be killed and said The Associated Press had misinterpreted his remarks.
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson said on his show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

Comment:This is a first person confirmation that Pat Robertson did indeed use the word "assassination" on Monday.

The reason this is siginificant for comment is because it goes to the nature and quality of "spin" used by the political right bent news outlets. It goes to the blind spot the right has to the "truth" in favor of "fair and balanced".

The Drudge report headlined the apology as a "misinterpretation" - they didn't bother to research it or check it out. Surfing the last could of days I crossed FOX news doing their thing on Chavez. It struck me as a parallel to treatment of Saddam. They called chavez a "neo-communist". I got the impression that Fox News was supporting Pat Robertsons proposition, even if it is wrong for him to suggest it.

This is yet another distinction between the Republican party of my father's generation and the Republican party of today. It supports the notion that there is an element in the body politic of the "right" that pursues power and control while dismissing truth when it becomes inconvenient. It suggests that the "ends justify the means" which I date back to Ronald Reagan and Oliver North.

Issue:Bush Rebuts Calls for U.S. to Pull Out of Iraq - New York Times:

Specific: "''So long as I am president we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism,'' he declared."

Comment:This bring me back to the notion of a perpetual war. A conflict without solution. There is no way to objective determine the measure.

What is victory over terrorism? Is it state of mind? Is it a time with certain conditions? Is it simply a matter of finding Bin Laden?

Is this simply the Presidents subjective and personal definition?

Issue:Televangelist Calls for Assassination of Chavez - New York Times:

Sepcific:"''We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,'' Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's ''The 700 Club.''
''We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,'' he continued. ''It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.''"

Specific:Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

Comment:Perhaps this should be 2 items. This is just plain wrong for a leader of faith to advocate the death of another.

The other comment is the notion that President Bush is not far removed from Pat Robertson on an ideological level. So why should we think that if the President had the chance or opportunity that he would not do it? I would speculate that there are some in the administration that could find parrallels between Saddam and Chavez. Let's be particular - Saddam's crime is to have killed thousands - it is not because he had WMD. By this measure Saddam is no worse than a dozen Central America dictators.

Issue:Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views):


Specific:
18) Tom Tancredo (4)
18) Ralph Reed (4)
18) Newt Gingrich (4)
18) Lincoln Chafee (4)
18) James Dobson (4)
18) George Pataki (4)
18) Arnold Schwarzenegger (4)
14) Tom DeLay (5)
14) Rush Limbaugh (5)
14) George Voinovich (5)
14) Chuck Hagel (5)
13) Andrew Sullivan (6)
11) Tucker Carlson (7)
11) Bob Novak (7)
9) Sean Hannity (8)
9) Rick Santorum (8)
8) Arlen Specter (10)
7) Jerry Falwell (15.5)
6) Bill O'Reilly (16)
5) Michael Savage (17)
4) Pat Robertson (19.5)
3) Ann Coulter (20)
2) John McCain (21)
1) Pat Buchanan (28)


Comment:This will require some thought. What is wrong with the picture? Where on the political spectrum are these "right wingers" that dislike this crowd? Who are they?

Issue:The All Spin Zone / Missing Pregnant 25 YO Mother Alert (Non-White Division):

Specific: "Lastly, I note that �Natalee Holloway� rates �about 5600� Google News hits, while �Latoyia Figueroa� rates two. Here's hoping your show and CNN's website can contribute another hit for Latoyia."

Comment:This observation reasonable and valid and I will assume accurate. When Fox News indicates that it is "fair and balanced" and spends months talking about the investigation in Aruba, something is wrong with the picture. Greta Van Sustern had another show dedicated to the Aruba story last night.

It should be noted that other main-stream media also have failed to pick up the story.

It is the unbalanced elements that is notable. It is this kind of unbalanced nature in society that drives my desire for a Voter Decision Support System.

Issue:U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War - New York Times:

Specific:"In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of 'a global struggle against violent extremism' rather than 'the global war on terror,' which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign. "

Comment:There is no event or activity that is new in this story. Only the name has changed. Young Men are dying in our Military, Civilians are dying and it is no longer a "War". It is a "struggle". How should I treat the next Solider I meet? Should I applaud him for serving in a struggle? In my opinion - Yes - but that is because I understand the history of war a bit.

The next generation will view a "struggle" as something different. Like Veterans of the Korean War, who are generally less honored than those of WWII.

This is propaganda at it's purest form. It is perhaps rhetorical, but it is not used in the context of a debate. It is the thing being debated, but not a point used to advance a point in the debate.

Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�:

Specific:"Iraq's Shiite majority community said Friday that they had collected one million signatures demanding the withdrawal of US-led troops."

