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.
Monday, August 29, 2005
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?"
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?"
Thursday, August 25, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
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?
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?
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
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?
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.
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.
Monday, August 01, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, July 29, 2005
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?
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?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Issue:Sunnis Suspend Participation in Iraqi Constitution Panel - New York Times
Comment:Can you spell "Civil War"?
Comment:Can you spell "Civil War"?
Monday, July 18, 2005
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?
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?
Thursday, July 14, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, July 11, 2005
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
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?
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?
Thursday, July 07, 2005
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.
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
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!
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.
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.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
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.
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...
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...
Monday, June 27, 2005
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.
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.
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?
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?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
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!
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, June 20, 2005
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?
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?
Thursday, June 16, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 13, 2005
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"?
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.
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.
Comment: This should be a bigger issue for the Bush administration.
Friday, June 10, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, May 27, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, April 01, 2005
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?
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?
Monday, March 28, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
IssueGeorge W. to George W. - by Thomas Friedman for the NYTIMES
Comment: Yet again - Bravo to Mr Friedman - for putting into words a perspective that needs attention.
Comment: Yet again - Bravo to Mr Friedman - for putting into words a perspective that needs attention.
Issue: The Mind-Body Problem and Terri Schiavo
Specific: "Descartes thought that mind and matter are fundamentally different sorts of thing. The mind is a thinking thing, while material objects are extended in space. They have dimension. The physical realm is mechanistic, governed by physical laws, while the mind is subject to different principles, laws of thought, and is moreover - literally- a free spirit, a ghost in the machine." - by Jason Holt from his essay in a collection of essays in "The Matrix and Philosophy"
Comment: Can this notion be philosophically resolved with those of a religious philosophy who want to deny Ms. Schiavo her right to die? I sometimes speculate that this "ghost in the machine" or "free spirit" is not unlike software in a computer. As long as the programmer knows how to write the code or the "spirit" - the soul - it does not die when the machine is shut off.
Much is being made of a philosophy called a "purpose driven faith". This comes from the recent Atlanta courthouse shootings.
If God is the great programmer and the heart and soul of Terri Schiavo is software in a defective machine, is it not up to God to move that software where he wants it? Why is it up to Congress, the Bush family and the religious right to keep this "free spirit" trapped in a defective machine?
Personally, I find a line was crossed when the Federal Congress wrote Terri's private bill. The "rule of law" is part of the "laws of thought". In order for a society to operate it needs a fundamental mechanism to resolve conflict. The American political system's fundamental mechanism to resolve conflict is the judicial system. All party's are to adhere to the primacy of this concept.
The "ends justify the means" is a priniciple that leads to a lack moral discipline. Yet this is the ideology or theology the Bush Administration is using. And they are quite clearly doing so to pander for vote of the religious right. They do not want the "rule of law" vote.
Specific: "Descartes thought that mind and matter are fundamentally different sorts of thing. The mind is a thinking thing, while material objects are extended in space. They have dimension. The physical realm is mechanistic, governed by physical laws, while the mind is subject to different principles, laws of thought, and is moreover - literally- a free spirit, a ghost in the machine." - by Jason Holt from his essay in a collection of essays in "The Matrix and Philosophy"
Comment: Can this notion be philosophically resolved with those of a religious philosophy who want to deny Ms. Schiavo her right to die? I sometimes speculate that this "ghost in the machine" or "free spirit" is not unlike software in a computer. As long as the programmer knows how to write the code or the "spirit" - the soul - it does not die when the machine is shut off.
Much is being made of a philosophy called a "purpose driven faith". This comes from the recent Atlanta courthouse shootings.
If God is the great programmer and the heart and soul of Terri Schiavo is software in a defective machine, is it not up to God to move that software where he wants it? Why is it up to Congress, the Bush family and the religious right to keep this "free spirit" trapped in a defective machine?
Personally, I find a line was crossed when the Federal Congress wrote Terri's private bill. The "rule of law" is part of the "laws of thought". In order for a society to operate it needs a fundamental mechanism to resolve conflict. The American political system's fundamental mechanism to resolve conflict is the judicial system. All party's are to adhere to the primacy of this concept.
