Issue: 2 items from Omaha Nebraska:
1) Breaking News - As many as five people have been shot at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska; police are searching for a gunman, CNN affiliates report.
2) Emerging from Air Force One at Eppley Airfield near Omaha, Mr. Bush said it was clear from the intelligence assessment “that the Iranian government has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions.”
Specific: These items are directly connected in political rhetorical terms. They are related to the shooting in Lancaster, Pa. not long ago. They connection is the collective mindset of the nation. My prediction for the shooter is Neb will be for no reason - Much as the shooter in Lancaster, Pa. The specific issue is that President Bush and very specifically the Neo-Con movement is to blame for making it legitimate and ok to act without logic and reason.
Comment: I have been wanting to write about this for sometime. The inspiration was the Lancaster Pa. shooting in an Amish school house. If I remember correctly, the President was in that area about a couple of months of the shooting. The sense or emotion was the pointless nature. The unpredictable nature. The Terrorist nature of the act. Just as this Omaha shooting already being labeled. "Who have thought..." is what witnesses are already saying as they come out of the Mall.
The world is a dangerous place. Death comes to all. The world, this planet and America will end - some day. How it ends is a key subject for discussion. How a life begins and ends involves a great deal of human choice. A key subject for discussion is the path followed and life lead are important.
Much literature is devoted to these subjects. The Bible, Star Trek and even the Wizard of OZ or the current "Tinman" if not taken too far, offer great life changing insights. These are not the only writings or even the best.
"Too much or anything is not necessarily a good thing..."
President Bush and the Neo-cons since the mid-90's have been setting this stage or environment we are in. The Neo-cons have allied with Fox News and the Enrons other "Supercapitalists" to create a national mindset that we all want to get along and possibly profit from, but can't.
This is another key subject for discussion. A specific example of this is the story on 20/20 recently about a McDonalds manager who followed company policy strictly, that with she stripped a customer naked and accused her of stealing on the word of a voice on the phone. The story went onto explain that the voice was not even in the state and was impersonating a police officer.
Assuming there was no sexual perversion in the motivation, one significant motivation of this manager was the strength of her desire to please and adhere to the policies of the corporation. More than she simply didn't want to get fired. She must have had some thought that it would be good for the company that she caught someone stealing from the corporation.
This story highlights the crossed line between the "capitalist" and the "Supercapitalist". These folks in a local McDonalds acted without logic and reason of their own. These folks are no different from the staffers at Enron who the executives destroy the company. The common element in both companies is the encouragement of the pursuit of power for the sake of power - not pursuit of power for the sake of benefits.
In my humble opinion, the capitalist is one who knows the where the line is that if crossed they become a supercapitalist. The function and purpose of any business is to benefit society because society is the customer. Without a functioning society then business cannot survive. A functioning society is one that in which there is minimal instability in both the short and long terms. Business cannot survive instability.
Yet the Supercapitalist Neo-Con's of which the President is to be included, might assert that the purpose and function of business is to make business only - and that society is almost irrelevant. I would speculate that he has not given this a thought.
So where does that leave us, well the McDonalds employees, Enron and other must feel like the fans of the Texas Rangers when Bush traded Sammy Sosa to the cubs. Frustrated and unsatisfied.
Here is a speculation or conjecture. The connection between the shooters and the President - and hence the concern. The President is showing signs of succumbing to the environment he help to create. The shooters in Lancaster and Omaha, have some level denial about the consequences on those left behind.
President Bush in denying ALL of OUR intelligence services is also denying logic and reason. Logic and Reason are the first bricks toward wisdom.
Wisdom is the only path to follow in a dangerous situation. Wisdom is what the Bible would want us to learn. I'm not exactly a religious scholar or a very religious person, but I can't imagine any version of God of the Bible wanting mankind to give up wisdom.
My daughter and I had a loud discussion recently about her future, college and our current financial condition. There are hard realities for her that only logic, reason and wisdom will be able to resolve. President Bush, the Supercapitalist and the Neo-con ideologies and the national mindset will not resolve these things for me and her.
Presidents, corporations and conservatives have in the past been inspirations for national mindsets that have enabled families of those times to resolve their issues.
I'll even say it again, if President Bush and and his administration bring Peace to the middle-east - I stand in line to add his face to the Mount Rushmore.
This can be written off as the rants of just another loon.
That's perhaps the most gauling thing of all.
No matter how high gas prices get, my wife insists that a 10 dip in prices is a good thing. She ignores that prices have not yet gone to pre-Katrina prices.
I'll get the cheaper gas but I won't like it. I will be angry.
I'll buy the President's line and the next, but I won't like it. I will be angry.
I've lived a life and chosen paths that were right.
I've married, raised 2 daughters to maturity, worked hard and even tried to be an entrepeneur. Yet the world is not a better place because of other like me. It has changed in large measure to the effort of President Bush and his peers.
This was not the promise of Kennedy, Goldwater or Reagan.
The constitution says that "We the people..." have the power, if not those like me then who does?
Does this mean I'm absolved of giving a damn?
If I don't have a share of power then am I responsible for my share of the nations state?
If I'm not responsible then please explain to me why I should give a damn if there are shooter's in the mall?
If I'm not responsible then please explain to me why I should give a damn if the shooter in the mall is a Iranian, Iraqi, Saudi or Korean - terrorist or not?
I am....
I know...
I will...
And that's why...
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Issue: Nature of the Beast - This is wrong Mr Bush for you to be upset
Specific: "It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said."
Comment: I wonder if the President's Father watches the Fox network. Does he pay any attention to Ann Coulter and those of Talk Radio? Did he pay any attention to what happened to President Clinton? How about the scrutiny of Senator Clinton got today. Because she made a reference to her ability to deal with "bad men". Fox news covered this because they thought it was a reference to former President Clinton. The former President was impeached for lying about a sex act about 10 years ago. That former President's wife - stayed with him - for now going on 10 years after the event. I think the President's father should factor this into his thoughts.
The current administration talked of weapons of mass destruction - and none have been found. This one gaff alone - going to war for reasons other than those clearly stated or for reasons that were not substantiated - should have to be some kind of clear violation. Only Congress can declare war. An authorization of force is not a blank check declaration of war for a President to fill-in later and on many copies.
The end result may work out for the President in years to come. But as of now, young men and women who volunteered to fight to protect the nation are dying for unsubstantiated concerns. Of those who have been killed since Saddam's hanging, and since the 3rd free national election - and those who will die - how many feel that a non-nuclear Saddam and a non-Christian religious differences are worth giving their lives?
And this President's father who made a different choice when presented with the same choices about Saddam, feels that "personal animosity" is unwarranted?
Address: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-01-26T223441Z_01_N26396581_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-FATHER.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Specific: "It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said."
Comment: I wonder if the President's Father watches the Fox network. Does he pay any attention to Ann Coulter and those of Talk Radio? Did he pay any attention to what happened to President Clinton? How about the scrutiny of Senator Clinton got today. Because she made a reference to her ability to deal with "bad men". Fox news covered this because they thought it was a reference to former President Clinton. The former President was impeached for lying about a sex act about 10 years ago. That former President's wife - stayed with him - for now going on 10 years after the event. I think the President's father should factor this into his thoughts.
The current administration talked of weapons of mass destruction - and none have been found. This one gaff alone - going to war for reasons other than those clearly stated or for reasons that were not substantiated - should have to be some kind of clear violation. Only Congress can declare war. An authorization of force is not a blank check declaration of war for a President to fill-in later and on many copies.
The end result may work out for the President in years to come. But as of now, young men and women who volunteered to fight to protect the nation are dying for unsubstantiated concerns. Of those who have been killed since Saddam's hanging, and since the 3rd free national election - and those who will die - how many feel that a non-nuclear Saddam and a non-Christian religious differences are worth giving their lives?
And this President's father who made a different choice when presented with the same choices about Saddam, feels that "personal animosity" is unwarranted?
Address: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-01-26T223441Z_01_N26396581_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-FATHER.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Issue: This General is a NEOCON and a reason to be feared
Specific: "They're absolutely committed to the 50-, 100-year plan."
Comment: I suspect this is not an unusual perspective among the Neocon's, The President and his administration. It also supports the notion of a problem. It is the a lack of perception.
I don't think it occurs to fellow citizens of this mindset, that the reason the middle-east is a national security interest is because of our dependence on oil? It supports the notion that the military-industrial complex is simply looking for job-security.
It supports the notion that the "complex" is getting desparate. "Terrorism" was to be the new "Communism". But it doesn't seem to have the "legs" to go a sufficient distance.
This notion of a "100 year plan" is mind boggling.
I don't necessarily know how to explain how I get my response.
What occurs to me is that if a commitment to technology got us the gadgets of the 20th century, then energy independence can easily achieved by capitalist methods, for the amounts suggested by making war for a 30 years.
They are foregoing profit or cost savings in favor of violence, destruction and job-security.
This logic is vague and unclear. They wisdom is even more in doubt.
Specific: "They're absolutely committed to the 50-, 100-year plan."