Comment: Mr. President - does this mean we are being asked to leave Iraq by Iraqi's? If not, who then is the legitimate party to make the request - Is it only the people the CPA appointed?

Issue:Blogcritics.org: Star Trek's James Doohan Dies:

Specific: "I believe Star Trek has always been about more than distant planets and strange looking aliens and lovely space sirens to whom Kirk can make love because he is the bold starship captain, a Caesar of the stars. No, I think the true and underlying reason for the mission is to find God. Why has the human race always looked to the stars? Because there is hope in the infinite reaches of space, the endless and inconceivable expanse between galaxies, and the unimaginable touch of time, all of which insinuate the existence of a creator. "

Comment:This is perhaps the best phrasing of the meaning of Star Trek. Perhaps this is the value of Star Trek!

Can I find God in the Mission from the Great Bird - Gene Roddenberry?
A spirituality with God that is accepted by the rest of society?
Or is such a faith doomed to be classified as akin to a druid or wicken - something not of a real belief system?

Issue:9 out of 10 teens on the Internet - is the banner head line - as if this is a concern to Matt Drudge:

Specific: "That's an increase of about 38 percent, compared with 2000 results."

Comment: Two things to note from this piece. First was the source of the hyperlink. This article was a hyperlink from the Drudge Report on 7/28/2005 at 10:22am Eastern time. Because it was a headline - it was very suggestive to me.

It suggested that I should be concerned about teens being on the internet. I asked myself why? Given that the Drudge report leans right, Santorum right, it suggested an exposure to things they should not be.

This raises an observation and a curiosity about the internet and the political right. I suspect that many who don't understand or use the internet and are of a right persuasion, believe that it is full of pornography. This is disappointing and depressing as a programmer.

On the upside however, the potential of a Massively Mulitplayer Online Game or a MMOG that has real world ties maybe high and politically valuable. Imagine a story game that awards points and powers for real-world/Real-time information. The more informed citizen like activities, the higher the point value. Say voting in an election getting the highest points...Volunteering to clean up a highway on an afternoon get so many points to vanquishing the evil dictator.

More on this another time - watch for it.

Issue:Sunnis Suspend Participation in Iraqi Constitution Panel - New York Times

Comment:Can you spell "Civil War"?

Issue:CNN.com - Bush vows to fire anyone who committed crime in CIA leak - Jul 18, 2005:

Specific:"...if anyone committed a crime in connection with the leak..."

Comment: Just like the House Republicans did with Tom Delay. Change the rules of the game. The ends justfiy the means. Karl Rove is an untouchable. It change from anyone "involved" to "committed a crime" or next convicted of a crime.

Hell, The Presidents administration covered this up for 2 years already. The President had to have known this much before this point.

And we are to believe him about WMD?

Issue:GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements:

Specific:There is no specific thing to highlight

Comment:The thing to note is that question of who is leader, who is accountable? Joe Wilson (accurate or not) was attempting to question a policy that lead to a war that has killed thousands - some patriots, some innocent citizens of Iraqi.

And now this is twice, when the veracity or credibility of the President is very open to questions. Initially he very clearly that Rove had ANY participation in the Plame affair. There is also the assertion in the State of the Union that WMD existed.

Joe Wilson may have lied. The President may have lied. Rove may have lied. But of the three who is supposed to be accountable? Does the size of the lie make a difference?

Certainly the position from which the deception originated make the "size of the lie" bigger and more significant.

Issue:GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: In Case You Missed It: Karl Rove, Whistleblower:

Specific:"For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real 'whistleblower' in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. "


Comment:This is logical. But it is also spin. It is this kind of argument that defines the need for an informed Citizen to have some sort of Decision Support System.

Issue:Past White House Briefings on C.I.A. Leak Case - New York Times:

Specific from 9/30/2003 - 2 years ago:
"Q. Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him
A. Listen, I know of nobody - I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."


Comment: Supports the notion of power for the sake of power alone. Easily as bad a Nixon. He is covering up an illegal act. There is no evidence that is all. Republicans chased Bill Clinton for 8 years with Ken Starr and WhiteWater. When it is their own boy, Republicans look past it. Just ask Tom Delay.

Issues:Why Bush Has To Fire Rove - Yahoo! News:

Specific: " Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: in both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring the national security interests of the nation to score a political point against a policy foe.
This ought to get Rove fired--unless he resigns first."

Comment:Bush is too loyal to his Friends. Bush puts friendship above national security. Above all else.

Just ask Condi who got the WMD wrong.
Ask Rumsfeld who got the post-Saddam Iraq wrong.
And there are more...