The "ends justify the means" is a priniciple that leads to a lack moral discipline. Yet this is the ideology or theology the Bush Administration is using. And they are quite clearly doing so to pander for vote of the religious right. They do not want the "rule of law" vote.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Masters of Sleaze:
Specific:"Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: 'I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!' as Abramoff wrote to Reed.
They made at least $66 million.
This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own. "
Comment:Bravo to Mr. Books for making the observation. However, jeers to Mr Brooks and his party for not stopping this crew.
Let's not forget that Tom Delay is involved with this guy in some fashion. It was Tom Delay that pushed the Terri Schiavo private bill.
Note: >The Washington Post,The NY Times and The LA Times all seem to indicate that while the situation tragic and sad, the Terri Schiavo bill is bad for our democracy
This is the compassionate conservatives of the mid-90's. These are the Neo-con's. This is the Republican Party today. This is the kind of bait-and-switch political machinations that brought down the Nixon administration.
It is this kind of political thing that turns the general population off to participation in governance.
The current Republican party is not about governance of the people, by the people - they are simply into political control - nothing else.
They are not interested in the individual. They will deny it when confronted. It is not a radical suggestion anymore.
This is not the Republican Party of my parents.
How far will they go?
Specific:"Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: 'I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!' as Abramoff wrote to Reed.
They made at least $66 million.
This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own. "
Comment:Bravo to Mr. Books for making the observation. However, jeers to Mr Brooks and his party for not stopping this crew.
Let's not forget that Tom Delay is involved with this guy in some fashion. It was Tom Delay that pushed the Terri Schiavo private bill.
Note: >The Washington Post,The NY Times and The LA Times all seem to indicate that while the situation tragic and sad, the Terri Schiavo bill is bad for our democracy
This is the compassionate conservatives of the mid-90's. These are the Neo-con's. This is the Republican Party today. This is the kind of bait-and-switch political machinations that brought down the Nixon administration.
It is this kind of political thing that turns the general population off to participation in governance.
The current Republican party is not about governance of the people, by the people - they are simply into political control - nothing else.
They are not interested in the individual. They will deny it when confronted. It is not a radical suggestion anymore.
This is not the Republican Party of my parents.
How far will they go?
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > National > In Schiavo Feeding-Tube Case, Notoriety Finds Unlikely Judge:
Specific:"People who know him say he considers himself a 'compassionate conservative,' a man whose religious faith is as dear to him as his reputation as a legal scholar."
Comment:This is a example for judges and justice. While I suspect he is Republican. The mindset that controls the Republican Party thinks this judge is wrong. As illustration - later in the article the the statement: "Now Mr. Bush and the Legislature are rushing to agree on a bill that would outlaw the withholding of food and water from certain people in a persistent vegetative state, including Mrs. Schiavo"
This is a abuse of power by the Republican party. But given the treatment of Tom Delay, my complaint is easily dismissed. As in the movie Gladiator, the characters talk of a "vision of Rome". Well, the "vision of America" is not what it used to be.
Specific:"People who know him say he considers himself a 'compassionate conservative,' a man whose religious faith is as dear to him as his reputation as a legal scholar."
Comment:This is a example for judges and justice. While I suspect he is Republican. The mindset that controls the Republican Party thinks this judge is wrong. As illustration - later in the article the the statement: "Now Mr. Bush and the Legislature are rushing to agree on a bill that would outlaw the withholding of food and water from certain people in a persistent vegetative state, including Mrs. Schiavo"
This is a abuse of power by the Republican party. But given the treatment of Tom Delay, my complaint is easily dismissed. As in the movie Gladiator, the characters talk of a "vision of Rome". Well, the "vision of America" is not what it used to be.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern (washingtonpost.com): "DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern"
Issue:Bush Defends Packaged News Stories from Government :
Specific:"'There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces -- are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy,' the president told a news conference"
Comment:And we feel better because....what was that again? While I've been known to mis-speak a few times in my life, I don't personally hold that against George Bush the man. As President, I try to see past to words to the vision thing. I chalk it up to him being colorful. While I don't like it, it doesn't cross a line.
This position crosses some kind of line. The man is not a lawyer or even a particularly logical man, yet he cannot see that the line is blurred! From that comment above - is the President saying that all "advocacy" is fictional or without facts?
Was it Senator Robert Bryd that commented this blurring between fact and advocacy was prevalent in the Third Riech? What is propaganda Mr President? Or do you see this question much like the questions about your "mistakes"?