Comment: I suspect this is not an unusual perspective among the Neocon's, The President and his administration. It also supports the notion of a problem. It is the a lack of perception.
I don't think it occurs to fellow citizens of this mindset, that the reason the middle-east is a national security interest is because of our dependence on oil? It supports the notion that the military-industrial complex is simply looking for job-security.
It supports the notion that the "complex" is getting desparate. "Terrorism" was to be the new "Communism". But it doesn't seem to have the "legs" to go a sufficient distance.
This notion of a "100 year plan" is mind boggling.
I don't necessarily know how to explain how I get my response.
What occurs to me is that if a commitment to technology got us the gadgets of the 20th century, then energy independence can easily achieved by capitalist methods, for the amounts suggested by making war for a 30 years.
They are foregoing profit or cost savings in favor of violence, destruction and job-security.
This logic is vague and unclear. They wisdom is even more in doubt.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Issue: Illustration of 2 non-partisan communications problems in politics. 1) A lack of a generalized accuracy or a common sense. A detachment from a common element in current American Life. 2) A lack of a commitment to play or cooperate with different mindsets. A refusal to accept others for the benefit of the whole. It suggests a desire for control of power that does not incorporate others.
Specific:
HOST: I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?
BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see — I’ve forgot the name of the program — but you get the satellite, and you can — like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.
Reference:http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/23/bush-says-he-uses-the-google/
Comment: In a longer clip, it has been alleged that the President made a a reference to "the Internets". I don't want to pick on the President. It reflects a great deal about his relationship to and with technology.
In terms of motivations, the specifics indicate a desire to be in tune with a political group. People who use computers is who is attempting to relate. Computers are common things today. There are some elements that can be considered "common sense". The combination of the use of the preposition "the" and that lack of understanding "google" is a program indicates the speaker does not have this "common sense" about computers. Yet the speaker is attempting a quality of knowledge that he does not have. This motivation to appear as having a "something" that one does not possess - clearly takes a higher priority in his subliminal thought processes.
This elevated motivation is characterisitic of politicians. On many subjects this conduct is acceptable to a certain degree. On many subjects it is a good ice breaker. On many subjects it can be a good debate tactic.
However, on the subject of war. What if the individual's understanding of things as destructive to the world as war, is as faulty as it is with technology? Clearly, the technology of war has changed the nature of war. So can a speaker who clearly has a faulty or incomplete understanding of technology, have a complete and necessary understanding of war?
Point number 2, to the desire for the isolation of power. When the speaker thinks he has used "the google", his choice of maps is not to understand the enemy or the terrain of war. It is a choice that indicates a desire to be left alone. A place of isolation.
People with any kind of power, whether political or otherwise, should be encouraged to share the power for the benefit of as many as possible - if not all.
Specific:
HOST: I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?
BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see — I’ve forgot the name of the program — but you get the satellite, and you can — like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.
Reference:http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/23/bush-says-he-uses-the-google/
Comment: In a longer clip, it has been alleged that the President made a a reference to "the Internets". I don't want to pick on the President. It reflects a great deal about his relationship to and with technology.
In terms of motivations, the specifics indicate a desire to be in tune with a political group. People who use computers is who is attempting to relate. Computers are common things today. There are some elements that can be considered "common sense". The combination of the use of the preposition "the" and that lack of understanding "google" is a program indicates the speaker does not have this "common sense" about computers. Yet the speaker is attempting a quality of knowledge that he does not have. This motivation to appear as having a "something" that one does not possess - clearly takes a higher priority in his subliminal thought processes.
This elevated motivation is characterisitic of politicians. On many subjects this conduct is acceptable to a certain degree. On many subjects it is a good ice breaker. On many subjects it can be a good debate tactic.
However, on the subject of war. What if the individual's understanding of things as destructive to the world as war, is as faulty as it is with technology? Clearly, the technology of war has changed the nature of war. So can a speaker who clearly has a faulty or incomplete understanding of technology, have a complete and necessary understanding of war?
Point number 2, to the desire for the isolation of power. When the speaker thinks he has used "the google", his choice of maps is not to understand the enemy or the terrain of war. It is a choice that indicates a desire to be left alone. A place of isolation.
People with any kind of power, whether political or otherwise, should be encouraged to share the power for the benefit of as many as possible - if not all.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Issue:Brit Hume point to Juan Williams - an oberservation to be concerned about.
Specific:Brit Hume made the comment that the uproar about the phone record collection database issue, that was raised this past week by the USA Today piece, was wrong because we are "at War".
Comment:Several thought flooded my mind. One I hope to God that people are truly paying attention. Another is that Brit and the Fox network are modern-day War Profiteers. Another is it seems obvious Mr. Hume makes a consciencous decision not acknowlede future potentials problems. There is a parallel to the DaVinci Codes.
"So dark the con of ..." Americans. There is a key notion NOT discussed about the DaVinci code. It is not that of divinity of Jesus. It is not possible descendants of Jesus. Jesus would still be worth worship WITHOUT this thing. It is a thing a men. Human males. It is the motivation for control.
Jesus would still exist without the Vatican. As America can exist without Washington D.C.
Republicans and those like Brit Hume, or O'Reilly are performing the same algorithm on the American people as the Catholic church is doing to it's parishoners.
They are making themselves necessary.
They are not dealing with the problems or the challenges.
For if there are no problems or challenges, then there is no need for leadership.
People might dismiss me as liberal, but this is not the case.
What I object to most in politics - left or right - is the absence of logic, reason and decision.
Brit Hume must be able to recall or know of several key facts when he dismisses any concerns about that are bad press for the President and the Republicans. It was a Republican who proposed to repeal the 22nd ammendment (term limits for the President). There are several current administration members who served in the Nixon White House.
The logic that is missing, is the algorithm of what happens if these powers of TAKEN (not given) by this WAR President is used by a future President with less of a concern for the American people. Will The President be around or capable of defending the American people from that future Presidential Administration?
So the question is which is the bigger risk: evil Terrorists today or an evil President in a future administration?
The buildings that terrorist blow up can only be restored in a terms of years
The trust in government that a bad President can only be restored in terms of generations or decades.
Slavery was written into the constitution, and we are still healing those wounds.
How many generations will it take after the evil President(who has misused President Bush's WAR powers), to correct?
Republicans will say that's too far in the future to be concerned about.
To that I say bullshit.
Specific:Brit Hume made the comment that the uproar about the phone record collection database issue, that was raised this past week by the USA Today piece, was wrong because we are "at War".
Comment:Several thought flooded my mind. One I hope to God that people are truly paying attention. Another is that Brit and the Fox network are modern-day War Profiteers. Another is it seems obvious Mr. Hume makes a consciencous decision not acknowlede future potentials problems. There is a parallel to the DaVinci Codes.
"So dark the con of ..." Americans. There is a key notion NOT discussed about the DaVinci code. It is not that of divinity of Jesus. It is not possible descendants of Jesus. Jesus would still be worth worship WITHOUT this thing. It is a thing a men. Human males. It is the motivation for control.
Jesus would still exist without the Vatican. As America can exist without Washington D.C.
Republicans and those like Brit Hume, or O'Reilly are performing the same algorithm on the American people as the Catholic church is doing to it's parishoners.
They are making themselves necessary.
They are not dealing with the problems or the challenges.
For if there are no problems or challenges, then there is no need for leadership.
People might dismiss me as liberal, but this is not the case.
What I object to most in politics - left or right - is the absence of logic, reason and decision.
Brit Hume must be able to recall or know of several key facts when he dismisses any concerns about that are bad press for the President and the Republicans. It was a Republican who proposed to repeal the 22nd ammendment (term limits for the President). There are several current administration members who served in the Nixon White House.
The logic that is missing, is the algorithm of what happens if these powers of TAKEN (not given) by this WAR President is used by a future President with less of a concern for the American people. Will The President be around or capable of defending the American people from that future Presidential Administration?
So the question is which is the bigger risk: evil Terrorists today or an evil President in a future administration?
The buildings that terrorist blow up can only be restored in a terms of years
The trust in government that a bad President can only be restored in terms of generations or decades.
Slavery was written into the constitution, and we are still healing those wounds.
How many generations will it take after the evil President(who has misused President Bush's WAR powers), to correct?
Republicans will say that's too far in the future to be concerned about.
To that I say bullshit.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Issue:Contradiction - The President doesn't get it
Specific: "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. "
Comment: This line is absolutely accurate. I agree with the President. I agree with Dubya. I agree with the second President Bush on this point.
Here the rub. In recent speeches and pitches by the Republicans and the Neo-Cons they are saying we need to allow the oil companies to keep the billions and billions they ave made since Katrina so they can "Enable" our addiction even more. The Republicans want the windfall profit to go to exploration for more oil.
It's got to be parallel to that of the cigarette lobby. Just as smoking is bad for our health as individuals, oil is bad for a national health as a society.
Logic and reason is what the "Decider" is clearly missing. His motivations are clearly not driven of logic and reason. The motivations of the Republican party is to put the party before nation. The Republicans do not even want to acknowledge the existance of Democrats. They are forever saying "Democrats don't have any idea's" - to that I say - $%@(*$&
Granted, the Democrats may not differently motivated.
