Before we Get Carried Away

Ed,

    before ... , i'd like to spend some more time on why you don't like Al Gore.

    I think we will be able to conclude you don't like him for no other reason than you don't like him.

    you won't like the conclusion i'd make as to the source of your dislike, but in the liberal spirit of all minds being open, you'll have to hear it.

    and, i'll offer this much before we open the can of worms:  you can apply my reason for "disliking so-and-so" to any republican(s) you chose, and you'll find the argument wanting.   or stated more succinctly,    you will not be able to use my argument against me, that "i don't like so-and-so because ... "  for the reason why i don't like __________ (you can fill in the blank). (*)  Lest you think i'm being unfair, you can conduct the argument in reverse.  

that was issue #1.

issue #2.   going back a month or so, you offered a vision for america and the world,   the kind of world i'd like to live in.   my current beat of the drum is,   "and what do you expect of our government to make that happen?"   and it's first corollary:  "what do i expect the government to ask of me?"   or   "what am i willing to do if the government should ask?"

you can see where this may be going.

(*) an example:  
         You claim:    A.  "I don't like Al Gore"  
         i get to fill in the blank:  e.g.   B. "Ed you don't like Al Gore because he wears green socks"
         you can claim    C. "Marty, you don't like George W Bush",
         then this will have to be true:   D. "Marty, you don't like George W Bush because he wears green socks".
   I will supply the "because he wears green socks"   reason  which will make D either patently false or absurd, where statement B won't be observed false by a simple denial.   Get it?

Re: Climate Change

ed,

   all i see in your arguments are excuses for why you don't want to listen to him, not any evidence that he is misleading us.

   all the arguments from your side of the aisle are merely justifications in your continued self-deception. 

   the economic arguments are stronger than you think. none less than T Boone Pickens thinks Al Gore is too soft on a time table.  According to Pickens, if we are more cautious than Gore, we can count on $300/barrel oil in less time than Gore's timetable.   He says "Gore and I differ on problems #1 and #2.   I think it's COST, then Environment; Gore has it backwards."   So, Ed, you tell me:  are we willing to go to $300/bbl = $10/gallon.    _please_ don't tell me that offshore drilling will reverse this.  go check a chart of known vs. tapped oil reserves.  you will see that further drilling is now in the bandage realm of healing, and not a cure.

   you are DEAD WRONG on the economics on anything approaching you and your children's lifetime.  but you, for reasons unfathomable to the reasonable would rather take your instructions from the oil industry and their paid minions.

  and on you and gore:   i don't know if you've figured this out yet, but it's possible he is right, and you are right, and i am right, too.   in my philosophy, we _all_ are right.   but, here's the deal: you think _you_ are correct when you say al gore is a joke. he is a joke to YOU, and i appreciate your sense of humor.   but, are you asking me to believe that because it's true for you (that al gore is a joke to _you_) that he's a joke for _everyone_?

  please help me with my gap in logic here.  

 

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:

I woud argue that the economic arguments are much less flawed...


As to Global Warming...its getting warmer, but based on hurricanes, the frequency & strengths of hurricanes 100 years ago are consistent with what we see today.

Moreover I concede that there is some gobal warming, but as any REAL Vikings fan knows ...

From: marty.mcgowan@gmail.com on behalf of Marty McGowan
Sent: Wed 7/23/2008 11:21 PM
To: Wronka, Edward
Cc: mcgowanspolitics; applemcg.newsdarktime@blogger.com
Subject: Climate Change

Ed,

 this is more like it.   your words on his words.

Climate Change

Ed,

  this is more like it.   your words on his words.  

 from your own words, he's guilty until proven innocent.   now that global warming has it's politically acceptable counterpart: climate change, and therefore unanimity among scientists, we can move on to whether or not there is real impact on the daily lives of people from weather events.   so al's anecdotes, as such, and correctly from your point of view aren't real evidence, you still fail to be too inquisitive about them.  i've heard ( i don't know where, but since you're curious, it might be worth checking ) that we can now begin to trace actual climate events to climate change // global warming.

 i'm not _that_ much older than you are, but, ... i believe, and quite strongly, there will be found data to support this claim, that:

  in the 60's, tornadoes were a midwestern summer afternoon,
since the 90s'  tornadoes are a southeastern spring before dawn.

 as they say, i _could_ be wrong, but, consider this.    an afternoon tornado, which i witnessed two in my town, one as a lifeguard  "clear the pool", and another with my dad, and next two sibs, at the fairground: "everybody off the grounds" ... there was no human injury or death in those. but now, since tornadoes are in the early morning hours (with everyone asleep) the likelihood of death is greatly increased. 

  i would be willing, since you seem to be, to discover if these different phenomenon are more than anecdotes, whether al gore _or_ marty mcgowan stories.