Specific:"'There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces -- are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy,' the president told a news conference"
Comment:And we feel better because....what was that again? While I've been known to mis-speak a few times in my life, I don't personally hold that against George Bush the man. As President, I try to see past to words to the vision thing. I chalk it up to him being colorful. While I don't like it, it doesn't cross a line.
This position crosses some kind of line. The man is not a lawyer or even a particularly logical man, yet he cannot see that the line is blurred! From that comment above - is the President saying that all "advocacy" is fictional or without facts?
Was it Senator Robert Bryd that commented this blurring between fact and advocacy was prevalent in the Third Riech? What is propaganda Mr President? Or do you see this question much like the questions about your "mistakes"?
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Washington > Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News:
Specific:"In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production."
Comment:At least I'm not alone in thinking there is a "government truth" and reality that are not necessarily the same thing. What is the neo-con bent on this subject? What is the vanilla flavor conservative bent on this?
Specific:"In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production."
Comment:At least I'm not alone in thinking there is a "government truth" and reality that are not necessarily the same thing. What is the neo-con bent on this subject? What is the vanilla flavor conservative bent on this?
Issue:Yahoo! News - Scalia Slams Juvenile Death Penalty Ruling:
Specific:"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,' Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. 'You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.'
'Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?' he said. "
Comment:Justice Scalia is not a football fan or a fan of any sport that requires an "official". I mention football because of the NFL's instant replay. The analogy is that one team on the field is the Executive Branch and the other is the Legislative branch. The Judical Branch are the officials in this analogy. The fans are the people. Even in the NFL it is not the officials that decide the rules of the game.
Judges like the officials are to interpret a game situation, a play on the field. If 2 plays go to "instant replay" - it is incumbent on the officials to call the second play using the same interpretations as they used for the first. It is incumbent on the officials to call the play the same way in the next game. It is incumbet on the officials to use the same interpretations for a given play for the season. At the end of the season, those interpretations are factored in making new rules for the next season. Some are kept, to improve the game. Other do not.
This is the nature of the beast - yet Justice Scalia does not see this.
The strict constructionists do not see this concept. I don't agree with Justice Scalia
Specific:"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,' Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. 'You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.'
'Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?' he said. "
Comment:Justice Scalia is not a football fan or a fan of any sport that requires an "official". I mention football because of the NFL's instant replay. The analogy is that one team on the field is the Executive Branch and the other is the Legislative branch. The Judical Branch are the officials in this analogy. The fans are the people. Even in the NFL it is not the officials that decide the rules of the game.
Judges like the officials are to interpret a game situation, a play on the field. If 2 plays go to "instant replay" - it is incumbent on the officials to call the second play using the same interpretations as they used for the first. It is incumbent on the officials to call the play the same way in the next game. It is incumbet on the officials to use the same interpretations for a given play for the season. At the end of the season, those interpretations are factored in making new rules for the next season. Some are kept, to improve the game. Other do not.
This is the nature of the beast - yet Justice Scalia does not see this.
The strict constructionists do not see this concept. I don't agree with Justice Scalia
Friday, March 11, 2005
Issue:DOD dismisses claims on Saddam capture:
Specific:"Pentagon officials dismissed as ridiculous and untrue a report that the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was staged."
Comment:I would have thought that the claim was less than valid if the DOD had said nothing. That they saw fit to comment - even though it is a denial - makes one wonder if there is a truth in the story.
That's the problem with a government controlled truth.
Specific:"Pentagon officials dismissed as ridiculous and untrue a report that the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was staged."
Comment:I would have thought that the claim was less than valid if the DOD had said nothing. That they saw fit to comment - even though it is a denial - makes one wonder if there is a truth in the story.
That's the problem with a government controlled truth.
Before I forget again and without a specific cause. I think I want to believe that the value of a country is something that can be assessed and determined. And perhaps I can agree with President Bush on "Good" vs "Bad" countries.
There is a saying about the quality of a society can be judged by the care given to the most vulnerable in its mist.
Should another measure be the average length of periods of peace?
War is necessary at times.
There is more but let me think about it.