The democrats may not be less corrupt.
The key thing about a "democracy" is that it should be nation before party. It should be humanity before nation. We should be working together to resolve our challenges.
Breaking an addiction to oil means fighting the oil companies while we as individuals continue to use copious amounts.
Specific: "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. "
Comment: This line is absolutely accurate. I agree with the President. I agree with Dubya. I agree with the second President Bush on this point.
Here the rub. In recent speeches and pitches by the Republicans and the Neo-Cons they are saying we need to allow the oil companies to keep the billions and billions they ave made since Katrina so they can "Enable" our addiction even more. The Republicans want the windfall profit to go to exploration for more oil.
It's got to be parallel to that of the cigarette lobby. Just as smoking is bad for our health as individuals, oil is bad for a national health as a society.
Logic and reason is what the "Decider" is clearly missing. His motivations are clearly not driven of logic and reason. The motivations of the Republican party is to put the party before nation. The Republicans do not even want to acknowledge the existance of Democrats. They are forever saying "Democrats don't have any idea's" - to that I say - $%@(*$&
Granted, the Democrats may not differently motivated.
The democrats may not be less corrupt.
The key thing about a "democracy" is that it should be nation before party. It should be humanity before nation. We should be working together to resolve our challenges.
Breaking an addiction to oil means fighting the oil companies while we as individuals continue to use copious amounts.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Issue:Credibility - who has more the President or Hersh?CNN.com - Bush: Talk�of Iran attack 'wild speculation' - Apr 10, 2006:
Specific: "'There's been a lot of planning going on. It's more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency planning,' Hersh said"
Comment:Who do you believe? Who has the better track record? Who has the incentive to be less than forth coming?
Specific: "'There's been a lot of planning going on. It's more than planning, it's operational planning. It's beyond contingency planning,' Hersh said"
Comment:Who do you believe? Who has the better track record? Who has the incentive to be less than forth coming?
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Issue:Is Justice Scalia a Neo-Con? The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Scalia's recusal sought in Guant�namo case: "In a letter delivered to the court late Monday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's remarks on March 8 to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was 'crazy' to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a 'full jury trial,' and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba."
Address: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002894066_scalia28.html
Address: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002894066_scalia28.html
Issue:Is the Neo-Cons and the Administration use the former Soviet style in foreign affairs? Shiites Say U.S. Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside - New York Times:
Specific:"Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush 'doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept' Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister"
Comment: When you combine this kind of behavior with the reaction to the Afghan who converted to Christianity, is the question or comparision unfair. What is the historical factor I am missing that makes the comparison invalid?
Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1144213200&en=d678b720829aa95b&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Specific:"Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush 'doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept' Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister"
Comment: When you combine this kind of behavior with the reaction to the Afghan who converted to Christianity, is the question or comparision unfair. What is the historical factor I am missing that makes the comparison invalid?
Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1144213200&en=d678b720829aa95b&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Issue:Goes to the notion of power vs Braveheart quote Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says - New York Times:
Specific: "During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times."
Comment: There is a line in the movie BraveHeart by Mel Gibson, that is relevant. "You believe the people exist to give you position. Your position exists to provide for the people".
When I speak of the "notion" of power, that the president is power hungry, I am not referencing the obvious political necessity of support persay. I don't know that it is a particularly Democratic party ideal. The JFK qoute comes to mind - "ask not what your country...". But it is not about partisanship.
This article if true, goes to a assumption of power that is unwarranted and intimidating. The Dubai ports deal is an another indication of the insensitivity of the Administration and the Neo-Cons. So it is fair to say that it is clear that the President does not give a damn about the sentiment of American's who disagree with him.
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?ex=1144213200&en=9a4a7039bce0c3c3&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Specific: "During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times."
Comment: There is a line in the movie BraveHeart by Mel Gibson, that is relevant. "You believe the people exist to give you position. Your position exists to provide for the people".
When I speak of the "notion" of power, that the president is power hungry, I am not referencing the obvious political necessity of support persay. I don't know that it is a particularly Democratic party ideal. The JFK qoute comes to mind - "ask not what your country...". But it is not about partisanship.
This article if true, goes to a assumption of power that is unwarranted and intimidating. The Dubai ports deal is an another indication of the insensitivity of the Administration and the Neo-Cons. So it is fair to say that it is clear that the President does not give a damn about the sentiment of American's who disagree with him.
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?ex=1144213200&en=9a4a7039bce0c3c3&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Monday, January 30, 2006
Issue:If anyone can say this it is a news man - Broadcaster says serious news at risk:
Specific:"'Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news,' said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News."
Comment: Where does the "truth" come from these days? Topics can be addressed in a fair and balanced manner, and yet be lacking truth. This can be the case when truth is ommitted. What is truth? this questions should be explored by the body politic yet again. Imagine if the Fox news dedicated the time it spent on Natalee Holloway's disappearance - since May of '05 to current reports - on the many aspects of truth.
It seems that opinion and not truth is what matters to FOX. Opinion is not a subset of truth. Opinion is the expression of a set of ideas and fact that the individual accepts as accurate and therefore deemed to be a truth - but only for one. It is in my humble opinion that a Truth it requires agreement among many.
The existence of many individuals expressing a synchronocity with a set of ideas and facts that make a truth with which society can deal.
I like Aaron Brown.
Address: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html
Specific:"'Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news,' said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News."
Comment: Where does the "truth" come from these days? Topics can be addressed in a fair and balanced manner, and yet be lacking truth. This can be the case when truth is ommitted. What is truth? this questions should be explored by the body politic yet again. Imagine if the Fox news dedicated the time it spent on Natalee Holloway's disappearance - since May of '05 to current reports - on the many aspects of truth.
It seems that opinion and not truth is what matters to FOX. Opinion is not a subset of truth. Opinion is the expression of a set of ideas and fact that the individual accepts as accurate and therefore deemed to be a truth - but only for one. It is in my humble opinion that a Truth it requires agreement among many.
The existence of many individuals expressing a synchronocity with a set of ideas and facts that make a truth with which society can deal.
I like Aaron Brown.
Address: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Issue:The king of the bait and switch - CNN.com - White House?steps up defense of?domestic eavesdropping - Jan 23, 2006:
Specific: "'I'm mindful of your civil liberties, "
Comment: I am glad the President is "mindful". But just as he "doesn't read". Civil Liberties was not the issue people were concerned about. It was the void where an explanation belongs. Why is a 72 hrs after a wiretap has been started not enough time to get a warrant? After 4 years, why as he not corrected the issue? If this is so necessary and valuable - what stopped them from using it to catch the 9/11 attackers?
Please do not think that I am surprised or outraged. This is the new reality. I like truth or honesty from my President's. I am concerned about the next Nixon or other President who want to extend his even more. I am concerned about the neo-con supporting cast of the administration.
I'm waiting for the day when the revelation of a political operation using this information is ignored.
In the current environment Watergate was not a crime.
The premise that in a time of War Presidents has no limits, is only valid when the battle is active and visible on American soil - like the civil war. This conflict is not at that level.
But what if the war is invisible and never ends? Like Korea - perhaps President Bush doesn't need to defend himself because we are still in a technical state of war with North Korea. Who needs a new war?
Address: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html
Specific: "'I'm mindful of your civil liberties, "
Comment: I am glad the President is "mindful". But just as he "doesn't read". Civil Liberties was not the issue people were concerned about. It was the void where an explanation belongs. Why is a 72 hrs after a wiretap has been started not enough time to get a warrant? After 4 years, why as he not corrected the issue? If this is so necessary and valuable - what stopped them from using it to catch the 9/11 attackers?
Please do not think that I am surprised or outraged. This is the new reality. I like truth or honesty from my President's. I am concerned about the next Nixon or other President who want to extend his even more. I am concerned about the neo-con supporting cast of the administration.
I'm waiting for the day when the revelation of a political operation using this information is ignored.
In the current environment Watergate was not a crime.
The premise that in a time of War Presidents has no limits, is only valid when the battle is active and visible on American soil - like the civil war. This conflict is not at that level.
But what if the war is invisible and never ends? Like Korea - perhaps President Bush doesn't need to defend himself because we are still in a technical state of war with North Korea. Who needs a new war?
Address: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Issue:A good example of the Twisted Right - Nation...
Issue:
A good example of the Twisted Right - National Review Book Service: The War on Christmas by John Gibson:
Specific:"Happy holidays!' Every time a supermarket checker or store clerk greets you with those words instead of 'Merry Christmas,' you have met another soldier in the war against Christmas. Secularists are bent on imposing upon us a neutered, secular winter holiday that throws out every trace of Christianity from the public observance of Christmas. It's all necessary, they tell us, to avoid offending non-Christians and, above all, to keep from violating the all-important separation of church and state. Meanwhile, Christians in America are increasingly marginalized and shunted aside."