Issue:WSJ.com - Cooper Email Identifies Rove As a Source:

Specific" "After a week of seemingly contradictory reports, one fact appears to have solidified: Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and architect of President Bush's election victories, was a key confidential source used by Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper in his July 2003 article about a Central Intelligence Agency operative."

Comment:Guess who will get a "walk" - and on a "technicality" - the kind of thing Republicans used to complain about.

Issue:Terrorism: Goals and Responses:

Specific:"Islamofascist actions might be tactically motivated by a real or alleged injury of the objects of their emotional identification. Strategically, however, these battles are only a detail of a war. It is aimed in its first stage at reestablishing control over whatever Islam might have controlled or had claimed historically."

Comment:This is a truly unique perspective. The concern is that he ignores 9/11 and America. Why bring America into the battle either tactically or strategically? What is the advantage to fighting America now?

This is characteristic of conservative writings.
It leaves me with more questions, rather than making me feel I understand and maybe agree with the perspective.

I will not agree with or go along with a perspective that I don't understand.
One of many reasons to go along with any perspective is the abscence of questions and or concerns.

The 9/11 hole in this writer's logic is too big a question for me.

Issue:Bush finds no friends at networks -- The Washington Times:

Specific:"President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.
More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). "

Comment: This is propaganda. It is slanted because it does not evaluate the legitimacy and accuracy of the negative stories.

Where is the quantification of actually negative stories. Example: The story of the President falling off his bike at the G8 conference. The only way to "spin" this story into a positive is to not report the story or dismiss it as irrelevant.

So is the story of the President falling to be counted as a "negative story"
So is the story dismissing the original story as irrelevant to be counted as "negative"

Objectivity or scientific rationality is one method of reducing partisanship.

Issue: CNN.com - Al Qaeda 'targeting UK recruits' - Jul 9, 2005:

Specific:"'Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reason/arguments,' the report says, according to the newspaper"

Comment:Some of the talking heads immediately following the London Bombing indicated a disbelief that message was for something in response to London getting the Olympic. They indicated that the preparation time was too short for such a complicated effort.
This is reasonable and I agree

They indicated that it was intended to make some kind of commentary on the Financial system or sectors.
This also seems reasonable and I agree

They also indicated that the patterns were designed for maximum damage. It was intended to create a maximum body count.
This I'm not certain I agree.

What about Live8?
If the terrorists wanted a message to get out - with the world watching that concert
Why was there not an attack on the concert?

The lack of an attack on Live8 supports a couple of notions.
It supports the notions of Tom Friedman that Al Queada and/or the Terrorist Bombers are a response to American/Western activities in the Middle East.

It supports the notion that they are discipline and intelligent - and therefore can be reasoned with.
Peace can be had, as England acheived with the IRA of Ireland.

It supports the notion that a motivation of Al Qaeda is a humiliation factor.

I cannot be more emphatic about this next point.
The Bombings in London, 9/11 or the attacks in Madrid or Bali are the most horrific and terrible acts.
These kinds of things must be stopped. No doubt. No Hesitation.
America should be protected.

The Terrorist cannot be defeated unless we can think as they think.
My doubts lie in the ability to defeat anything that is not understood completely.
The Bush Administration policy suggests it believes it does understand.
The Bush Administration policy suggests it is simple as Evil.
Defeat Evil and you win.
And the circle continues.
And the war continues.
The perpetual war.
The never ending war.

America is then protected by transforming into a culture of war
Who has won?

Issue:Rush-Hour Strike Wounds Up to 1,000; Blair Sees G-8 Link - New York Times:

Specific:"...No arrests have been made. The attacks were 'deliberately designed to kill and injure innocent members of the public,' Brian Paddick, London's assistant police commissioner said in a news conference"

Comment:"Barbaric" is appropriate. On the highest order.

Some observations
- Barbarians are not defeated with more or different violence.
- London was physically geared to Terrorist
- sepcifically from the Irish Terrorist
- the "Circle of Steel"
- Camera's focused on every square inch of the city

Yet despite the focus - it still happened
American ports are not secure
American chemical facilities are not secure
The President's air space has been violated a number of times in the past couple of months
Only one party is in charge.
And they are spending BILLIONS in a war that had NO TIES to Terrorism.

It is not unlike the scopes Monkey trial and the play "Inherit the Wind"
The event and the play may have served to refocus attention or to reset the perceptions of what is really the concern.

The perception or point of the play is to draw the attention to McCarthyism. The definitions of the war, and the dangers need to be reassessed. "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and Tom Friedman's essay's and columns indicate the kinds of things we should be focused on.

Issue:NPR : Attacks on Cooper, Miller are Attacks on Press:

Specific:"NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the case of Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, two journalists ordered to reveal confidential sources, amounts to a full-fledged attack on the press."