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: They're Back, and Still Unworthy:
Specific:"Thomas Griffith, who has been nominated to the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has the unfortunate distinction of having practiced law in two jurisdictions without the required licenses. "
Comment:These appointees are immaterial to the real objective of the Republican's. The real target is the "filibuster". Republican figure this is payback time.
There is a saying about the quality of a society can be judged by the care given to the most vulnerable in its mist.
Should another measure be the average length of periods of peace?
War is necessary at times.
There is more but let me think about it.
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: They're Back, and Still Unworthy:
Specific:"Thomas Griffith, who has been nominated to the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has the unfortunate distinction of having practiced law in two jurisdictions without the required licenses. "
Comment:These appointees are immaterial to the real objective of the Republican's. The real target is the "filibuster". Republican figure this is payback time.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
ISSUE:13WHAM-TV ROCHESTER || NEWS:
SPECIFIC:"we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced,' Abou Rabeh said. "
Comment:This continues the notion that the Bush administration is not so straight. They continue to hide and distort realities in order to control the news and make their version of the truth take hold.
SPECIFIC:"we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced,' Abou Rabeh said. "
Comment:This continues the notion that the Bush administration is not so straight. They continue to hide and distort realities in order to control the news and make their version of the truth take hold.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Issue:Syria Remarks Were a Joke, Legislator Says (washingtonpost.com):
Specific:"According to Roll Call, Johnson said he told the president: 'Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore.' "
Comment: Is there something in the Texas water? Perhaps I'm simply dropping an "s" - maybe it's spelled Tex-ass
Specific:"According to Roll Call, Johnson said he told the president: 'Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore.' "
Comment: Is there something in the Texas water? Perhaps I'm simply dropping an "s" - maybe it's spelled Tex-ass
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Issue:Yahoo! News - Federal Judge Orders 'Enemy Combatant' Jose Padilla Charged Or Released:
Specific:"'For the court to find for [the U.S. government] would also be to engage in judicial activism. "
Comment:Hooray for Logic and Reason. The rule of law relies on Logic and Reason. The Bush Administration has relied on it own definitions of the rule of law, and then ignores the affect on society, mainly because it is beneath them.
If the neo-cons want strict judicial constructionism, then it must also apply equally.
Specific:"'For the court to find for [the U.S. government] would also be to engage in judicial activism. "
Comment:Hooray for Logic and Reason. The rule of law relies on Logic and Reason. The Bush Administration has relied on it own definitions of the rule of law, and then ignores the affect on society, mainly because it is beneath them.
If the neo-cons want strict judicial constructionism, then it must also apply equally.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Issue:TIME.com: Vladimir Putin, CBS News Loyalist -- Mar. 07, 2005:
Specific: " If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. 'Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather,' says a senior Administration official. 'It was like something out of 1984.' "
Comment:Shall I point out that Jeb's "Big Brother" is the President? But this response from the White House is consistent with the disconnected nature of the administration with the effects of their policies. The are good at manipulating the image to fit their reality.
Specific: " If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. 'Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather,' says a senior Administration official. 'It was like something out of 1984.' "
Comment:Shall I point out that Jeb's "Big Brother" is the President? But this response from the White House is consistent with the disconnected nature of the administration with the effects of their policies. The are good at manipulating the image to fit their reality.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Issue:CNN.com - Bush:�Attack on�Iran 'ridiculous' - Feb 22, 2005
Specific: "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table,' Bush said."
Comment: The President use of bravado and "Cowboy Diplomacy" and the lack of WMD makes his credibility very much in question.
Specific: "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table,' Bush said."
Comment: The President use of bravado and "Cowboy Diplomacy" and the lack of WMD makes his credibility very much in question.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Calling All Democrats
Comment: Still a man of logic and reason.
Comment: Still a man of logic and reason.
Issue:CNN.com - White House reporter's credentials questioned - Feb 9, 2005:
Specific: "James Guckert reported from the White House under the name 'Jeff Gannon.'"
Comment: This is now 2 instances of the white house using techniques to bias the news. Armstong William was the first and now this. How many more are yet to be on covered? How many in the White House Press are really who they say they are? Whose advantage is it, that anyone in the White House Press Corp is not who they say they are?
Specific: "James Guckert reported from the White House under the name 'Jeff Gannon.'"
Comment: This is now 2 instances of the white house using techniques to bias the news. Armstong William was the first and now this. How many more are yet to be on covered? How many in the White House Press are really who they say they are? Whose advantage is it, that anyone in the White House Press Corp is not who they say they are?