Comment:This is a non-problem. But this kind of hyperbole needs to be examinined to expose the gaps in it's logic. Once the gaps are revealed then it can be acknowledged and discredited just as the debate on intelligent design. This kind of rhetoric or flawed logic is the kind the controlling cabal of the Republican party uses to defend America and the war in Iraq.
The "Supermarket checker" is not a securalist warrior when he greets with "Happy Holiday's". He or she is a teenager. Working as a clerk is probably one their first jobs. They are under stress because they have finals coming up or a big important event - in addition to Christmas. The cash the make is of greater value to them in the moment than it will later in life. They have a great many more things on their minds than many adults. Teenagers are aware that we live in an age of many different cultures, customs and traditions. They are probably more intent on being non-offensive to the customer than they are of making the sale. The clerk's manager is is probably too busy to give his staff direction on this fine a point. Beyond asking them to be polite and smile, the likely hood of managerial pressure to use one form of greeting over another is minimal. So when the "store clerk" makes this greeting, it is because the logic of choosing a greeting that is least likely to offend is clear.
There is no separation of "church and state" involved in the interpersonal transaction or the financial transaction. Politics are not a part of it. Perhaps politics can be a part of the transaction in the context of taxes or if both parties have some prior personal history. But the average supermarket check out sequence does not involve politics or religion.
It almost sound like a conspiracy against Christmas? It can't be people being caring and polite.
As to the "Meanwhile, Christians in America are increasingly marginalized and shunted aside." comment - this makes me do a double take. The President is evangelical born again Christian. The Republican Party is his party. The Republicans control both houses of Congress and is responsible for seating most of the Supreme Court. When I surf my local cable channels, there are at least a half dozen CBN (Christian Broadcast Network) channels. The leader of a major Christian group - Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of a foreign leader - without penalty from either God or the state department. And we are to accept the statement that Christians are MARGINALIZED and SHUNTED?!?!?!? - it hurts my head.
So when Bill O'Reilly takes on this cause I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised in his use of flawed logic. His motto is the "no-spin zone" yet acknowledges and defends his far right show of opinions. He does not recognize that Opinion is spin. President Bush, the neo-cons, the Fox network will be recalled by historians as having flawed logic.
Even if the Iraq adventure succeeds in bringing a peace to the middle east, it will not be attributed to this regime's impeccable use of logic and reasoning. They may have facts, a sense of conviction, a dedication and loyalty to their cause. Their cause may take the day, but historians cannot look back on this time and have a consensus that reasoned logic was what made it happen. Logic has a timeless nature and quality. Missing WMD, opinionated "no-spin zones" are not examples of logic and reason. Perhaps they are of intelligent design.
Future historians cannot avoid it any more than Bill Clinton's biographer can ignore his impeachment. Not even revisionists.
ISBN#: 1595230165
Address: http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824
Monday, January 02, 2006
Comment: There is a key point for the NSA surveillance that I don't understand. Why is the tap-now-approve-within-72hrs not fast enough? How can this be too much of a delay. How is it a delay?
This points to the key problem I have with this President as a person. Much of his logic is flawed. His policies are based on his logic and reasoning.
His personal secretiveness does not serve him well because his logic and reasoning is inadequate. If his logic and reasoning was consistent, then his secrectiveness would be acceptable and a virtue.
Instead it give the notion that he is constantly hiding something he did wrong. It is simply a matter of finding and deciding what it was - Katrina, WMD, Valerie Plame? But that is right, this man does not make mistakes.
Or is it possible that he is showing signs of true guilt about those past mistakes by attempting to appear strong on this issue?
This points to the key problem I have with this President as a person. Much of his logic is flawed. His policies are based on his logic and reasoning.
His personal secretiveness does not serve him well because his logic and reasoning is inadequate. If his logic and reasoning was consistent, then his secrectiveness would be acceptable and a virtue.
Instead it give the notion that he is constantly hiding something he did wrong. It is simply a matter of finding and deciding what it was - Katrina, WMD, Valerie Plame? But that is right, this man does not make mistakes.
Or is it possible that he is showing signs of true guilt about those past mistakes by attempting to appear strong on this issue?
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Issue:What about the next Nixon? - NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance:
Specific:"has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said."
Comment:The surveillance is not so much the concern. It is the logic and reasoning used with the information gathered. It is the competence of those handling the information - this time and in the future. These are items for the debate.
What is the guarantee that information gathered was not used in political objectives? What is/are the guarantee that the information gathered is not used in enabling large corporation to gain advantage in the "flat" world?
In a slightly different issue. There is some discussion about "Attack Prevention". It has been said that the value of this kind of surveillance has been proven, but it would be a violation of national security to make the case. Well, to this old software developer this rings of the old "Zero bug initiative". This is a management technique used to prove to other management, that their house is in order. But it is a paradox and a myth.
The state of having "zero bugs" in a software program cannot exist. "Zero Bugs" is in actuality a social communication. It the sociological mechanism that specifies and limits the uses and confines the environment within which a software application is run. So if an application has zero bugs on an Intel Chip machine, running on XP - is run on old Apple Mac - it will fail. So where is the error? Is that developer didn't design it properly? Is that the Manager allowed the client to run it on an Apple? Is it with the client for actually running where he knew it couldn't run? Many of those answers depend on the cash and power positions of the players. The reality of a state of zero bugs does not exist.
So, translate this to the War on terror. Can we be truly safe? For there will always be terrorist. Terrorism is a tactic and not a ideology. Therefore, those who oppose the war today can be classified as a threat to national security tomorrow, just because the President decides as much.
There will always be people willing to blow up the American people. Some will Americans - like in Oklahoma and others will be non-Americans. Should we give up our rights of governance to any Presidency, to simply protect us? This President is selling "we the people" - the end users of the software system called Democracy - an application that has "zero bugs".
Americans will and do die. They will die at the hands of other people. These future civilian and innocent death will be unjust deaths. They will be tragic. These future deaths are now unavoidable and certain. The only real question is the definition of the bad guy - who is to blame. The questions of when and how are basically irrelevant. History won't care about that. The leader when it happens won't care. They will predictably seek to avoid the blame.
The key is the qualities and nature of those who survive. America and American Democracy can survive for thousands of years. But only if fundamental assumptions can withstand the demands and strains of temporary and short term conditions.
If the War on Terror is allowed to "conquer" and dominate the world in the name of protecting ourselves, oppositional forces will bring it down and eliminate our culture - eventually. President Bush has indicated that Iran, Syria and Korea are an "axis of evil". Evil is to only be conquered. Evil is not something to be tolerated.
Democracy is a religion in that it must be accepted willingly and it cannot be forced on a population. It is an ideal. It is an idea. A democractic "dogma" will cause participants to overlook details and create vulernabilities through which terrorist to exploit.
The truest and most securing long term tactic is the involvement of the individual. Democracy is time consuming. If you fill the time of day of potential terrorist with the activities that motivates them, they will be less inclined to act out.
That's enough for now.
Address:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100808.html?nav=hcmodule
Specific:"has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said."
Comment:The surveillance is not so much the concern. It is the logic and reasoning used with the information gathered. It is the competence of those handling the information - this time and in the future. These are items for the debate.
What is the guarantee that information gathered was not used in political objectives? What is/are the guarantee that the information gathered is not used in enabling large corporation to gain advantage in the "flat" world?
In a slightly different issue. There is some discussion about "Attack Prevention". It has been said that the value of this kind of surveillance has been proven, but it would be a violation of national security to make the case. Well, to this old software developer this rings of the old "Zero bug initiative". This is a management technique used to prove to other management, that their house is in order. But it is a paradox and a myth.
The state of having "zero bugs" in a software program cannot exist. "Zero Bugs" is in actuality a social communication. It the sociological mechanism that specifies and limits the uses and confines the environment within which a software application is run. So if an application has zero bugs on an Intel Chip machine, running on XP - is run on old Apple Mac - it will fail. So where is the error? Is that developer didn't design it properly? Is that the Manager allowed the client to run it on an Apple? Is it with the client for actually running where he knew it couldn't run? Many of those answers depend on the cash and power positions of the players. The reality of a state of zero bugs does not exist.
So, translate this to the War on terror. Can we be truly safe? For there will always be terrorist. Terrorism is a tactic and not a ideology. Therefore, those who oppose the war today can be classified as a threat to national security tomorrow, just because the President decides as much.
There will always be people willing to blow up the American people. Some will Americans - like in Oklahoma and others will be non-Americans. Should we give up our rights of governance to any Presidency, to simply protect us? This President is selling "we the people" - the end users of the software system called Democracy - an application that has "zero bugs".
Americans will and do die. They will die at the hands of other people. These future civilian and innocent death will be unjust deaths. They will be tragic. These future deaths are now unavoidable and certain. The only real question is the definition of the bad guy - who is to blame. The questions of when and how are basically irrelevant. History won't care about that. The leader when it happens won't care. They will predictably seek to avoid the blame.
The key is the qualities and nature of those who survive. America and American Democracy can survive for thousands of years. But only if fundamental assumptions can withstand the demands and strains of temporary and short term conditions.
