Donal: Is Occupy Over?
Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR)
dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude
|
Donal: Is Occupy Over? Ramona's Piece de la Resistance (Including Pics of Obama, Romney, FDR) dagblog To Give Away Logoed Hairshirt To Most Effective Lamenter Of Left's Ineptitude |
Read |
I have been reading the Washington Post lately—no fees and I can read it all I want and I do not have to pay $30.00 to NYT for nothingness.
Anyway, if one clicks opinions within the vast array of choices contained in its menu, I might choose leaning Right or leaning Left or Post-Partisan!
So I thought, hell, what is Post-Partisan? My Latin lessons tell me that this phrase somehow translates as 'after partisan'.
What the hell does after partisan mean anyway?
Relationships are as important as convictions.
Criticism needs to be well-balanced by self-criticism.
There must be an overriding commitment to dialogue and deliberation.
There must be an overriding commitment to diversity of opinions and perspectives.
Compromise is not the only endgame.
Be simultaneously creative and practical.
Demonstrate a penchant for big ideas.
Support a bias for action.
Demonstrate concern with values and principles.
Have a long-term vision.
Health innovation researcher Neil Seeman was the first to apply these principles to health policy decision-making, specifically to public health (Seeman, 2008)
Might we heed instructions from a guy named Seeman without snickering?
I mean we have a Speaker of the House named Boner; why the hell not?
Okay then.
I mean let us examine how these tenets might apply to the repub candidates that remain in the mix!
Relationships are as important as convictions.
Well the only thing I can think of is that Newt had a lot more relationships than most folks so that must mean he has had more convictions than most folks. Although I do believe, deep inside my soul that Newt should be doing at least twenty years for the convictions that have never taken place for his sins
Now Mitt has had only one conviction that we know of; even though he has had a hell of a lot more great grandmas than most.
And Santorum has had only one conviction and since he only has eight kids we must assume, considering his position on birth control that he has only 'done it' eight times his entire life; although an undisclosed source claims one of the middle children looks like one of the Santorum's neighbors.
Paul has only one conviction and the last time he took advantage of that conviction was on January 5th, 1974.
So much for convictions..
Criticism needs to be well-balanced by self-criticism
Well, in my humble opinion, Newton Gingrich is inhibited by his ego to ever involve himself in some sort of self-criticism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMJz-puzniU
WHAT ME WORRY? Cries THE NEWT!
Mitt has undergone quite a bit of self criticism. Is problem is that he has no clear definition of self to begin with!
Santorum thinks he speaks directly with God Almighty. Hard for him to criticize God Almighty!
Paul wrote most of his material forty years ago and he really is not up for rewrites!
Speaking of self-criticism:
The radio host called Martin "a dope," an "idiot," and a "bad guy," among other things. "He's harmless because you see him coming a mile away," Beck said. "You're like, 'really, Roland, you think that you're fooling anybody? You're a clown.'..
Beck agreed that Martin should be fired from CNN for "a myriad of reasons," including that "he's an idiot." But he said he did not support GLAAD's call to fire Martin for the offending tweets. "You don't fire people for what they say in their personal life or what they happen to believe," he said. "You fire them because they're idiots.
There must be an overriding commitment to dialogue and deliberation.
Newt has dedicated his life to dialogue and deliberation. Of course he has spent the last four decades dialoguing and deliberating with himself.
Mitt likes to dialogue and deliberate with polls.
Santorum, again, dialogues and deliberates with God Almighty.
Paul just re-reads the stuff he wrote forty years ago.
There must be an overriding commitment to diversity of opinions and perspectives
Well, I think we can forget about this maxim applying to any repubs.
Compromise is not the only endgame
I cannot even comment on this statement. I frankly have no idea what this post partisan is talking about?
Be simultaneously creative and practical
Well Newt can be creative and sometimes practical (in a political sense) but never at the same time.
Mitt has not had a creative thought in his entire life.
Santorum gets his thoughts for the day from some Vatican talking points memo.
Paul? Again he just re-reads what he wrote forty years ago.
Demonstrate a penchant for big ideas
Okay, so Newt is the only relevant subject as far as this maxim.
We will have a 51st State on the Moon; he will sign his name to 1,000 Executive Orders nullifying every damn thing the Obama Administration did over 4 years and then he will give his great Oration on the day he takes office. (The way he talks he will need one of those robot signing machines.)
Support a bias for action
I have never witnessed such a bias against ethnic groups, lower economic groups, women, religious groups (non Christian), the sick, the down-trodden, immigrants...you name it; I have never witnessed a more biased set of repub candidates in my lifetime.