Comment:The logic he uses is quite reasonable. According to the Government - 3 writers know who made the leak.
2 have cooperated with the government. Yet, the Republican controlled Government is putting the 3rd into jail.

The obeservation is that they are not seeking the truth. They are seeking to punish.

Is there a reason to pursue the rule of law once the truth is known and justice is served? What relevant information could the third writer have that is not in the record already?

Issue:Supervisor makes change from Republican to Democrat (phillyBurbs.com):

Specific: "Fawkes hadn't heard of Eisenhardt's announcement until contacted by a reporter. 'She was a registered Republican, but acted like a Democrat,' Fawkes said. 'I don't pay that much attention to what she does. "

Comment:Good Stuff!

Issue:How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution - New York Times

Specific: "It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make evolution science, far more than its mere correctness"

Comment:This illustrates a characteristic of typical of the Republican Neo-Con that make them unique and not part of the traditional GOP mindset.

It is the RIGIDITY. The article itself make a beautifully reasoned and logical point about science. The point that science is capable of learning and adjusting a mindset.

The Religious right and or the Republican Neo-Con's cannot and do not allow change in dogma. This is why Alberto Gonzales - GW's best friend - is getting static from the right. This is what makes them dangerous.

The Neo-con's are into power for sake of the power.
The Religious right are into power for the sake of God.

Issue:The Editors on Women in Combat & Iran on National Review Online:

Specific:"Although the Army bureaucracy is waging a public-relations war to defeat it, it deserves the support of anyone who cares about the safety and success of our troops � and, most especially, President Bush, who has said recently that he opposes assigning women to ground combat."

Comment:I'm trying to learn. I want to understand. This is a nation that voted Ronald Reagan as the Greatest American- from a list of 100 - beyond any writer, teacher, Founding fathers like: B Franklin, G. Washington...

But I remember my College Professor mother, my wife with a Masters, and my Daughters.

Issue:NR Editors on Iraq on National Review Online:

Specific: "The war on terror began in earnest on 9/11.
Supporters of a radical Islamic ideology struck American on 9/11. The war on terror is not a fight against a tactic (as the name falsely suggests), but against that ideology. The appeal of an ideology ebbs and flows with perceptions of its success. Communism advanced in the third world after its victory in Vietnam. The Islamists would get a similar boost if they were to prevail in Iraq. "

Comment:The following I sent to the author of the editorial -

I sincerely wish to understand. But I'm confused.
Please do not assume my confusion with the rhetoric to be liberal.

Can you accept that your rhetoric might need some clarification?

Are you saying that the name of the war should be a "War on a Bin Laden Islamism"?

I can accept that the war began on 9/11.
I find a few things in conflict and appear paradoxical - can you untangle for me?

If the war is against the Bin Laden style Ideology of Islam
can you direct me to something that describes how this existed in Saddam's Iraq?
I can accept that there were some terrorists in Iraq before the war:
but then why didn't they hold a greater political stake in Iraq before the war?
Are the Sunni's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
Are the Shiite's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
Are the Kurd's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
If the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist were not these groups,
then does this not make them a low rate political power in Saddam Iraq?

I'm all in favor rooting out the bad guys no matter how long it takes.
I'm all in favor of take the battle to them before the battle is on American soil.
This suggest a perpetual state of war - which may be a good thing if it get the job done.
This suggest a War footing for at least several generations of Americans.
The American character will be changed forever.
Is this a good thing?

In the next generation or perhaps the generation after that,
will Americans in general be as tolerant of good flavors of Islam?
Is this a good thing to be intolerant?

And finally, you indicate that Communism advanced in the time after Vietnam.
Am I mistaken, but isn't Communism dead?
Did it not die within 15 years of the end of Vietnam?
Didn't Ronald Reagan win the Cold War?
If not then are we not still in the Cold War?

Perhaps I should be intolerant of editors that don't have the mental discipline and guts to reason.
Prove me wrong.

--------------------------------------------

Let's see if he/she replies...

Issue: Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses - New York Times:

Specific: "''When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,'' he said"

Comment:As Mr. Spock would say - Fascinating.

Issue:Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses - New York Times:

Specific:"''The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,'' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority"


Comment:Praise the lord - Logic and Reason prevail over the Passion.

Issue:ABC News: Rumsfeld: Iraq Insurgency Could Last Years:

Specific:"That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years,' Rumsfeld said. 'Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency"


Comment:OK Americans are going to be at risk for 10 more years, and then it will NOT be the Americans declaring victory.

It will be the Iraqi Security Forces that will declare "Mission Accomplished" Am I missing something?

Issue:CNN.com - Gov. Bush:�Prosecutor taking up Schiavo inquiry - Jun 17, 2005

Specific:"he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m."