If the War on Terror is allowed to "conquer" and dominate the world in the name of protecting ourselves, oppositional forces will bring it down and eliminate our culture - eventually. President Bush has indicated that Iran, Syria and Korea are an "axis of evil". Evil is to only be conquered. Evil is not something to be tolerated.
Democracy is a religion in that it must be accepted willingly and it cannot be forced on a population. It is an ideal. It is an idea. A democractic "dogma" will cause participants to overlook details and create vulernabilities through which terrorist to exploit.
The truest and most securing long term tactic is the involvement of the individual. Democracy is time consuming. If you fill the time of day of potential terrorist with the activities that motivates them, they will be less inclined to act out.
That's enough for now.
Address:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100808.html?nav=hcmodule
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Issue:Could be an opportunity for VDSS - Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/22/2005 | Democrats: Machines must get vote:
Specific: "Jordan B. Yeager, an attorney for the Democratic Committee, told the commissioners at yesterday's year-end meeting in Doylestown that the state election code and the state constitution require the referendum."
Comment: Maybe a call is in order.
Specific: "Jordan B. Yeager, an attorney for the Democratic Committee, told the commissioners at yesterday's year-end meeting in Doylestown that the state election code and the state constitution require the referendum."
Comment: Maybe a call is in order.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
A Few obeservations with using a bit of emotional intelligence:
Alaska's Senator Stevens was visibly upset that the Arctic drilling amendment to a defense appropriations bill was removed. His dismay was expressed on the floor of the senate while wearing a tie for the graphic novel character - "The incredible HULK". I think that tie took away some of the impact of his message. Or was he saying I tried to sneek one passed you and I got caught? He may not know. But the tie was saying something as loudly as any of the emotion of his words. It is a shame that the clarity of his message was lost.
-------
I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the President of the United States. I want to be able to follow the emotional reasoning of his policies, words, actions. When I find myself in disagreement with someone - I look to resolve it. I think that if I can empathize with his being - "walk a mile in his shoes" it might be possible to accept him and support his policies. He only wants to do well for the country. beyond that last sentence, I start having difficulty.
It occurred to me recently, that there is at least one fundamental issue. The word "Mankind" has a different interpretation for the President from my understanding. When I think of "mankind" there is a vagueness to it. This ambiguity is derived from the fact that I cannot know or imagine all of the possibilities of what it means. I sense that the President feels he must know.
This in important because his policies involve a lot of anger and revenge. It involves physical pain. He does not see bad guys as human. The History Channel had a show on the WWI Christmas Truce. This is the real story of how ordinary foot soliders from both sides came together at Christmas for a period.
The thought is that in order for peace, this kind of activity must be imaginable. The history suggests the profitability of such sentiments. The Administration does not clarify the nature of the "evil", and therefore one cannot begin to imagine peace with "evil" - so a perpetual state of war will continue.
It suggests that this could be a motivation for the administration. Not even oil is as valuable to the administration and his supporters than a permenant state of war. No one made a buck from peace.
Peace on Earth - 'tis the season. Oh wait - even here Bill O'reilly thinks Christmas is being attacked and eeds defending. The History Channel offers yet another instructive lesson with a show on the History of Christmas. The word that comes to mind from watching the show - evolution.
Christmas in America, according to the broadcast, has not been the same since day one and has been changing. December 25th is not really the actual birth date of Jesus Christ - according to the experts in the show. According to the show it was an accomodation by the church to pagan to bring them into the "fold". It was an evangelical move of sorts. It seems there was a pagan "sun" god name Mithra who was celebrated to be born on the 25th.
The evergreen christmas tree in America was an accomodation to recent immigrants of the "old country" as another means to celebrate.
Many of the things that are considered "traditional" are not religious at all. The are habits or customs started with the design to bring people together in the cold of winter.
Bill O'Reilly would have Christmas be cast in stone and never change. This is predictable of the "conservative" mindset. Never improve, never change - is that why the President is always reminding us of how far we've come? Is it possible that he thinks America is better off with a reality of his choosing that will not change? A culture that will stagnate. A culture full of fear of the new and changing? That's the neo-con ideology. That's a culture that can be politically controlled and mainpulated for profit by the corporations and not the individual.
Alaska's Senator Stevens was visibly upset that the Arctic drilling amendment to a defense appropriations bill was removed. His dismay was expressed on the floor of the senate while wearing a tie for the graphic novel character - "The incredible HULK". I think that tie took away some of the impact of his message. Or was he saying I tried to sneek one passed you and I got caught? He may not know. But the tie was saying something as loudly as any of the emotion of his words. It is a shame that the clarity of his message was lost.
-------
I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the President of the United States. I want to be able to follow the emotional reasoning of his policies, words, actions. When I find myself in disagreement with someone - I look to resolve it. I think that if I can empathize with his being - "walk a mile in his shoes" it might be possible to accept him and support his policies. He only wants to do well for the country. beyond that last sentence, I start having difficulty.
It occurred to me recently, that there is at least one fundamental issue. The word "Mankind" has a different interpretation for the President from my understanding. When I think of "mankind" there is a vagueness to it. This ambiguity is derived from the fact that I cannot know or imagine all of the possibilities of what it means. I sense that the President feels he must know.
This in important because his policies involve a lot of anger and revenge. It involves physical pain. He does not see bad guys as human. The History Channel had a show on the WWI Christmas Truce. This is the real story of how ordinary foot soliders from both sides came together at Christmas for a period.
The thought is that in order for peace, this kind of activity must be imaginable. The history suggests the profitability of such sentiments. The Administration does not clarify the nature of the "evil", and therefore one cannot begin to imagine peace with "evil" - so a perpetual state of war will continue.
It suggests that this could be a motivation for the administration. Not even oil is as valuable to the administration and his supporters than a permenant state of war. No one made a buck from peace.
Peace on Earth - 'tis the season. Oh wait - even here Bill O'reilly thinks Christmas is being attacked and eeds defending. The History Channel offers yet another instructive lesson with a show on the History of Christmas. The word that comes to mind from watching the show - evolution.
Christmas in America, according to the broadcast, has not been the same since day one and has been changing. December 25th is not really the actual birth date of Jesus Christ - according to the experts in the show. According to the show it was an accomodation by the church to pagan to bring them into the "fold". It was an evangelical move of sorts. It seems there was a pagan "sun" god name Mithra who was celebrated to be born on the 25th.
The evergreen christmas tree in America was an accomodation to recent immigrants of the "old country" as another means to celebrate.
Many of the things that are considered "traditional" are not religious at all. The are habits or customs started with the design to bring people together in the cold of winter.
Bill O'Reilly would have Christmas be cast in stone and never change. This is predictable of the "conservative" mindset. Never improve, never change - is that why the President is always reminding us of how far we've come? Is it possible that he thinks America is better off with a reality of his choosing that will not change? A culture that will stagnate. A culture full of fear of the new and changing? That's the neo-con ideology. That's a culture that can be politically controlled and mainpulated for profit by the corporations and not the individual.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Issue:Credibility of the President - Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls - New York Times:
Specific:"without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases"
Comment:What are the preventive measures to stop the President from changing the definitions of who is a threat to national security - as Richard Nixon did as part of the Watergate scandal. What is to stop the President from using the results of this power for purely domestic purposes? When does the opponent of his policy become a threat to national security?
Specific:"without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases"
Comment:What are the preventive measures to stop the President from changing the definitions of who is a threat to national security - as Richard Nixon did as part of the Watergate scandal. What is to stop the President from using the results of this power for purely domestic purposes? When does the opponent of his policy become a threat to national security?
Issue:The best explanation I've heard - What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics | csmonitor.com:
Specific:"Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom any more than Ptolemaic astronomy and for exactly the same reason: They are both poor accounts of the phenomena they seek to explain and both much improved upon by other available theories."
Specific:"Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom any more than Ptolemaic astronomy and for exactly the same reason: They are both poor accounts of the phenomena they seek to explain and both much improved upon by other available theories."
Monday, December 19, 2005
Issue:Consequences - What Consequences? CNN.com - Transcript of Bush speech - Dec 18, 2005:
Specific: "I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. "
Comment:The man does not have to face a re-election. The Judicial Branch has minds sympathetic to his political philosophy. Congress is controlled by his party. When he leaves office, he will have health care and personal protection for the rest of his life.
What consequences could he imagine? What is a threat ? He has proven time and again that he is not swayed by polls. He as indicated that he doesn't make mistakes. There is the questions about his reading/news habits. Either he is in touch with the news and lied about not reading the papers or actually is in the "Bubble" that Newsweek perceives and is not getting all the information. He has a network dedicated to spinning news to being favorable to him.
What consequences?
The line for the Mel Brooks movie "Blazing Saddles" comes to mind in combination with executive order to spy on American. "..Badges??, we don't need to stinking Badges..."
Address:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/index.html
Specific: "I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. "
Comment:The man does not have to face a re-election. The Judicial Branch has minds sympathetic to his political philosophy. Congress is controlled by his party. When he leaves office, he will have health care and personal protection for the rest of his life.