  but, i will not listen to you call him a joke.  (unless, of course, if you are trying to goad me into getting even)

 and, before we proceed, i expect you to revisit some of your "the science isn't in" arguments in the 90's and early years of this administration (adult supervision, i believe you called it) which parroted the alternative view.  so now calling al gore "chicken little" must be compared to his earlier warnings (and contrary epithets), since those warnings now are "accepted science".   and _please_ don't ask me to accept that global warming didn't become accepted science until the last holdout went kicking and screaming to accept. 

the accepted theory is that human activity, since the industrial revolution, and particularly since the last two decades of the nineteenth century (>1880) when both the united states (post civil war) and western europe (post franco-prussian war) grew industrial power at a rate never before seen and is thus raising the greenhouse gasses and average temperatures of the planet at unsustainable rates.

 i'd offer that your judgement on gore's current alarm is based more on the type of argument the church gave on galileo's theory than a willingness to examine the argument closely.
 
 note your first paragraph damns your logic.  you don't like his words.   having nothing to do with the possibility he _may_ be right. 

 +=+-- Marty

p.s.  we'll have to postpone the economic arguments, on which you are even more flawed.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:

I'm confused.

What break does Al Gore get? I've read HIS words, not someone else's
words about him. I've read it and come to my conclusion about him.

I'm particularly irked by this part:
---------------------
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There
seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger
downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in
California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead
to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that
have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America,
Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and
Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one
degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10
percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible
for igniting the conflagration in California today.
----------------------

This is a ridiculous argument...."There seem to be more tornadoes than
in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods".
"seems to be"!!!????!!...well is there or not? Don't we have somewhat
definitive data on this stuff? Why the "seems"? Based on the importance
he is giving to this matter, shouldn't he speak with more certainty? In
my estimate, this lack of certainty breaks everything in the speech!

A lot of people compare Al Gore to Chicken Little---but this is worse
than Chicken Little!----he doesn't even have the guts to say "the sky is
falling"...instead he "boldly" declares that "the sky sure seems to be
falling, doesn't it?"


And then he proceeds to gloss over the actions we need to take to avoid
this pending disaster----i.e. switch entirely to renewable energy supply
in 10 years!!!???!?!? WTF!?!?!?! Does he bother to mention what that
even really means!?!?! Paying the cost to infrastructure changeover!?!?!
Where in the world is he coming from!!???

--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE

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

i'm not asking you to change your beliefs.  just dont try to pass them off as relevant to the larger issues of the day.

mcclellan was the United States President's spokesperson to the press;
"irrelevant to governing" -- like an informed public is not part of a responsible government?!

willey was what?

btw the _logical_ conclusion of your argument is bush can't pick a spokesperson.  is dana perino worth listening to by that argument?

and this is your biggest joke to date:  "more informed"!!!   i guess he only got his information from the washington times, certainly _not_ the president, after all "informed", by whom?  he was out there makin' stuff up, because he was "un-informed", and it took bush how long, three years, to figure out his press spokesman was uninformed.  what it _does_ show is how little bush cared about the press.  "Scotty's doin' a great job" -- W.

and to quote the great ronbo, "there you go again .. " what's the trinity church got to do with scott mcclellan and his service to the public?  looks like another one of your red herrings, Ed.

just how far are you from Rush,Ann,Han.  on _this_ one?!!!

keep your ideas; leave the "truthiness" to us liberals.  :-)

-- MM

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM, <ewronka   > wrote:

Both McLEllan and Wiley had jobs that were irrelevant to governing.

Willey made an allegation regarding Bill CLinton and then---according to her---was subjected to threats from the Clinton handlers.

I believe her.


McLellan was a press secretary---a rother poor one at that. I think that Bush could have found a better press secretary by picking someone who was more informed. He has recently tried selling a book in which he criticizes the President.

Do I give his words any creedence? No.


But that is just my humble opinon. I put as much value in McLellan's criticism of Bush as I do in the criticism of Obama for his affiliation of the Trinity Church.

Both are completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if that leads you to believe I am a unreasonable biased advocate. I can't help but believe what I believe.

Bill Moyers on the Media

this may disturb you as much as me; maybe for the same reasons:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE

--
-=+-- Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016

Re: FW: Hey Ed

maybe i do hate bush, but

 possibly you mistake my dislike for his public policy as hate, not unlike your brothers (and sisters!!)  who accuse us liberals of being traitors?

 how can i be led by a person who can't (wont try to correctly) pronounce  "nuclear".

 especially in comparison to a president who was a nuclear engineer.

 you can never take bush on the merit.  only in comparison to the clinton of the moment.

 that's what i fail to understand. 

 you are on the wrong side of history when you try to find any merit in the bush presidency.   and what galls me about your stance is when you switched from being  a mccain supporter to a bush loyalist when the bushies thoroughly trashed your man in '00 SoCarolina.  had mccain been the republican candidate in 00, this country would have surely avoided the madness delivered by the bush selectancy.

 you can't/won't admit the destruction of comity in the political arena is a direct result of the hate _you_ spew.  by repeating coulter, hannity, rush, ... arguments.    is there anything these people say you disagree with?   assuredly, the _only_ thing they say I will ever agree with is when they deliver an ironic comment meant to deride.   to paraphrase:  "if we followed the hillary, hussein obama health care plans we'd actually have _socialized_ medicine,   { accompanied by audible sneer } " how can a sentient person do anything but hate that thought (if you can call it thought),  hate the person who delivered it, since they are being evil ( if not un-christian), and hate the persons who would profit, either politically or economically.

 as to the "rant vs rant" approach,   i can't _even_ begin to pay you back for the dreit you delivered during the clinton years,   the problem with your arguments is they have nothing to do with todays problems,
and little to do with the problems of the moment when you made them.

  pointing out that bush's tossing the kyoto protocol is a rant?   you have much to learn.