Friday, February 04, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Inherit the Windbags
Comment: I like her turn of phrase.
Comment: I like her turn of phrase.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Issue: Herald.com | 02/02/2005 | Check on U.S. power:
Specific: "FEDERAL COURT DEFINES LIMITS OF PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY"
Comment: Bravo!
Specific: "FEDERAL COURT DEFINES LIMITS OF PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY"
Comment: Bravo!
Issue: NPR : Amid Relative Quiet, Sharon and Abbas Plan Summit:
Specific: "Abbas has deployed thousands of police officers to prevent attacks against Israeli targets in Gaza. Israel has responded by halting offensive operations. "
Comment: If peace between the Palestinians and Israel should develop in the next four years it is not due to Bush policies. It would not be anymore the result of Bush policies than the fall of the USSR was not the result of Reagan policies. As the rise of Gorbachev to power was key in the USSR situation, the death of Arafat is key between Israel and the Palestinians.
It should also be noted that peace between the Palestinians and Israel may not necessarily be peace in the middle east. What if Iraq and Iran go after each other again... There are many other combinations to be concerned about.
Specific: "Abbas has deployed thousands of police officers to prevent attacks against Israeli targets in Gaza. Israel has responded by halting offensive operations. "
Comment: If peace between the Palestinians and Israel should develop in the next four years it is not due to Bush policies. It would not be anymore the result of Bush policies than the fall of the USSR was not the result of Reagan policies. As the rise of Gorbachev to power was key in the USSR situation, the death of Arafat is key between Israel and the Palestinians.
It should also be noted that peace between the Palestinians and Israel may not necessarily be peace in the middle east. What if Iraq and Iran go after each other again... There are many other combinations to be concerned about.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Read My Ears:
Specific: "... the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people's minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word - but just listen. If he did that, Mr. Bush would bowl the Europeans over. He would absolutely disarm and flummox people here - and improve his own image markedly. All it would take for him would be just a few words: 'Read my ears. I have come to Europe to listen, not to speak. I will give my Europe speech when I come home - after I've heard what you have to say.'"
Comment:
Logic and Reason - the words of Mr. Friedman sooth the soul by demonstrating Logic and Reason - two qualities that President Bush's passions (or fanaticism) destroy.
It is possible to integrate emotions with logic and reason. Mr. Friedman's suggestion is one of emotional intelligence. Mr. Bush's alcoholic past means that he cannot complete this integration.
Not because of a physical inability - simply because he was unable to control his drinking, means that he has difficulty integrating his feeling with reason. This is not partisan rhetoric. But it is reasoned.
The President cannot go to Europe and bite his tongue anymore than Terrell Owens can play all season and then sit out the Superbowl. It simply goes against their natures.
He won't do it - "He" being either one of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Specific: "... the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people's minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word - but just listen. If he did that, Mr. Bush would bowl the Europeans over. He would absolutely disarm and flummox people here - and improve his own image markedly. All it would take for him would be just a few words: 'Read my ears. I have come to Europe to listen, not to speak. I will give my Europe speech when I come home - after I've heard what you have to say.'"
Comment:
Logic and Reason - the words of Mr. Friedman sooth the soul by demonstrating Logic and Reason - two qualities that President Bush's passions (or fanaticism) destroy.
It is possible to integrate emotions with logic and reason. Mr. Friedman's suggestion is one of emotional intelligence. Mr. Bush's alcoholic past means that he cannot complete this integration.
Not because of a physical inability - simply because he was unable to control his drinking, means that he has difficulty integrating his feeling with reason. This is not partisan rhetoric. But it is reasoned.
The President cannot go to Europe and bite his tongue anymore than Terrell Owens can play all season and then sit out the Superbowl. It simply goes against their natures.
He won't do it - "He" being either one of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Issue:CNN.com - Bush denounces paying commentators - Jan 26, 2005:
Specific:"Bush said, 'We didn't know about this in the White House.'"
Comment: And we believe this because......why?
Specific:"Bush said, 'We didn't know about this in the White House.'"
Comment: And we believe this because......why?
Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�:
Specific:"A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: 'Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well.'