What consequences could he imagine? What is a threat ? He has proven time and again that he is not swayed by polls. He as indicated that he doesn't make mistakes. There is the questions about his reading/news habits. Either he is in touch with the news and lied about not reading the papers or actually is in the "Bubble" that Newsweek perceives and is not getting all the information. He has a network dedicated to spinning news to being favorable to him.
What consequences?
The line for the Mel Brooks movie "Blazing Saddles" comes to mind in combination with executive order to spy on American. "..Badges??, we don't need to stinking Badges..."
Address:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/index.html
Friday, December 16, 2005
Issue:Material to Remember when reading about the surveillance story - George Bush and God A hot line to heaven Economist.com:
Specific: "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president. "
Comment:To what ends will someone who holds such a belief go to identify enemies and protect what he believes needs protecting?
Evaluate the logic in the Valeire Plame story and Bob Novak's recent revelations, in combination with the President's faith and the surveillance story. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the War on Terrorism and Iraq is motivated for reasons other than the protection of the American people?
Remember, New Orleans was a democratic town, and the rebuilding is still a second tier consideration for the administration in terms of dollars. The President didn't cause it in anyway. He has not responsibility for rebuilding it - except that he pledged that he would.
The War effort is rumored to get another 150 billion dollars to the 3.1 Billion that New Orleans is getting.
What are the true motivations of this President and administration. He is having credibility issues and the logic of his policies are not synchronized to making sense.
--------------
Address: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861"
Specific: "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president. "
Comment:To what ends will someone who holds such a belief go to identify enemies and protect what he believes needs protecting?
Evaluate the logic in the Valeire Plame story and Bob Novak's recent revelations, in combination with the President's faith and the surveillance story. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the War on Terrorism and Iraq is motivated for reasons other than the protection of the American people?
Remember, New Orleans was a democratic town, and the rebuilding is still a second tier consideration for the administration in terms of dollars. The President didn't cause it in anyway. He has not responsibility for rebuilding it - except that he pledged that he would.
The War effort is rumored to get another 150 billion dollars to the 3.1 Billion that New Orleans is getting.
What are the true motivations of this President and administration. He is having credibility issues and the logic of his policies are not synchronized to making sense.
--------------
Address: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861"
Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005: Drudge is a NEO-CON sympathizer - Is the Cold War Over?
Specific: "NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET
**Exclusive**
Newspaper fails to inform readers 'news break' is tied to book publication
On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that 'months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.'
Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.
But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many 'explosive newsbreaking' stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!
The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.
'STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration' is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.
The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.
Developing... "
COMMENT:The observation is that Drudge is more alarmed that the NYT didn't reveal something than he is of the Federal Government not revealing something. He is more concerned about the power of the NYT, than the power of the Federal Government.
This suggests that he is less concerned about the "body politic" the individuals than the government.
A theme that I've seen else, but was less inclined to accept, is the notion that the middle class is under attack. This presentation by Mr. Drudge and this policy of surveillance combined with the Administration secretiveness suggest a social category is indeed under attack.
The elevation of concern about China's market by financial media elites supports a notion that maybe the neo-con feels that the need to clear out the American middle-class in order to make room for the rise of a Global middle-class to be dominated by foreign markets like China. Perhaps Corporate American board room feel they can maintain growth by courting the markets of the developing world - like Inda and China.
Perhaps the cold war is not over - but it simply partner have changed. Who brung ya to the dance is not who you go home with.
-----------------
Address:"http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm"
Specific: "NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET
**Exclusive**
Newspaper fails to inform readers 'news break' is tied to book publication
On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that 'months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.'
Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.
But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many 'explosive newsbreaking' stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!
The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.
'STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration' is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.
The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.
Developing... "
COMMENT:The observation is that Drudge is more alarmed that the NYT didn't reveal something than he is of the Federal Government not revealing something. He is more concerned about the power of the NYT, than the power of the Federal Government.
This suggests that he is less concerned about the "body politic" the individuals than the government.
A theme that I've seen else, but was less inclined to accept, is the notion that the middle class is under attack. This presentation by Mr. Drudge and this policy of surveillance combined with the Administration secretiveness suggest a social category is indeed under attack.
The elevation of concern about China's market by financial media elites supports a notion that maybe the neo-con feels that the need to clear out the American middle-class in order to make room for the rise of a Global middle-class to be dominated by foreign markets like China. Perhaps Corporate American board room feel they can maintain growth by courting the markets of the developing world - like Inda and China.
Perhaps the cold war is not over - but it simply partner have changed. Who brung ya to the dance is not who you go home with.
-----------------
Address:"http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm"
Issue:Credibility - Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - New York Times
Specific: "Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications"
Comment: There are 2 aspects of this that are troubling. First and foremost is that it was without judicial branch supervision. The President did not feel encumbered by any sense of check or balance. The other is that it has been 3 years it has been going on.
Remeber, this is an administration that has been inclined towards propaganda and disinformation. So, when after 3 years, we NOW find out that about the surveillance - is it reasonable to believe that it was ONLY international calls?
I recognize that "conspiracy" thinking can enables one to jump to conclusions too soon. That is a bad thing to do. To be avoided. Let's face it, even the President did that concerning WMD. Oh, excuse me - he had faulty intelligence.
But it is worth noting that social click's do exist. Social groups don't have to be secretive to not share information. They simply do not communicate. So as I have suggested on past occasions, there could be a social group that happen to be in control of both the federal government and a popular political party - that simply does not communicate. The Neo-Cons could be should a group.
Is this group something to be discussed? Just not over the phone. Where can one have privacy?
Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Specific: "Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications"
Comment: There are 2 aspects of this that are troubling. First and foremost is that it was without judicial branch supervision. The President did not feel encumbered by any sense of check or balance. The other is that it has been 3 years it has been going on.
Remeber, this is an administration that has been inclined towards propaganda and disinformation. So, when after 3 years, we NOW find out that about the surveillance - is it reasonable to believe that it was ONLY international calls?
I recognize that "conspiracy" thinking can enables one to jump to conclusions too soon. That is a bad thing to do. To be avoided. Let's face it, even the President did that concerning WMD. Oh, excuse me - he had faulty intelligence.
But it is worth noting that social click's do exist. Social groups don't have to be secretive to not share information. They simply do not communicate. So as I have suggested on past occasions, there could be a social group that happen to be in control of both the federal government and a popular political party - that simply does not communicate. The Neo-Cons could be should a group.
Is this group something to be discussed? Just not over the phone. Where can one have privacy?
Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Commentary on the President's most recent Iraq speech
I watched the speech and wrote down a couple of notes that may or may not make sense without a fuller context - but here goes.
In terms of the word "victory" - there is some kind of specific objective event that has a temporal delineation. When the clock runs to 0:00 in football, the game is over and the winner is known. In WWII, victory was known with the bombing of Hiroshima. The cold war ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.
These are icon that mark the moment of victory. What will be the icon for the end of the War on Terrorism and define the victor?
Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and therefore will never go away. Only the people who are defined as terrorists will change.
Islamo-facism is not a state specific principle, so what will be the Hallmark of the end? China is still communist, so did the collapse of the Berlin Wall really end the cold-war against communism?
The President made the observation that the Terrorist can't defeat our military - and he is right in the traditional sense. But this is an unconventional enemy in and unconvetional form of warfare, so why is the President committed to defining victory in rhetorically conventional terms?
Should not victory and defeat be defined for this unconventional war in unconventional or non-traditional terms? Is this President doing that?
Hurricane Katrina wiped out an entire American City - and America survived. It can be argued that we thrived based on the 3rd quarter GDP figures.
Without being indifferent to the deaths in N.O. or in Iraq or even 9/11 - there is an observation to be made.
We have taken the best punches of nature and bad guys and survived and flourished. Is this not a notable fact for determining motivations of the Administration and the neo-con's of the Republican party?
It goes to control.
It is my understanding that the War on Terrorism is fast approaching 500 Billion dollars. If 100 billion have been committed to New Orleans I would be amazed.
What is the definition of Homeland Security in the context of these observations?
The President admitted it was his decision for go to war on faulty intelligence, and he would do it again. Why? What's the need?
It seems that if we could raise a culture to build and construct things that was as passionate as the gun culture, then destruction could be seem as an opportunity for renewal rather than revenge.
A HomeDepot culture instead of NRA culture, removes the ability for terroist to do us harm. A HomeDepot Culture would mourn the dead and care for the injured by rebuilding bigger and better. The NRA culture (lead by the NEO-CONs) seek revenge because it enhances different priorities that are not specific to the individual.
I watched the speech and wrote down a couple of notes that may or may not make sense without a fuller context - but here goes.
In terms of the word "victory" - there is some kind of specific objective event that has a temporal delineation. When the clock runs to 0:00 in football, the game is over and the winner is known. In WWII, victory was known with the bombing of Hiroshima. The cold war ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.
These are icon that mark the moment of victory. What will be the icon for the end of the War on Terrorism and define the victor?
Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and therefore will never go away. Only the people who are defined as terrorists will change.
Islamo-facism is not a state specific principle, so what will be the Hallmark of the end? China is still communist, so did the collapse of the Berlin Wall really end the cold-war against communism?
The President made the observation that the Terrorist can't defeat our military - and he is right in the traditional sense. But this is an unconventional enemy in and unconvetional form of warfare, so why is the President committed to defining victory in rhetorically conventional terms?
Should not victory and defeat be defined for this unconventional war in unconventional or non-traditional terms? Is this President doing that?
Hurricane Katrina wiped out an entire American City - and America survived. It can be argued that we thrived based on the 3rd quarter GDP figures.
Without being indifferent to the deaths in N.O. or in Iraq or even 9/11 - there is an observation to be made.
We have taken the best punches of nature and bad guys and survived and flourished. Is this not a notable fact for determining motivations of the Administration and the neo-con's of the Republican party?
It goes to control.
It is my understanding that the War on Terrorism is fast approaching 500 Billion dollars. If 100 billion have been committed to New Orleans I would be amazed.
What is the definition of Homeland Security in the context of these observations?
The President admitted it was his decision for go to war on faulty intelligence, and he would do it again. Why? What's the need?
It seems that if we could raise a culture to build and construct things that was as passionate as the gun culture, then destruction could be seem as an opportunity for renewal rather than revenge.
A HomeDepot culture instead of NRA culture, removes the ability for terroist to do us harm. A HomeDepot Culture would mourn the dead and care for the injured by rebuilding bigger and better. The NRA culture (lead by the NEO-CONs) seek revenge because it enhances different priorities that are not specific to the individual.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Issue:Bush Acknowledges Heavy Toll in Iraq - New York Times - but is that the point of my opposition?:
Specific:"For the first time, the president also put a number on the approximate numbers of Iraqis killed - 30,000 he said - since the beginning of the American-led invasion in March 2003"
Comment:Let's be clear. The President is a simplistic, straight-forward in his rhetoric. No shades of gray or subtly in him. So I will be on that level. Peace in the Middle-east is of great value.
There is a price.
Now we are simply haggling over the price. This should have been done before - not after.
Are we really haggling rhetorically about the price? Is this really about Peace in the Middle East? Is this really about protecting Americans and the Homeland?
30 thousand Iraqi's dead. More than 2 thousand American soldiers. Countless families disrupted or torn apart by the injuries to the mind and body.
Let me put something else to be considered on the bargaining table. The City of New Orleans. It has been better than 2 months since city was destroyed - does it matter if it was by a force of nature or the hand of man? This President sold us the Iraq war against Saddam by using the twin towers to amplify the fear of what happened in New Orleans - the destruction of an American city. So what if the destruction came from a storm cloud instead of a mushroom cloud.
It has happened, and the President is looking in the other direction. He choose violence and destruction, and would do it again. His Neo-con element would do it again. I believe it because it is the alogrithm or logic of this administration. They are seeking power and only power, for the sake of power and control.
If what motivated this administration was truly the welfare people of the United States, then New Orleans would be rebuilt before Baghdad, alternative fuels would be elevated to Moon-shot levels, and practical security like harbor protection, border security.
Ok, given that we have no choice - I ain't buying from this sales organization for nothing more than he got WMD wrong. If he was so wrong about that why should we trust him now? What's he going to be the next thing he is wrong about?
This President decided to change humanity by believing that it is better to lead with the power of fear than by reason.
This President decided to change humanity by playing on a human weakness - fear.
How long will a change based on a weakness last?
It is a good to build from something that is weak?
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is famous because of the empowering sensation of the logic and reason, than the man who said it. It plays on a strength - courage, logic and reason.
President Bush and the neo-cons do want "we the people" to feel empowered. This is why I reject this President or any poltical force or entity that does not want to enable one to be politically empowered. This is a principle.
For me th Iraq war debate is not about staying or going.
It's about the powershift involving the American citizen.
What's the price of this powershift? That's the debate
--------
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=0dfcf1cab7fc0691&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Specific:"For the first time, the president also put a number on the approximate numbers of Iraqis killed - 30,000 he said - since the beginning of the American-led invasion in March 2003"
Comment:Let's be clear. The President is a simplistic, straight-forward in his rhetoric. No shades of gray or subtly in him. So I will be on that level. Peace in the Middle-east is of great value.
There is a price.
Now we are simply haggling over the price. This should have been done before - not after.
Are we really haggling rhetorically about the price? Is this really about Peace in the Middle East? Is this really about protecting Americans and the Homeland?
30 thousand Iraqi's dead. More than 2 thousand American soldiers. Countless families disrupted or torn apart by the injuries to the mind and body.
Let me put something else to be considered on the bargaining table. The City of New Orleans. It has been better than 2 months since city was destroyed - does it matter if it was by a force of nature or the hand of man? This President sold us the Iraq war against Saddam by using the twin towers to amplify the fear of what happened in New Orleans - the destruction of an American city. So what if the destruction came from a storm cloud instead of a mushroom cloud.
It has happened, and the President is looking in the other direction. He choose violence and destruction, and would do it again. His Neo-con element would do it again. I believe it because it is the alogrithm or logic of this administration. They are seeking power and only power, for the sake of power and control.
If what motivated this administration was truly the welfare people of the United States, then New Orleans would be rebuilt before Baghdad, alternative fuels would be elevated to Moon-shot levels, and practical security like harbor protection, border security.
Ok, given that we have no choice - I ain't buying from this sales organization for nothing more than he got WMD wrong. If he was so wrong about that why should we trust him now? What's he going to be the next thing he is wrong about?
This President decided to change humanity by believing that it is better to lead with the power of fear than by reason.
This President decided to change humanity by playing on a human weakness - fear.
How long will a change based on a weakness last?
It is a good to build from something that is weak?
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is famous because of the empowering sensation of the logic and reason, than the man who said it. It plays on a strength - courage, logic and reason.
President Bush and the neo-cons do want "we the people" to feel empowered. This is why I reject this President or any poltical force or entity that does not want to enable one to be politically empowered. This is a principle.
For me th Iraq war debate is not about staying or going.
It's about the powershift involving the American citizen.
What's the price of this powershift? That's the debate
--------
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=0dfcf1cab7fc0691&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Friday, December 09, 2005
Issue:Characterisitic attiude of the element controlling the Republican Party -courant.com | Ann Coulter Cuts University Speech Short :
Specific:"'I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,' Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday. "
Comment: This is another indication of the character of the neo-con elements that are in control of the Republican party, White House and Congress.
Yes, she was indeed being heckled. I don't mind that she took a shot back. The character flaw is that it lacked humor and bite. It was a demonstration of a lack of thought that is the flaw.
If this was her first experience confronting a hostile crowd, a lack of thought would be understandable. But she has been out there for some time. It is clear that she is indifferent to what other think or feel about her opinion. This is characteristic of the controlling element of the Republican party.
Specific:"'I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,' Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday. "
Comment: This is another indication of the character of the neo-con elements that are in control of the Republican party, White House and Congress.
Yes, she was indeed being heckled. I don't mind that she took a shot back. The character flaw is that it lacked humor and bite. It was a demonstration of a lack of thought that is the flaw.
If this was her first experience confronting a hostile crowd, a lack of thought would be understandable. But she has been out there for some time. It is clear that she is indifferent to what other think or feel about her opinion. This is characteristic of the controlling element of the Republican party.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Issue:Show Me the Science - The Archive - The New York Times
Specific: "Only an intelligent designer could have created such a..."
Comment: The advocates of "intelligent designer" are simply Earth focused. There are some observations from Astronomy that need to be addressed by these advocates.
Observation 1: The number of stars burning in the visible Universe is greater that number of human that ever lived. Even the most passionate advocate for God, believes that the stars are real. Is there something to be said about the priorities of the creation humanity and the creation of stars. Even the bible states that man was not created first - it was light - and presumably that means the stars - all of the stars. Is it reasonable to ask if there is purpose or function for creating so much for so little return?
Observation 2: Does the theory of "Intelligent Design" rule out the possibility that life on Earth was seeded? Perhaps a comet or asteroid impact? Is it so far reaching to think that the elements of life remained separated in a ball of ice, until the heat and pressures of an impact, initiated a sequence?
Observation 3: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer.
Observation 4: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer with divinity.
Specific: "Only an intelligent designer could have created such a..."
Comment: The advocates of "intelligent designer" are simply Earth focused. There are some observations from Astronomy that need to be addressed by these advocates.
Observation 1: The number of stars burning in the visible Universe is greater that number of human that ever lived. Even the most passionate advocate for God, believes that the stars are real. Is there something to be said about the priorities of the creation humanity and the creation of stars. Even the bible states that man was not created first - it was light - and presumably that means the stars - all of the stars. Is it reasonable to ask if there is purpose or function for creating so much for so little return?
Observation 2: Does the theory of "Intelligent Design" rule out the possibility that life on Earth was seeded? Perhaps a comet or asteroid impact? Is it so far reaching to think that the elements of life remained separated in a ball of ice, until the heat and pressures of an impact, initiated a sequence?