Demonstrate concern with values and principles
Oh all four of these clowns (as well as the other dozen clowns who have quit the race) demonstrate concern with values and principles—as long as they are their own values and principles.
Have a long-term vision
Well, I guess all the repub candidates have a long-term vision of things. I mean they have each planned to run for the Presidency for at least a decade.
Well except for Santorum. Santorum's long term vision is to see at least 60% of our citizens go without health insurance (cause they have not earned that right), receive no SS in their old age, receive no benefits once they are laid off, receive no recompense from mortgage bundling bastards, receive no acknowledgment as members of the national labor force, receive no food stamps when they are down and out, receive no right to vote without jumping through complicated hoops and receive no consideration without getting down on their knees to Ricky's capitalist god(s).
POST PARTISAN
Sounds kinda French does it not?
Perceptive Dagblog readers know the difference between Obama, Romney and Bush:
Obama NYT today: .how President Obama’s thinking about what he once called “a war of necessity” began to radically change less than a year after he took up residency in the White House....The aide told Mr. Obama that he believed military leaders had agreed to the tight schedule to begin withdrawing those troops just 18 months later only because they thought they could persuade an inexperienced president to grant more time if they demanded it. “Well,” Mr. Obama responded that day, “I’m not going to give them more time.”...Mr. Obama concluded in his first year that the Bush-era dream of remaking Afghanistan was a fantasy...
Mitt Romney, Feb. 2012 : LAS VEGAS -- LAS VEGAS -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Wednesday night blasted President Obama and his administration for “putting in jeopardy” the nation’s military mission by signaling it hopes to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013.
Appearing at a campaign rally here shortly after landing in Nevada, Romney said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s statement Wednesday that U.S. forces would transition from a combat mission in Afghanistan next year “makes absolutely no sense.”....
George W. Bush, from May, 2003: BBC - "We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide... Free nations will press on to victory,"
Bush Afghanistan strategy : Gen. Douglas E. Lute, who had spent the last two years of the Bush administration trying to manage the many trade-offs necessary as the Iraq war consumed troop and intelligence resources needed in Afghanistan, arrived with a PowerPoint presentation. The first slide that General Lute threw onto the screen caught the eye of Thomas E. Donilon, later President Obama’s national security adviser. “It said we do not have a strategy in Afghanistan that you can articulate or achieve,” Mr. Donilon recalled three years later. “We had been at war for eight years, and no one could explain the strategy.”
Mitt Romney isn’t very far into the vice presidential selection process. But according to a dedicated band of conspiracy theorists, the pick is all but a lock: Sen. Marco Rubio.
That’s the current thinking among a worldwide collection of activists who are obsessed with the secretive Bilderberg Group, an alternating roster of global power players who loom as large — if not larger — in the online fever swamps of the fringe as the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76518.html#ixzz1vN5egowz
Aristotle and Plato didn’t agree on much, but they were united in identifying wonder as the origin of their profession. As Aristotle said, “It is owing to their wonder that men . . . first began to philosophise.” This idea appeals to scientists, who frequently enlist wonder as a goad to inquiry. “I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky,” wrote Carl Sagan in 1985, locating in this response the stirrings of a Copernican desire to know who and where we are.
Yet that is not the only direction in which wonder may take us. To Thomas Carlyle, wonder sits at the beginning not of science, but of religion. That is the central tension in forging an alliance of wonder with science: will it make us curious, or induce us to prostrate ourselves in pitiful ignorance? We had better get to grips with this question before we too hastily appropriate wonder to sell science. That is surely what is going on when pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope are (unconsciously?) cropped and coloured to recall the sublime iconography of Romantic landscape painting, or the Human Genome Project is wrapped in biblical rhetoric, or the Large Hadron Collider’s proton-smashing is depicted as “replaying the moment of creation”. The point is not that such things are deceitful or improper, but that if we want to take that path, we should first consider the complex evolution of the relation between science and wonder.
[....]
Pretending that science is performed by people who have undergone a Baconian purification of the emotions only deepens the danger that it will seem alien and odd to outsiders, something carried out by people who do not think as they do. Daston believes that we have inherited a “view of intelligence as neatly detached from emotional, moral and aesthetic impulses, and a related and coeval view of scientific objectivity that brand[s] such impulses as contaminants”. It is easy to understand the historical origins of this attitude: the need to distinguish science from credulous “enthusiasm”, to develop an authoritative voice, to strip away the pretensions of the mystical Renaissance magus who acquired knowledge through personal revelation. We no longer need these defences, however; worse, they become a defensive reflex that exposes scientists to the caricature of the emotionally constipated boffin, hiding within thickets of jargon.