In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. "
Comment: Matt Drudge does not acknowledge the President's payments to a pundit to push "no child left behind".
Is that transaction not the definition of propaganda?
Is not propaganda the tool Hitler used to get into office and maintain power?
Is Matt Drudge a part of the propaganda ministry for missing to note the transaction? The President commented on it today - why not Drudge?
Specific:"A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: 'Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well.'
In 1996, Turner apologized to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for comments he made comparing FOX head Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. "
Comment: Matt Drudge does not acknowledge the President's payments to a pundit to push "no child left behind".
Is that transaction not the definition of propaganda?
Is not propaganda the tool Hitler used to get into office and maintain power?
Is Matt Drudge a part of the propaganda ministry for missing to note the transaction? The President commented on it today - why not Drudge?
Monday, January 24, 2005
Issue:The Salvador option:
Specific: "Faced with our inability to come to grips with a popular-based resistance that has grown exponentially over the past year, the best the American policy planners can come up with is to embrace our own form of terrorism, supporting death squads we cannot control and which will only further debase the moral foundation of our nation while slaughtering even more Iraqis.
As an American, I hope and pray that common sense and basic morality prevail in Washington DC, terminating the Salvador Option before it gets off the ground. "
Comment: Is the Bush Administration advocating Death Squads? Why is this not in Main stream Media? Did they work in El Salvador? Why is Scott Ritter writing for Aljazeera.net?
Specific: "Faced with our inability to come to grips with a popular-based resistance that has grown exponentially over the past year, the best the American policy planners can come up with is to embrace our own form of terrorism, supporting death squads we cannot control and which will only further debase the moral foundation of our nation while slaughtering even more Iraqis.
As an American, I hope and pray that common sense and basic morality prevail in Washington DC, terminating the Salvador Option before it gets off the ground. "
Comment: Is the Bush Administration advocating Death Squads? Why is this not in Main stream Media? Did they work in El Salvador? Why is Scott Ritter writing for Aljazeera.net?
Friday, January 21, 2005
Issue:OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan on President Bush's speech:
Sepcific: "'We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.' 'Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government. . . . Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.' 'It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.'
Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."
Comment: A conservative is concerned about the President's comments. I've bolded a part that particularly troubles me. Logic tells me that American system and Liberty is based on the ability to vote and speak. So as long as there is a group that governs itself by allowing all to vote and speak, then liberty will survive. It is not dependent on external forces. Liberty is dependent on the "will of the people" - only.
This President just doesn't get it. He has great intentions, but he has missed the lesson that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A concern is that his arrogance is going to draw non-terrorist fire. Because I am lost as to why this President's attitude about "freedom's march" is different that the spread of communism? We fought the cold war because a country with a different idea of governance was forcing that idea of other countries. Vietnam was fought to stop the domino effect.
I'm sorry if I'm missing something. I want to understand.
Sepcific: "'We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.' 'Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government. . . . Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.' 'It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.'
Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."
Comment: A conservative is concerned about the President's comments. I've bolded a part that particularly troubles me. Logic tells me that American system and Liberty is based on the ability to vote and speak. So as long as there is a group that governs itself by allowing all to vote and speak, then liberty will survive. It is not dependent on external forces. Liberty is dependent on the "will of the people" - only.
This President just doesn't get it. He has great intentions, but he has missed the lesson that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A concern is that his arrogance is going to draw non-terrorist fire. Because I am lost as to why this President's attitude about "freedom's march" is different that the spread of communism? We fought the cold war because a country with a different idea of governance was forcing that idea of other countries. Vietnam was fought to stop the domino effect.
I'm sorry if I'm missing something. I want to understand.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Ballots and Boycotts:
Specific: "That civil war was started by the Sunni Baathists, and their Islamist fascist allies from around the region, the minute the U.S. toppled Saddam. And they started that war not because they felt the Iraqi elections were going to be rigged, but because they knew they weren't going to be rigged."
Comment: Tom Friedman speaks with logic and reason. Can the President?
Specific: "That civil war was started by the Sunni Baathists, and their Islamist fascist allies from around the region, the minute the U.S. toppled Saddam. And they started that war not because they felt the Iraqi elections were going to be rigged, but because they knew they weren't going to be rigged."
Comment: Tom Friedman speaks with logic and reason. Can the President?
