YES WE CAN: In Defense of George Bush and Sarah Palin.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
6:46 AM
There is an American Tradition in America. I see this process in several places in our culture and several periods of history. This process behaves like a control of some sort.
Strong components of this process are denial, fear, a bigotry like ignorance, and mis-perception - not necessarily in that order . Frequently it involves a change in level.
The substantive facts are generally agreed upon early and revelations come to light in the latter stages of the process. Issues of performance are present .
What is unclear are the expectations or the definitions of "performance"
What is also unclear is the question of "Control". Is it the person in the process. Are "others" in control.
In non-political interpretations, the "others" are the "cool", the social click, the insiders.
Part of the process is that while the "others" are recognized and accepted, there is a denial factor about the perception of what the "others" due.
There is a denial about the desire to be like the "others". This manifests itself with the presence of the "wanna-be" and the imposter in the "others".
The person in the process cannot assess their contribution until after. Sometimes the person going through the process in knowing participant. Sometimes the person simply defines and perceives the process differently.
In political terms - current political terms - There are 2 elements of the Red side of the aisle. Party affiliation does not specifically matter in the general perspective. The process happens on the political left as well.
The "neo-cons" and radical media elements are major contributors to the "process" that George Bush junior and Sarah Palin - the people, the individuals - are currently dealing with.
Fairness or reality do not play a part to this groups. Control and money are their only concerns. Capitalism to them is something that can never be taken too far. Control to them is something that can never be taken too far.
There are too many factors or too many different profiles of factors in these individuals to explore here and now.
Hyperbole is a key and consistent element in their rhetoric. Conversational control is implemented with volume, speed and directional changes. Issues are left tangling. Full exploration of a subject to the satisfaction of all is not done by this group as it means giving up a certain amount of control.
"We the people" include these elements. "We the people" need to recognize we may have contributed to actually participating in the process. "We the people" may have allowed the process.
I am personally very gratified that President-elect Obama has been elected by such a large margin. He is a good man who to me has demonstrated a logic followed by reason in dealing with priorities. Politically these are traits that George Bush and Sarah Palin do not share with President-elect Obama.
George Bush and Sarah Palin do share with me personally - we are equals and part of "We the People". The "others" are not. The "process" is not part of the Control of "We the People".
The "others" and the "process" need to be broken down into their constituent parts. These entities need to evolve or disappear. In time they will.
The "others" and the "process" are contributors to the difficulties America sees today. Whether it is the economic issues or the issues in international affairs the others and the process are players.
Now is a good time for the constituent parts of the "others" and the "process" to rise above the sum of their parts because it strengthens "We the people".
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
A couple of thoughts...
The first was a video of little girl player of Tee Ball age being brought out into the middle of the field to meet the President. There was no audio in the version I saw. As soon as the adult let go of the child's hand, she made a dash for a hole in the fence and beyond. We are talking about going from the first baseline to the third base side and out.
Next is for the Presidential Candidates. If each believe that the partisan characteristic of politics is not good for the country then let's see a McCain & Obama ticket on the Republican side and a Obama & McCain on the Democratic side. Debate that and see if things can be repaired. It would have the virtue of being different and therefore possibly exciting for everyone.
The first was a video of little girl player of Tee Ball age being brought out into the middle of the field to meet the President. There was no audio in the version I saw. As soon as the adult let go of the child's hand, she made a dash for a hole in the fence and beyond. We are talking about going from the first baseline to the third base side and out.
Next is for the Presidential Candidates. If each believe that the partisan characteristic of politics is not good for the country then let's see a McCain & Obama ticket on the Republican side and a Obama & McCain on the Democratic side. Debate that and see if things can be repaired. It would have the virtue of being different and therefore possibly exciting for everyone.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Iranian Missles + Russian Defense + Hindenburg Omen + Bear Market/Collapse + Oil Fog + Election Fog ----> Let stew until October (with political surprises, and stock market witching hours) then divide by neo-cons and what do you get ???? I don't know - I'm really asking!
Is the Corporation a Citizen or individual as per the state? According to Robert Riech’s recent book, corporations are citizens. The organization form called a corporation are key each of the elements of the tensions in the title.
This is not a rant against the machine. Nor is it praise for the success for capitalism. Let’s invent a new term that perhaps better expresses the notion. “Corporatism” or “Corporacrhy”– It differs from the “Oligarchy” in that the single physical beings in an Oligarchy are replaced with the single entity Corporate Citizen. It differs from capitalism in that the forces bigger and different.
The entrepreneur works in an capitalistic environment. In corporatism, the entity creates the environment. Perhaps it is similar to that of the Gods of Olympus in ancient Greece.
Well, the point of this writing is that just like our Governmental system is failing in many respects under the Bush Administration version of Representative Democracy and the concept of Unitary Executive, I would suggest that “Corporatism” is failing the individual.
Capitalism is still working and is an underpinning of Corporatism. Capitalism is a good thing.
Capitalism is not a part of the oil/gas issue because there is no anaylsis that says what is the cause of the spike in Gas since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Capitalism is the local gas station raising his prices because he knows he can. But I keep hearing that there is no profit from the gas, it is all in the adjoining convenience store where the source of profit. And the blame shifting goes on.
