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.
Friday, November 18, 2005
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)