... We’re trying to harness photosynthesis. A key part of photosynthesis is what happens when the sun goes down. Cells convert CO2 into sugar and fat molecules. And they store the fat to burn as energy to get them through the night ... We’re trying to coax our synthetic cells to ... store far more fat than they actually were designed to do, so that we can harness it all as an energy source and use it to create gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel straight from carbon dioxide and sunlight. This would shift the carbon equation so we’re recycling CO2 instead of taking new carbon out of the ground and creating still more CO2. But it has to be done on a massive scale to have any real impact on the amount of CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere, let alone recovering from the atmosphere.
... We envision facilities the size of San Francisco. And 10 or 15 of those in this country. We need sunlight, seawater, and non-agricultural land, but you need a lot of photons to drive this. You need a lot of surface area of sunlight to do that. It’s a great use for Arizona. Lots of sunlight there.
... If we can’t get some key scientific breakthroughs within the next couple of years, it probably won’t happen in 10 years. So it’s something that’s really dependent on fundamental science. But we’re already able to do things that were once seen as impossible.
... I think the new anti-intellectualism that’s showing up in politics today is a symptom of our not discussing these issues enough. We don’t discuss how our society is now 100 percent dependent on science for its future. We need new scientific breakthroughs—sometimes to overcome the scientific breakthroughs of the past. A hundred years ago oil sounded like a great discovery. You could burn it and run engines off it. I don’t think anybody anticipated that it would actually change the atmosphere of our planet. Because of that we have to come up with new approaches. We just passed the 7 billion population mark. In 12 years, we’re going to reach 8 billion. If we let things run their natural course, we’ll have massive pandemics, people starving. Without science I don’t see much hope for humanity.
After the party, that is for sure.
Hangovers!
I thought post-parmesan meant the spaghetti after you put on the cheese.
Looks to me there are too many over-riding commitments on your list. Remember, you can't over-ride if you're under-funded.
'A bias for action' is what a tailor calls making a dress for a woman wrestler with a big bosom.
'Compromise is the only endgame' means that if all else fails, get some credit for yourself by agreeing with the other guy to stop hitting each other with clubs.
'Criticism needs to be well-balanced by self-criticism' means that you can call a guy a schmuck as long as you add, "I understand, I used to be one too."
Being 'simultaneously creative and practical' is a trick axiom. That's like saying be simultaneously brilliant and full of beans'... it's only accomplished in two ways; by 1) lying about being creative or 2) hiding all the financial records.
This is precious.
Hell, this is better than my blog. hahhahahah
Thank God I now know for sure what bias for action means.
I don't think any of the four horsemen (or others of their ilk) have uttered the words, 'I am open to and will listen to ANY who have other ideas and approaches about -insert issue-.'
Hmmm. But, I know I've heard that said (with, IMO, sincerity and open mind/heart) from another. Now, let me think, who has stated this and followed thru more than once? Hmmm.
So many good, valid talking and thinking points dd! Again, will copy and keep in file - no doubt to quote often.
Appreciate.
Well thank you again.
Ironically, as I write this, Larry O'Donnell is skewering Trump again.
Larry holds nothing back and certainly would never call himself post partisan. hahahaha
Having not taken Latin and sleeping through French and German, I took the term Post-Partisan to meant that the Washington Post was presenting partisans.
Post Partisan, where no-one gets totally what they want, is, of course, not to be confused with Most Marzipan, in which the very rich get way too much of everything they want.
The 1% live in a Most Marzipan world. The 99% can only dream of a Post Partisan world ... And it was ever thus..
That is kind of my take on this 'category of pundit' bologna.
Somehow that portion of the editorial staff is above it all.
When I discovered the definition from Seeman; it sounded more like Obama's take on things--at least during his first two years.
You might be right here.
This is logical.
Except it is not logical. If you have left leaning and right leaning then it would have to be Post leaning. hahhah
Oh well...
I think we'd all like to believe that there are certain issues that should be post-partisan; a universal need or desire, embraced and supported by everyone.
The trouble is, there are always b*st*rds out there that have no desire other than their own enrichment and they will take advantage of any post partisanship and f*ck us all.
The criteria for what is logical has dropped dramatically. Donald Trump talked about running for President. Roseanne wants to be President. Santorum is winning races. We're in a "Twilight Zone" episode.