Comment:It empties one's spirit to think that this Republican mind-set is pursuing this. It is wrong. No good comes from this. There is no great injustice.

A couple of things to note. I am making a reasonable assumption. I will stand for correction should this assumption be inaccurate. If the AM is accurate, that indicates they were just waking up for the day - at best. At that hour of the day, who actually tells time accurately.

Then there is the notion that if my wife of 24 years was lying still and quiet at that hour, I would be inclined to believe that she was asleep and would not disturb her. If She got up to go to the bathroom, closed the door and I heard something - I might drift off asleep for a bit, thinking my wife simply dropped something.

Then there is the notion that a 2003 interview is some 13 years after the fact. Memories of traumatic events blur with time.

The final observation is that the implausibility that no one before the Governor thought to ask the question!

Issue:The Real News in the Downing Street Memos:

Specific: "virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial 'spikes of activity' didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed."

Comment:This goes to the notion that the Bush administration are not concerned about governance, but about power. "Power" is about getting your way.

Issue:In Reversal After Bush Meeting, Frist Will Seek New Bolton Vote - New York Times:

Specific:"WASHINGTON, June 21 - Senator Bill Frist, the leader of the Senate's Republican majority, abruptly reversed himself after a meeting with President Bush today and said he would schedule another vote on the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. "

Comment:An example of a man that does not take no for an answer. If he doesn't get the vote he wants, he will surely use a recess appointment. Someone over the weekend made the point that the rights of the minority are feature designed into the system. Minority preferences were not to be ignored or dismissed.

For why else would the does the smallest state have as many senators as the largest states. Balance was desired and respect for the minority was a key, check.

This President does not understand the difference between governance and power. This President is simply a bully.

Issue:Reuters AlertNet - CIA's Goss has 'excellent' idea where bin Laden is-Time

Specific: "dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play."

Comment:My father passed away recently. I miss him dearly. We didn’t talk about politics. Yet it was his and my mother’s activism in the Republican party in the 70’s that eventually drew me into Political Science a college major and my form of activism. His Republican party in the 1960’s and 70’s were outnumbered – so as my mother tells it. That’s why they joined the party. They were into good governance – not about power.

Governance versus power, that is a key item we now have to debate. Respect for the man or the Office is part of this debate. Democrats/Liberals can be wrong. They can be clueless. But they are open to discussion. It is this characteristic that is one distinction between good governance and bad. Good governance is a non-partisan concept. For the issues I’m about to raise, I may indeed be wrong and clueless. You the reader should judge. Ask yourself if the issues add up to Good Governance.

H. J. RES. 24 - Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee in April. This is the amendment that prevents Bill Clinton and now George Bush from running for President every 4 years for the rest of their lives.

President Bush does not want to set a pull out date in Iraq. He has set up terrorism as permanent fear, much like communism was positioned during the cold war. Al-Quaida is set up as a perpetually imminent threat. Al-Quaida is a threat – no doubt. One issue of the Vietnam War was that the Vets did not have a parade to honor their sacrifices. Does not a perpetual state of war, against an enemy that is a tactic(not a political philosophy), prevent the parade of honor for Vets of the Iraq war?

Then there is the United Airline pension plan default. This President wants to “fix” social security by adding the burdens of being concerned about the future. In a previous century, when industry broke the promises to the elderly employees, and American government said – we will take care of you. An American government relieved its population of a burden in a time of life that is transitional for family and difficult for the individual.

When the scope of an issue grows because smaller concerns gravitate a problem, a need to categorize, prioritize and define the limits of the smaller issues develops. Limits must be defined. It is good governance to define reporter questions. Such is the Iraq war and the war on Terrorism. Questions like who, what, where, when and why have never been adequately defined by this administration.
Personally, I feel comfortable and more willing to support dramatic policy shifts when I can watch several different media outlets ask variations of the questions. In the periods between shows and questions about the issues, time is spent on bubbling up the next set of questions I need to be answered.
The Bush Administrations secretiveness, lack of open press conferences have not enabled me to get behind a perpetual war on terrorism. There always have been and always will be individuals and groups who want to do harm to Americans. There will be great catastrophes in which large numbers of Americans will get harmed. Al-Quaida is as much a threat as a the idea permanent President.

Is it good governance to be perpetually protecting America from short term threats? In some neighborhoods, it is wise to keep a gun handy while one sleeps. The principle of freedom dictates that those that live in those neighborhoods choose to do so. No one makes them live there, rhetorically speaking. But logic dictates that if they made efforts to protect the neighborhood, they may not need a gun in the bedroom. The risk of accidental shootings in the home are reduced. Children are better protected, when short term threats are addressed by long term thinking.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a philosophy. Yet the administration is treating terrorism as if it is the new communism. It seems reasonable that they do this to enhance their domestic political control.