Something is failing. I don't want to be ranting for no reason. I have seen many versions of the the Phila. Eagles "Miracle in the Meadowlands". Things can change. But it worth remembering that the "Miracle" is the exception to the common - most typical or logical outcome.
Is the Corporation a Citizen or individual as per the state? According to Robert Riech’s recent book, corporations are citizens. The organization form called a corporation are key each of the elements of the tensions in the title.
This is not a rant against the machine. Nor is it praise for the success for capitalism. Let’s invent a new term that perhaps better expresses the notion. “Corporatism” or “Corporacrhy”– It differs from the “Oligarchy” in that the single physical beings in an Oligarchy are replaced with the single entity Corporate Citizen. It differs from capitalism in that the forces bigger and different.
The entrepreneur works in an capitalistic environment. In corporatism, the entity creates the environment. Perhaps it is similar to that of the Gods of Olympus in ancient Greece.
Well, the point of this writing is that just like our Governmental system is failing in many respects under the Bush Administration version of Representative Democracy and the concept of Unitary Executive, I would suggest that “Corporatism” is failing the individual.
Capitalism is still working and is an underpinning of Corporatism. Capitalism is a good thing.
Capitalism is not a part of the oil/gas issue because there is no anaylsis that says what is the cause of the spike in Gas since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Capitalism is the local gas station raising his prices because he knows he can. But I keep hearing that there is no profit from the gas, it is all in the adjoining convenience store where the source of profit. And the blame shifting goes on.
Something is failing. I don't want to be ranting for no reason. I have seen many versions of the the Phila. Eagles "Miracle in the Meadowlands". Things can change. But it worth remembering that the "Miracle" is the exception to the common - most typical or logical outcome.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
At this hour on my local cable channels there is a variety with an unintentional theme. There is the morning news with stories of the war and the coming election. There is an episode of the original Star Trek. On TMC is a movie - a drama based on a real event.
As my daughter asks me to drive her to school, the subject of the movie gives a moment of thinking my daughters perception of real event. I think of what has changed since I was her age. I think of what has not changed since I was her age.
As a reader, you may know where I'm going. So, let me take a few minutes…indulge me.
Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama are asking me to make my choice as to which will face Mr McCain to decide on the future. When making any choice, one cannot avoid thinking of what has gone before. It is instinctive to want to learn from the past. It is instinctive to not want to repeat mistakes.
Well, I am not sanguine about this nations ability to do learn from the past. While it may be instinctive for the individual to want to learn from the past, the dynamics of the group, the state, the nation some how lacks this characteristic.
What I want to choose for the future of my nation is the course that will give us that ability.
You know what I also want...I don't want to be disappointed. I want reasons to to participate in the political process. This is the measure of the candidates for me. Of the promises made which are the most realistic. Which will be able to draw enough from either side into a center and take us to where we need to go.
Let's take the price of gas. When I was a teenager, we were told that gas prices were rising because there was no more gas to be had. Yet when Katrina struck prices have spiked even more dramatically. My daily commute is causing me to lose money for the the year. My cost of living increases are not keeping up with gas and tolls. The point is not my current situation, that is a subject for another day. The point is that presidential administrations of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have not produced a reality that deals with the issue on a substantive basis - hence disappointment - and a reason to give in.
We are no more likely to go back to the moon than we are to resolve the gas issue.
I want to vote for a candidate who will enable the me to discuss politics in a productive manner rather than as a simple list of greviances. We owe it to our fathers of the "Greatest generation" to develop a form of governance that enables and encourages people to "politic" in a fashion that the founding fathers were striving for.
Free association thoughts that are resonanting include JFK's challenge. "...We choose to..." fill in the blank "...in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills"
When I think of my history of votes for Presidents and what has become the realities, I'm left with disappointment and frustration. The country has not filled in the blank and taken on any given challenge. We have simple been made to live in fear. And for this I own a share of responsibility - small because I am but one.
I want Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama to resolve the democratic party nomination process quickly so as to not give the forces that seek to manipulate power the advantage. My share of "We the People" wants the productive sense. The past is to be fondly remembered, perhaps temporarily visited. The past is a building block for the future. The past are logic and reason for our national steps to a wisdom for our futures and the history of our childrens futures.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Issue: This kind of article sucks the life out of me…
Specific: WASHINGTON — The bulletin reached President Bush toward the end of his news conference Thursday.
Peter Maer of CBS News Radio asked: "What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing ... "
"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted. "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"
Maer responded: "A number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline."
Bush's rejoinder: "Oh, yeah? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."
Commentary: I am a 48 year old married man with 2 daughters. One finished college and the other is starting to think about college. I work for a living. I commute an hour each way each day. I started working with my current company on 9/11. The price of gas was between 1-2 dollars a gallon. We went to the President's war and the price of gas remained stable. Katrina hits and now, between the increases in gas, tolls and food, after 6+ years, I'm not making more than when I started.
I've gotten cost of living raises, but they have not kept pace.
I am old enough to remember the gas crunch of the 1970's – first hand. I accepted the increase then without liking it..
Over the years, I ignored the increase in the size of cars and gas and the fact that the world never ran out of gas! It was good for the country!
Ok, now Katrina hits – and gas again spikes – and 2 years later, prices are spiking again for little to no apparent reason.
Why is this kind of ignorance by the "War President" good for national security?
Address: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004250070_watch29.html
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
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...
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)