Friday, May 30, 2008

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

By the way, what do you consider to be the most serios charge made by Mr. McLellan?

Also, are you 100% convinced that the world would be a better place if the United States had not gone to war in Iraq?


---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Not that you care, but in case you did look into it, I apparently spelled the
> name wrong:
>
> Mary Caity Mahoney OR Mary Caitrin Mahoney OR just Mary Mahoney
>
> Former Whitehouse intern shot at a Starbucks in the week before the Monica story
> borke....
>
> There is a video on the web of her jogging with BC, and then in the office with
> him and the two alone ducking off into a hallway off the Oval office,
> Monica-style.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lets hope the CLINTONs name disappears from politics...or at least when it comes to Presidential Politics. Meanwhile I look forward to a campaign focussed on differences between Obama and McCain and their respective views on the role of the Federal Gov't in our lives and in the world at large. Heres to hoping the campaign can stay focussed on such important issues and not drift onto any sideshows like Jeremiah Wright or Haggee, or whether this person knows that person etc.,.. I really want our country to get together and speak with one voice on how we as a nation proceed to attacking the threats that face human freedom in the world.
>
>
> ---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> > Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.
> >
> > Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.
> >
> > -----------------------
> > I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.
> >
> > Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.
> >
> > I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
> >
> > It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > > > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
> > >
> > > =========
> > > except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> > > United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> > > wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> > > are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> > > would agree with the later statements.
> > >
> > > your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> > > "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
> > >
> > > * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> > > explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> > > *
> > > +=+-- Marty
> > >
> > > p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> > > the "appeasers"
> > >
> > > p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> > > and who can we thank for that:
> > > Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> > > pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> > > don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> > > held the reins for >12 yrs..
> > >
> > > "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> > > republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
> > >
> > >
> > > > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > > > should see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ** Message **
> > > > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > > > >
> > > > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > > > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > > > >
> > > > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > > > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > > > >

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

Not that you care, but in case you did look into it, I apparently spelled the
name wrong:

Mary Caity Mahoney OR Mary Caitrin Mahoney OR just Mary Mahoney

Former Whitehouse intern shot at a Starbucks in the week before the Monica story
borke....

There is a video on the web of her jogging with BC, and then in the office with
him and the two alone ducking off into a hallway off the Oval office,
Monica-style.

Lets hope the CLINTONs name disappears from politics...or at least when it comes to Presidential Politics. Meanwhile I look forward to a campaign focussed on differences between Obama and McCain and their respective views on the role of the Federal Gov't in our lives and in the world at large. Heres to hoping the campaign can stay focussed on such important issues and not drift onto any sideshows like Jeremiah Wright or Haggee, or whether this person knows that person etc.,.. I really want our country to get together and speak with one voice on how we as a nation proceed to attacking the threats that face human freedom in the world.


---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.
>
> Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:
>
> ----------------------------
> Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.
>
> -----------------------
> I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.
>
> Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
>
> It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.
>
>
>
> ---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
> >
> > =========
> > except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> > United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> > wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> > are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> > would agree with the later statements.
> >
> > your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> > "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
> >
> > * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> > explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> > *
> > +=+-- Marty
> >
> > p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> > the "appeasers"
> >
> > p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> > and who can we thank for that:
> > Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> > pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> > don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> > held the reins for >12 yrs..
> >
> > "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> > republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
> >
> >
> > > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > > should see it.
> > > >
> > > > ** Message **
> > > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > > >
> > > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > > >
> > > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > > >

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:

----------------------------
Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.

-----------------------
I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.

Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.

I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.

It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.

---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
>
> =========
> except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> would agree with the later statements.
>
> your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
>
> * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> *
> +=+-- Marty
>
> p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> the "appeasers"
>
> p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> and who can we thank for that:
> Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> held the reins for >12 yrs..
>
> "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
>
>
> > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > should see it.
> > >
> > > ** Message **
> > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > >
> > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > >
> > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > >

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq



On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
=========
   except  Scott McClellan  once spoke for the (acting) President of the United States.  one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him.  that's what wrankles you.  the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:  are you lying now or were you lying then.   an intellectually honest person would agree with the later statements.

   your parallels are  as weak as your argument:  totally insubstantial.  "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.

   McClellan has discovered his conscience.   Is there a simpler explanation?  the question stands.  answer it or tuck your tail.

+=+-- Marty

   p.s.  i have little patience for you "excusers",  right down there with the "appeasers"

  p.p.s  let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".   and who can we thank for that:
     Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr,   ...   Newty,   and the parade of pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
     don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have held the reins for >12 yrs..