And then there is the recent comments by Porter Goss concerning sovereignty and Osama Bin-Laden. In case you had not heard, the US govt knows where the number one 9/11 bad guy is located. Yet we are NOT going after him in deference to a respect for the sovereignty of a nation. Personally, I favor respecting a nation’s sovereignty, as sort of a “prime directive”. It is makes sense to me.

But is this good governance to change policy like this in the middle of a war? We occupied 2 nations. Clearly these were acts that did not respect the sovereignty of the particular countries. Yes, indeed we gave them back their countries. So what is the principle? What are we teaching our young?

Mr. President please lead me. When it is ok to occupy/invade a country? What is the principle I can tell my children? Pre-9/11 it was enough to think that if America was attacked – like Pearl Harbor – we are morally justified to stomp on any entity that hit us first. Ok post 9/11 things are different – so what is the rule now?
Is it good governance that such a question can be asked?

Thousands cross the borders from Mexico into the US on a daily basis. Container ships dock in America ports daily with the potentially deadly cargo. Chemical plants with inadequate security. According to news media, these loopholes are as big as pre-9/11. Before you discount some news media, some have gone the extra lengths of actually shipping radioactive material from Asia to Washington DC. Are the fair and balanced media outlets testing our governments security ascertions?

Is it good governance that such security holes exist – 3 years after 9/11?
And yet this party in complete control, wants to eliminate Presidential term limits, before fixing these holes. Is this good governance? Is it fair and balanced governance? Is it good governance? Mr President – what is good governance?

Issue:Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq:


Specific:"Bush's new approach will be mostly rhetorical, however, as the White House does not plan any changes to the policy "


Comment: This is consistent with the notion that Bush does not retreat, does not "cut and run", does not make mistakes. We are to have complete confidence in him simply because he tells us to believe. It is matter of Faith.

Issue:The Interactive Truth - New York Times:

Specific:"What if we all vote on the truth? We don't need to, because we will be overruled by what becomes a legend most: entertainment."

Comment:History is not set in concrete. History is as the scientific method. Everything is a theory. When one drops a hammer, they are testing gravity. The existance of gravity is confirmed only when the hammer hits the floor, not the moment before. As new evidence becomes known, the old theories are tested. If history appears static and cast in concrete, it is only because the length of time since the last piece of new evidence relevant to a question of history is soo long.

There is a mechanism in the systems of society that process this confluence of time and fact.
Myths, legends and folklore are part of that mechanism.

The value of truth is in its static appearance.
The value of truth is that it is not dynamic.
The value of truth is that it is a baseline - a starting point
The value of truth is that anyone can test it,
and get the same answer as the last time.
Therefore the value of history is anyone can test it
and come to their own decision.

Society cannot endure long if the individual is told what is the truth.
It is human nature, the mechanical/analog nature of the brain to make decisions.
It is human nature to be able to separate an internally decision about a truth,
and the outward presentation of that decision.
History is the aggregation of these internal decisions about a truth from each member of a society.

To have a mechanism that enables the testing of truth is good.
To have a mechanism that enables the testing of truth faster is good.
Therefore a wikitorial (a wikipedia style editorial), while uncomfortable, has value.
The discomfort come from fear of change.

To which 2 things come to mind:
After 45 years - Change is a constant.
There truly is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Issue:Lexington Herald-Leader | 06/14/2005 | Mother of dead soldier vilifies Bush over war:

Specific:"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both,' she said.

Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job.

'We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people,' she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. 'Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ,' she said, as the audience of 200 people cheered."

Comment:I found this story via Drudge. The nature of the selection of stories by Drudge is to belittle those in opposition to the political "right" by framing them in a kind "these are the loons" kind of context. Drudge does not select stories to inform. He goes for the headline - the outrageous - what the political right would find outrageous.

So by this selection criteria, this woman's demonstration of pain is outrageous according to Matt Drudge.

Issue:Don't Follow the Money - New York Times:

Specific:"Carl Bernstein calls 'the best obtainable version of the truth.'"

Comment:This is reality from any media. The phrase "Best obtainable version of the truth", allows a story to be told and not dismissed because there may be technical gaps. This allows logic and reason to bolster "truth", and to dismiss excessive passion and the tunnel visioned.

"The best obtainable version of the truth" - this is the objective and function of history.

Issue:CNN.com - Military academies attract fewer applicants - Jun 14, 2005

Comment:While the President is looking to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, he is losing with Americans. This is a stage setting for things to come. Specifically a new kind of vulnerability. How it will take shape is not clear. This is a relevant poll that the Administration should note.