Observation 3: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer.
Observation 4: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer with divinity.
Issue:Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/11/2005 | Robertson says Dover deserves snub from God: "Robertson says Dover deserves snub from God"
Specific: This goes to the radical notion that is controlling foreign policy, the republican party, supreme court nominations - aka the Bush administration.
Remember Reverend Dobson during Harriet Miers process.
Remember this same man of the cloth advocated the assasination of a specific head of state.
Remember that one should not try to bend the spoon with your mind, for that is impossible. One must realize that is not real. The spoon is behavior? - something to explore.
Specific: This goes to the radical notion that is controlling foreign policy, the republican party, supreme court nominations - aka the Bush administration.
Remember Reverend Dobson during Harriet Miers process.
Remember this same man of the cloth advocated the assasination of a specific head of state.
Remember that one should not try to bend the spoon with your mind, for that is impossible. One must realize that is not real. The spoon is behavior? - something to explore.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Issue:Can Democracy have a Holy War?
Source:BBC - Press Office - George Bush on Elusive Peace:
Specific:"Nabil Shaath says: 'President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ?' And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it.''
Comment:Should this be scary? What if the American people are not as afraid as the President and the Neo-Cons believe we should be of extremist? What will be their reactions?
Where is the logic and reason that was fundamental to American pragmatism. War was a response to a direct and viable threat - like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. War was almost a matter of practicality to defend one's country - not something fought by religious fanatics on both sides.
The BBC is a credible source. Their source being the Palestinian Prime Minister is curious. I question his motivations. Perhaps he feels that this kind of thing will came traction in the American media.
Perhaps it is indicative that so far this has not reached the MSM air waves. The wording is not quite the President in my estimation. Perhaps it is indicative of my inclinations that I should note it.
But on this day, the President has made yet another speech on the Terror War, telling us why we should be afraid. On this day, unnamed sources in the Pentagon have indicated that NYC subways are under threat again. MSNBC Keith Olbermann reported that this pattern has occurred at least 13 times before. I'll follow the President - as long as the threat is real(like a hurricane real) and he does not cry wolf. If this happens too many more times, when it does happen - I may be one who questions if it was caused Al-Qaida or disappointed Neo-Cons.
Source:BBC - Press Office - George Bush on Elusive Peace:
Specific:"Nabil Shaath says: 'President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ?' And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it.''
Comment:Should this be scary? What if the American people are not as afraid as the President and the Neo-Cons believe we should be of extremist? What will be their reactions?
Where is the logic and reason that was fundamental to American pragmatism. War was a response to a direct and viable threat - like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. War was almost a matter of practicality to defend one's country - not something fought by religious fanatics on both sides.
The BBC is a credible source. Their source being the Palestinian Prime Minister is curious. I question his motivations. Perhaps he feels that this kind of thing will came traction in the American media.
Perhaps it is indicative that so far this has not reached the MSM air waves. The wording is not quite the President in my estimation. Perhaps it is indicative of my inclinations that I should note it.
But on this day, the President has made yet another speech on the Terror War, telling us why we should be afraid. On this day, unnamed sources in the Pentagon have indicated that NYC subways are under threat again. MSNBC Keith Olbermann reported that this pattern has occurred at least 13 times before. I'll follow the President - as long as the threat is real(like a hurricane real) and he does not cry wolf. If this happens too many more times, when it does happen - I may be one who questions if it was caused Al-Qaida or disappointed Neo-Cons.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Issue:Rhetorical evidence of the Right Wing in pursuit of 1 party rule: power for the sake of power only - or - what state of society will satisfy this group?
Source:Wynton C. Hall on Harriet Miers, Supreme Court & 2006 on National Review Online:
Specific:"Virtually any of the usual names discussed ? Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, Priscilla Owens, etc. ? would have sent a clear signal to conservatives that Bush was still fighting their cause, that the licking of fundraising envelopes and endless precinct walking had all not been in vain.
But this threatens that. "
Comment: This comment evokes a sense of entitlement of the neo-conservatives. They feel their "due" is more important than what is good or best for the people. This is mindset in the Republican party that is not of my father's party.
They have the White House, The House, Senate and now the second Supreme court nomination. They have a justified war. They have lowered taxes and a good business cycle. How much more do "they" want? What else is there to want? It is this point that leads to my fear of this ideology in the republican party. That a group of people with all of this control of the country - and yet they feel entitled to more?
And yet it goes even further and deeper. Joe Scarborough gave voice to an opinion of the right to Katie Couric that I've heard a number of times in the past several days. The opinion is one of aggressive hostility. The opinion is that "they want the fight" "They want the nuclear option". The people of the party in control, whose ideology is in control still want "a fight".
What is wrong with this picture? Who or what are they fighting? Why is a fight good for the country right now after Katrina, Rita and high gas prices?
My new conclusion - is that this group is demostrating a pattern that can only lead to soviet style one-party rule and domination and cultural control and stagnation.
I am open minded. I've just finished Walter Isaacsons "Ben Franklin" and in college I've read about communism and the Koran. I am a fan of science fiction, so using my imagination to play out different social visions comes easily to me.
And yet I can't find a different social vision. This "they" - the controlling element of the Republican party - the neo-cons - want to drive the culture back to a time before all of the technological advances enabled their fiscal, social and consequently political power. They want the technology of the 90's and the culture of the fifty or earlier. Somehow they cannot realize that their is a connection that cannot be separated.
The constitution cannot be strictly adhered. The reason is simple - change. We a fifty different states - not 13 colonies. This nation has weapons enough to destroy the planet and yet the party that was fairly elected wants a strict adherence to a document written for and by a society, as if Old Ironsides, not the USS Ronald Reagan was the most powerful ship on the sea.
If "they" are not looking for 1 party rule, then there is an final agenda or a state of society that is being hidden - what is it?
What do they want from us?
Source:Wynton C. Hall on Harriet Miers, Supreme Court & 2006 on National Review Online:
Specific:"Virtually any of the usual names discussed ? Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, Priscilla Owens, etc. ? would have sent a clear signal to conservatives that Bush was still fighting their cause, that the licking of fundraising envelopes and endless precinct walking had all not been in vain.
But this threatens that. "
Comment: This comment evokes a sense of entitlement of the neo-conservatives. They feel their "due" is more important than what is good or best for the people. This is mindset in the Republican party that is not of my father's party.
They have the White House, The House, Senate and now the second Supreme court nomination. They have a justified war. They have lowered taxes and a good business cycle. How much more do "they" want? What else is there to want? It is this point that leads to my fear of this ideology in the republican party. That a group of people with all of this control of the country - and yet they feel entitled to more?
And yet it goes even further and deeper. Joe Scarborough gave voice to an opinion of the right to Katie Couric that I've heard a number of times in the past several days. The opinion is one of aggressive hostility. The opinion is that "they want the fight" "They want the nuclear option". The people of the party in control, whose ideology is in control still want "a fight".
What is wrong with this picture? Who or what are they fighting? Why is a fight good for the country right now after Katrina, Rita and high gas prices?
My new conclusion - is that this group is demostrating a pattern that can only lead to soviet style one-party rule and domination and cultural control and stagnation.
I am open minded. I've just finished Walter Isaacsons "Ben Franklin" and in college I've read about communism and the Koran. I am a fan of science fiction, so using my imagination to play out different social visions comes easily to me.
And yet I can't find a different social vision. This "they" - the controlling element of the Republican party - the neo-cons - want to drive the culture back to a time before all of the technological advances enabled their fiscal, social and consequently political power. They want the technology of the 90's and the culture of the fifty or earlier. Somehow they cannot realize that their is a connection that cannot be separated.
The constitution cannot be strictly adhered. The reason is simple - change. We a fifty different states - not 13 colonies. This nation has weapons enough to destroy the planet and yet the party that was fairly elected wants a strict adherence to a document written for and by a society, as if Old Ironsides, not the USS Ronald Reagan was the most powerful ship on the sea.
If "they" are not looking for 1 party rule, then there is an final agenda or a state of society that is being hidden - what is it?
What do they want from us?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Issue:CNN.com - Judge: Priest?likely killed two people in 2002 - Oct 3, 2005 - a possible good to come out of this?:
Specific:"Although Erickson cannot be charged, the victims' families requested the hearing to determine who was responsible for the killings.
The so-called John Doe hearing is used in only a few states, typically as an investigative tool. The hearing was closed to the public, but some reporters were allowed to attend."
Comment:Are there other uses or functionalities of a "John Doe" Hearing? Do other states have these? Could these be legally sanctioned for legal/partisan disputes?
Specific:"Although Erickson cannot be charged, the victims' families requested the hearing to determine who was responsible for the killings.
The so-called John Doe hearing is used in only a few states, typically as an investigative tool. The hearing was closed to the public, but some reporters were allowed to attend."
Comment:Are there other uses or functionalities of a "John Doe" Hearing? Do other states have these? Could these be legally sanctioned for legal/partisan disputes?
Sunday, October 02, 2005
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)