   "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican",  -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008


---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> should see it.
>
> ** Message **
> it's ok ed.  you can come out now too.
>
> perino's "this is not the scott we knew".  of course not!  this scott has discovered his conscience.   is there a simpler explanation?
>
> ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not forthright on the Iraq war.
> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
>

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Fwd: Integrity



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <stephen.carter@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM


Dear Mr. McGowan:

Thanks for your thoughtful note, which happened to catch me at my desk.

Perhaps you are right, and I slightly overwrote.  I think a better way of
putting the point is that lying to obtain information is morally complex.  I
cannot accept the idea of a simple balancing test involving the value of the
information obtained.  I am well aware that law enforcement personnel lie, and
we spend a week on this in my course on Law, Secrets, and Lying.  We also study
lies by politicians (including whoppers on the subject of war by FDR, Lincoln,
Polk, and others).  The trouble is, any one of these lies can be justified if
we ask only about the end in view versus the utility to be gained.  But I tend
to agree with Sissela Bok, who, in her book "Lying" (which stands up very well
over the years), argues that precisely because lies are so easy to justify, it
is important to resist the temptation.  Otherwise, says Bok, we create a
culture in which cynicism reigns, trust is difficult, and ordinary life grows
increasingly coarse.

Again, than you so much for taking the time to write.

Best,

Stephen Carter




Quoting Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu>:

Professor Carter,

  I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough
review of "Integrity".   I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new,
and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your
arguments.

  However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on
p. 99 where you say:
...

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Integrity

Professor Carter,

    I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough review of "Integrity".   I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new, and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your arguments.

    However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on p. 99 where you say:
 "That this is so is probably obvious to the reader; indeed, only a journalist or an undercover spy would imagine for a moment that there is nothing morally bankrupt about lying or breaking one's word in order to obtain information".

   
I trust you have had others point out to you that this must be among the most outrageous statements in your book.   I see no way to interpret this other than _only_ journalists _and_ undercover spies lie without moral restraint.  I accuse you of lazy thinking.   To go unchallenged, your statement, if true implies the frequent examples of prevarication for information I see on "Law and Order" are the figments of a screen-writers imagination.  Is there not a profession, many detailed in the book, which could not be included in this select list? 

    I think you'd like to update this book, if not to correct this rather absolute pronouncement; there are scant few others, giving your appropriate willingness to characterize some of your frank opinions.   The other area needing updating is your  non-partisan naivete, born of the '90s origin of the book that both political parties are equally culpable in the demise of comity.  We liberal Democrats have been weak and ineffective at responding, and our leaders are still behind what the public demands.   No, I don't _need_ a Bush/Cheney impeachment, but it would be just.  I think the Republican Party owes the republic an apology for their assault on democracy.   As a practicing Catholic, I'm holding out hope that a great number of our bishops will precede their resignations by humble, heartfelt apologies for the damage they have done.   From the Republicans, for equally grave sins in their own sphere, I hold out no such hope or expectation.

   You should know that I come from a family of rural journalists, persons whose integrity i never felt the need to question, notably my grandfather, and father, not to overlook my grandmother and mother.   I also spent my first seven years from college working for our nation's intelligence services.  So I naturally take exception to both sides of your characterization.

-- Marty McGowan   24 Herning Ave
                           Cranford NJ 07016

p.s. i've copied my weblog:   newsdarktime.blogspot.com   and share this with some of my correspondents.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Gas Tax Plan -- An Alternative

there are two ways to cheat.  this detects the least likely way.

where do you get confirmation that you actually _pumped_ 10 gallons?!,

OR so why bother with this one,   Duh?

b.t.w.   here's marty's gas tax amnesty plan.

   ration gas to every social security card holder over the legal driving age in every state.

   send out monthly coupons which give the holder the right to buy

         X gallons,  say  x = 30, at
         Y  $/gallon,  say y = $2.

  the holder would be free to sell said coupons for any price, and when presented at a gas station,
  the station holder would charge the price on the coupon,   collecting
  the coupon with payment.

  the station would be free to charge any price they wanted for gas not covered by a coupon, so...
  the feds would pay the station for the difference, between their average monthly charge and the coupon price, with
  the difference picked up in a tax on the oil companies.

  the oil companies would be free to "pass the cost along" to the consumers, and
  the unrationed price would necessarily rise.

  the free market would work, and
  the people who need inexpensive gas would be subsidised by
  the people who could afford the gas guzzling suv's and by
  the rapacious oil companies.

  the feds would routinely adjust
  the values of X and Y to suit conservation goals and
  the cost of administering the program.




 

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:27 PM, davisdj456 <davisdj456@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't know if calibrating a pump is even possible to this degree, but this is one way to find out the truth about it.
 
Cheating at Gas Pumps

This is a true story, so read it carefully. On April 24, 2008 ...