Issue:An Important Election Safeguard - New York Times:

Specific:"The solution is to require that each machine produce a paper record that can be inspected and verified by the voter. The paper records are then stored, and can be counted after the polls close. If the results on the machine do not match the tally of the paper records, it will be clear that there is a problem"


Comment:This is a gist of the idea that was/is Voter Decision Project since back in the late 80's. Back then the idea of voting using computers was ridiculous. But the core need for accountability to the voter by the "system" was/is key. I speculated that ATM machines might be utilized because they already provided the technical facility of software and a receipt. I was working at a company call SEI on a product called TRUST-AID. The design of that system, combined with my education at Temple University, allowed to explore these issues from a political rhetoric basis and a technical basis.

I encoutered confusion and concern from people. It was too foreign an idea. Computers and politics? It was too sci-fi. It was/is too democratic.
I never had the courage to ask for real money to develop the idea.

Issue:CNN.com - Time�report fuels Guantanamo criticism - Jun 13, 2005:

Specific:"'If in fact we are treating prisoners this way, it's not only wrong, it's dangerous and very dumb and very shortsighted,' Hagel said."

Comment:Far-sighted or visionary and smart are not high on possible lists of characterisitics to describe the Bush administration. Some other blog or article asked the question - is this what President Bush means by "values"?

Issue:The Downing Street Memo Story Won't Die: "The story attracted some news coverage in the United States, but not much. Last month, the Chicago Tribune concluded that 'the Downing Street memo story has proven to be something of a dud in the United States."


Comment: Why has it not gotten more traction? The Bush administration simply dismisses it as not being real. And since the Republicans control the investigations - the are dealing with it much the way they are dealing with Tom Delay.

Republicans are not about accuracy in historical terms. They are not into truth. They are into power only. This again furthers the notion that truth and reality at the national level, is merely a means to an end. The end is power.

Issue:The secret Downing Street memo - Sunday Times - Times Online

Comment: This should be a bigger issue for the Bush administration.

Issue:CNN.com - Bush: Syria must not interfere in Lebanon - Jun 10, 2005: "Bush: Syria must not interfere in Lebanon"

Specific:A senior State Department official told CNN that the United States has received what it believes are credible reports that Syria has drawn up a "hit list" of Lebanese political figures targeted for assassination in an effort to regain control of the country.

Comment:What flashes in my mind is reaction of a mindset that doesn't make mistakes. This smacks of picking a fight. A line in the sand - again.

Given the offensive that took heavy losses on the Iraq/Syrian border last month, combined with rumors that any WMD were moved to Syria before the war, how much more of a reason would the administration need?

I'm all in favor of homeland security and fighting terrorism.
With our relations with Iraq, Iran and Korea in militarily sensitive states, what is the President to do if the Syrians tell him to go blow it out his ass?

How is he to follow through?
How "credible" is "credible reports" from the same administration that sold us a war on WMD as an imminent threat?

With a genocide taking place in Africa, which is allegedly an important piece in the President's foreign policy - how could he justify another war that would not benefit Africa or stop the genocide?

Isn't one of the charges against Saddam, that he killed thousands?
Isn't a genocide more serious than the tragic and unecessary deaths of those thousands of Iraqi's?

Not in the President book apparently.

Issue: Me thinkst thou protest too much?TV show depicts 9/11 as Bush plot - The Washington Times: World - June 09, 2005: "TV show depicts 9/11 as Bush plot"

Specific #1:"According to the plot, which was seen by approximately 7 million Germans, the dead man had been trained to be one of the September 11 pilots but was left behind, only to be tracked down and killed by CIA or FBI assassins.
The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her"

Specific #2: "Any claim or suggestion that the United States government was behind the 9/11 disaster is absolutely absurd and not worthy of further comment," said Robert A. Wood, spokesman for the embassy.

Observation: This TV show was not presented as reality

Comment:Okaaay. Why is this being reported here in the states? Why is it worthy of a diplomatic exchange? A possible pattern begins to emerge. Republicans wishing to be upset at fictional content. Or are they actually open to discussing different points of view? Recently it was Tom Delay commenting on Law and Order. Before that there was Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.

What's curious to me about all three events is an apparent rhetorical diversion of sorts. The focus of the episode aka the directors artistic commentary is ignored. The focus of the episode aka the directors artistic commentary is not addressed head-on.

The Republican pattern still remains clear - do not engage.
Pursuit of the development of a shared or centrist governance is not done by Republicans.
Is there not a responsibility of those with power, to manage it for the benefit of all?
Republicans of this generation do not seem to acknowledge this responsibility.

It will be quite a day, when a Republican of this stripe, seeks to build on from ideas presented as fiction. Democrats do it and they are denegrated.