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Issue:President outlines role of his faith - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - January 12, 2005:
Specific: " 'I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person,' Mr. Bush said. 'I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is. "
Comment: BINGO!!! The more truly dishonest part is that he is unaware that while he may not say it, his media members DO! And this says nothing of rank and file of the party.
This administration has paid columnists to push agenda items, whether it is education policy or applying pressure to people who are related to spies (I'm referring to the Novak/Plame affair).
It is the swift boat ads. It is the connection between 9-11/Iraq and WMD. It's that he never made a mistake.
What is troubling is the notion of reality for this President. While I might grant that the President is a decent human being and means well. I believe he is genuine in his feelings. But he clearly does not have a concept for "emotional intelligence"
The President is making a statement about how he thinks about the relationship between the office and the people. He does not believe his power comes from the people.
The President is stating that he is unaware of the less scrupulous or less genuine are using his personal religious position of faith as cover for political and governmental power.
- That was my being kind version.
- My not so kind version:
The not so kind take is that he is a holy warrior on a crusade...
The concern is not that he will not leave after 4 years.
Prediction: Before next Presidential election season cranks up - A serious challenge to the Presidential term limit will be initiated in Congress. It is a logical next step in a pattern of a pursuit for power and control over and above a less than genuine faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific: " 'I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person,' Mr. Bush said. 'I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is. "
Comment: BINGO!!! The more truly dishonest part is that he is unaware that while he may not say it, his media members DO! And this says nothing of rank and file of the party.
This administration has paid columnists to push agenda items, whether it is education policy or applying pressure to people who are related to spies (I'm referring to the Novak/Plame affair).
It is the swift boat ads. It is the connection between 9-11/Iraq and WMD. It's that he never made a mistake.
What is troubling is the notion of reality for this President. While I might grant that the President is a decent human being and means well. I believe he is genuine in his feelings. But he clearly does not have a concept for "emotional intelligence"
The President is making a statement about how he thinks about the relationship between the office and the people. He does not believe his power comes from the people.
The President is stating that he is unaware of the less scrupulous or less genuine are using his personal religious position of faith as cover for political and governmental power.
- That was my being kind version.
- My not so kind version:
The not so kind take is that he is a holy warrior on a crusade...
The concern is not that he will not leave after 4 years.
Prediction: Before next Presidential election season cranks up - A serious challenge to the Presidential term limit will be initiated in Congress. It is a logical next step in a pattern of a pursuit for power and control over and above a less than genuine faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, January 07, 2005
Issue:USATODAY.com - Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law:
Specific: " the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."
My Comment: This is wrong. It is consistent with FOX news arm of the administration.
Specific: " the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."
My Comment: This is wrong. It is consistent with FOX news arm of the administration.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Business > Media & Advertising > CNN Will Cancel 'Crossfire' and Cut Ties to Commentator:
Specific: "CNN is a different animal,' Mr. Klein said. 'We report the news. Fox talks about the news. They're very good at what they do and we're very good at what we do.'"
Comment: Bravo and congratulations to Mr. Klein and CNN for noting that journalism is not only opinion!
On NPR it was reported that the Capital Gang was also get the axe. The other commentator that deserves to have cut ties is to Robert Novak. Remember, he had a significant role in the Valerie Plame/CIA operative incident.
Well, without Crossfire and without the Capitol Gang - Robert Novak may find it a good time to retire.
Specific: "CNN is a different animal,' Mr. Klein said. 'We report the news. Fox talks about the news. They're very good at what they do and we're very good at what we do.'"
Comment: Bravo and congratulations to Mr. Klein and CNN for noting that journalism is not only opinion!
On NPR it was reported that the Capital Gang was also get the axe. The other commentator that deserves to have cut ties is to Robert Novak. Remember, he had a significant role in the Valerie Plame/CIA operative incident.
Well, without Crossfire and without the Capitol Gang - Robert Novak may find it a good time to retire.
Issue: CNN.com - GOP finds way out of�ethics�spat - Jan 4, 2005:
Specific:"the House adopted a separate change that will make it harder to pursue ethics probes of members of Congress."
Comment: Did I not call this earlier?
Specific:"the House adopted a separate change that will make it harder to pursue ethics probes of members of Congress."
Comment: Did I not call this earlier?