Issue:Deep Throat Speaks

Specific:"While publicly ordering the FBI to investigate, he secretly directed a coverup intended to prevent the agency from confirming the connections between his campaign and the Watergate burglars"

Comment:The he is "President Nixon". He operated a "bait and switch" on the FBI.

This is a tactic of politicians, even honorable ones. It is a tool of in the science of politics and rhetorical debate. Say one thing and mean another.

In terms of the current administration - WMD and Iraq come to mind. CNN had a story were a military official was saying that the Iraqi's "invited" us.

What is President Bush's impression of Mr. Felt?

Given the administrations bent on secrecy and its inability to indentify Valerie Plame's leaker - is it stretch to think that the President will not comment or honor Mr. Felt.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Issue:Day 141 of Bush's Silence - New York Times

Specific:"Today marks Day 141 of Mr. Bush's silence on the genocide, for he hasn't let the word Darfur slip past his lips publicly since Jan. 10"

Comment:This strikes me as dissonant with the notion of a compassionate conservative. It is wrong.

Issue:CNN.com - DeLay angered by 'Law & Order' mention - May 27, 2005

Specific: "This manipulation of my name and trivialization of the sensitive issue of judicial security represents a reckless disregard for the suffering initiated by recent tragedies and a great disservice to public discourse," DeLay wrote in a letter to NBC President Jeff Zucker.

Comment: It is this kind of short thinking that is the problem for public discourse. There are problems in today's world that require volumes of thought to find a solution. In that volume of thought there needs to be different presentations of the ideas. This provides perspective.

For a good idea, or a good solution to a problem is by definition one that can stand the scrutiny of different perspectives. The source is irrelevant.
John Stewart is popular not because he entertains us by one-liners. He makes relvant points wrapped in humor. His humor as that of the piano playing Mark Russell, highlights the truth of an issue.

Star Trek's first interacial kiss gave Norman Lear cultural cover for Sammy Davis Jr. to kiss Archie Bunker. No one thought either these were a mainpulation of a sensitive issue or the trivialization of something important. These provided a service to public discourse because it initiated discussion of the issues with different perspectives.

Tom Delay is not the problem. For me it is the unknown of how many more neo-Republicans (Republicans not of my father's generation) that do not want to have discusssions with different perspectives involved. How many of these neo-Republicans equate John Bolton type behaviors as appropriate diplomacy to "get things done"? What's the rush for these neo-Republicans - is time running out? There is always time to think things through. Work smarter, not harder - I think the neo-Republicans think the other way.

Issue: GOP Tilting Balance Of Power to the Right

Specific: "House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public"

Comment: Without being a conspiracy theorist, this continues the notion of the pattern I've been seeing for years. This was not my father's Republican party. My father was not into power for the sake of power. He was not in secretive powers and abilities. Yet it is from the work of my Father's Republican party, that the current Republican party has used to gain power. It is off the power of the Dot.Com boom and bust that the current Republican party has used to gain members to my Father's Republican party. And it this current Republican party that used Bill Clinton to wrench control from my Father's version of a Republican Party and the country.

9/11 only made the current Republicans' job easier. If it had not happened, they would have found something else as a excuse. Their policies have changed governance by elected officials and representatives into an MBA government. We are being lead by a CEO, not a President.

My Father's version of a Republican party wanted a President of the people, akin to Abraham Lincoln, not a CEO, akin to Ken Lay of Enron.

Issue:Political Battle in Schiavo Case Rages On

Specific: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said the Texan. DeLay was a driving force behind legislation Congress passed two weeks ago that gave federal courts jurisdiction in an attempt to save Schiavo's life.

Comment: It goes back to the notion of power and control. He makes threats of retribution hours after she died. Can it be pointed out that the kind of decision that would have appeased the Republicans and Mr. Delay is exactly the kind of "activism" they have been against!

The judges are supposed to operate on the rules of law. They are to be independent. The key decision was that of custody of Terri Schiavo. It was determined that according to the Law - Micheal Schiavo was her appropriate guardian. This was never contested to my understanding.

The scary part are those advocating extra-legal alternatives. Sean Hannity on Fox was advocating that the President and the Governor had the right and responsibility to use their executive order powers and simply take Terri into custody. This is wrong on so many levels.

There are stories of people being arrested for threatening to kill Micheal Schiavo. What's wrong with this picture of America?

Issue:DeLay Had Own Tough Quality - Of - Life Choice

Specific:The Texas Republican also accused Schiavo's husband and the courts of ``an act of barbarism'' against Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.

Comment:Can we say hypocrisy? This simply goes to the pattern of Republicans at all levels seeking power for the sake of power, and not for the service of other or the country as a whole.