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Issue:The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Tale of 2 Systems:
Specific: "The question is: Will we leave our children a system as flexible, dynamic and productive as the one that was, fortunately, left to us? Or, by doing nothing, will we succumb to the same ineluctable pressures that now afflict Europe, and find that we are immobilized at the exact moment China and India are passing us by? "
Comment:I read this piece and saw that it was informed and presents some decent logic and reason - enough to make me thinking.
Then the tag line - the final summarization - "the exact moment China and India are passing us by" - I'm now confused - passing us by in what? Their cultures have always had more respect for their elders and seniors than do American. And those models operate under communist systems and a social cast system.
Am I to understand that Mr Brooks is advocating that our national economic output is more important than the standards of living for the people? Is he advocating Communism for taking care of retirees?
The lack of a mention of China and India in this preceeding logic, leads to the notion that economic output is the thing, Mr Brooks feels that US is lacking.
So can it be said that reaching the global finish line first in terms of economic output is more important than support our retirees? It is better to be ahead of China and India than to have a lower economic output and also taking care of folks who need to be caring.
So then why donate to Tsunami Relief?
Specific: "The question is: Will we leave our children a system as flexible, dynamic and productive as the one that was, fortunately, left to us? Or, by doing nothing, will we succumb to the same ineluctable pressures that now afflict Europe, and find that we are immobilized at the exact moment China and India are passing us by? "
Comment:I read this piece and saw that it was informed and presents some decent logic and reason - enough to make me thinking.
Then the tag line - the final summarization - "the exact moment China and India are passing us by" - I'm now confused - passing us by in what? Their cultures have always had more respect for their elders and seniors than do American. And those models operate under communist systems and a social cast system.
Am I to understand that Mr Brooks is advocating that our national economic output is more important than the standards of living for the people? Is he advocating Communism for taking care of retirees?
The lack of a mention of China and India in this preceeding logic, leads to the notion that economic output is the thing, Mr Brooks feels that US is lacking.
So can it be said that reaching the global finish line first in terms of economic output is more important than support our retirees? It is better to be ahead of China and India than to have a lower economic output and also taking care of folks who need to be caring.
So then why donate to Tsunami Relief?
Issue: ABC News: Poll: Outlook for 2005 Is Less Bright
Specific: "Optimism for the Year Ahead
Personal Optimism Global Optimism
Dec. 2004 66%54%
Dec. 2003 85 69
Dec. 2002 63 43
Dec. 2001 80 62"
Comment: Note the drop from 85 to 65 percent. Does this indicate a failure in the sampling methodology to take into account the "Red States"? Are they only polling Dems or people in the "Blue" states.
Specific: "Optimism for the Year Ahead
Personal Optimism Global Optimism
Dec. 2004 66%54%
Dec. 2003 85 69
Dec. 2002 63 43
Dec. 2001 80 62"
Comment: Note the drop from 85 to 65 percent. Does this indicate a failure in the sampling methodology to take into account the "Red States"? Are they only polling Dems or people in the "Blue" states.
Issue of the Day:ABC News: House GOP Giving Ground on Ethics Rules
Specific: "House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ponders a question during a press conference in Houston in this Oct. 22, 2004 file photo. House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, Jan. 3, 2005 deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstating a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)"
Comment: What do you believe? Does this mean that the Republicans had an "oops"? Does this mean the party mentality has changed? Is this a shift away from a power only focus?
I suspect that it means that Delay has found another way to dodge the bullet and does not believe he will be indicted. Tom Delay does not feel that he did anything wrong - afterall this is standard for Washington Hardball politics - so he is entitled.
Republican do not seek out good ideas and good governance, they have to "react" after the case. The President's leadership on the Tsunami relief is supports this notion.
Specific: "House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ponders a question during a press conference in Houston in this Oct. 22, 2004 file photo. House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, Jan. 3, 2005 deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstating a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)"
Comment: What do you believe? Does this mean that the Republicans had an "oops"? Does this mean the party mentality has changed? Is this a shift away from a power only focus?
I suspect that it means that Delay has found another way to dodge the bullet and does not believe he will be indicted. Tom Delay does not feel that he did anything wrong - afterall this is standard for Washington Hardball politics - so he is entitled.
Republican do not seek out good ideas and good governance, they have to "react" after the case. The President's leadership on the Tsunami relief is supports this notion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)