  " bush's assault on civil liberties ...

  " bush's attempt to fool the working poor that a tax cut for the wealthiest 0.5% favors them ...

  " bush's quashing veteran's benefits ...

  " bush's gutting regulatory agencies in behalf of big donors ...

  what you take as "rant" are legitimate disagreement with his complete disregard of public service in behalf of a narrow group of the powerful.

  your actual rant against the clintons are hung on salacious behavior which has little to do with public policy.

  what i'd like to know is, before the salacious became public, why did you hate him so. my hypothesis is the republican bile was  building for years w.r.t. revenge for nixon, and not able to find a sticking point with carter.   clinton, being a man of the flesh (not, say carter's spirit) was the perfect target.  my data point on this are the republican mis-truths on why bork was turned down for the supreme court:  the current myth is "because of his strong pro-life stance".   nothing could be further from the truth.  while it is a position of bork's, he was really refused the "thumbs up/down" because of his overtly political act of firing the one special prosecutor who was investigating official crimes against the public: namely Archie Cox.   but _that_ little detail, like so many other items of "factiness" escapes capture by the republican myth machine.

 you, my friend are on the wrong side of history.

 witness your opening statement.  "it is you who constantly ... "   were i to lay out a time line of the 8 clinton years against the 8 bush years and and ask who was asking whom to "join you with a pitch fork and demand { }'s head on a stick" ..  you could only conclude i had been the patient one.


 i'll stop "rant"ing against bush when he is no longer president; though i will be writing my democratic majority to conduct a thorough investigation of his administration and recommending appropriate action by the world court

 i'm looking forward to your rants against president obama.   can we count on useless drooling rush-like-dwelling on his "non-christian" names hussein, obama.   to the extent you don't repudiate the idiots who represent your views, you embrace them.

 i'm not solicting your hate, just your finally honest appraisal of the failure he's been.


+=+-- Marty

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:56 AM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

For the record, it is you who constantly barrage me with emails on how I should join you with a pitch fork and demand Bush's head on a stick.

In the spirit of getting along I usually offer up some level of agreement on a certain amount of short comings with the current President while chastising you for what amounts to wild-eyed over-the top-rhetoric which is far overstated and stipulate that for whatever shortcomings the current President has, they pale in comparison to the jokes offered up by the competing party, including the liar-in-chief and favor seller CLINTON crime family.

If you do not wish to talk about it, then leave me out any emails solicitating hate on Bush. I could do without it. I have never wavered once in my belief that George W. Bush is a far better President than Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Clinton. The two improvements with Obama are he's honest and forthright about his policy positions (i.e. not taking both sides of every issue) and he keeps the dialogue on the substance of the issues. I watched his speech to AIPAC and found it refrreshing to hear him say that he doesn't think keeping troops in Iraq helps Iran-----I strongly disagreee with it---but its nice to hear him defend his own positions in comparison to last three Democrats who ran for President who would obfiscate such things.

Again---if you don't want to hear me rant against the Clintons or any other Democrat, the solution is simple, don't rant against Bush or McCain or any other Republican to me. (i.e. you started it, but I'm ending it.)

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

again ed, the whole context  (Hitchens in Slate).  can _you_ handle the difference of opinion with yours; your quote supporting _mine_  (i don' know why you thought this supports your view?)

When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 and Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book. Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."

And let me ask you then,  "Why did the White House castigate such a loyal supporter?"
(the pregnant phrase mcclellan politely omits is " ... ignorently sought to deceive ... ")

I can tell you where Bush finds these guys since Hitchens seems unable:    TEXAS,   where the IQ divided by the population is well below their daily high temps!  

I don't know if i told you, but Regan will go down as the Great Prognosticator:   His quote "The Government IS  (there's that pesky word, again) the PROBLEM".   and under his breath to nancy, "just wait for Bush's boy to take over, he'll make this one stick".

this ain't vitriol, it's merely using these incompetent's words against themselves or their ilk.

as to honest arguments, i opposed the iraq war from the start; read my prior list of "just" wars. and try to find a soul who agrees completely.    if i'm swayed by any opinion makers on this point, it's the US bishops, in a _rare_ show of support on my part.  this being the only issue i can think of where i agree completely with them.

I'm afraid it's too easy for me to answer your honest questions; i rarely see you take on mine, other than to call them "vitriol".   and, in answering your questions, since you have no cogent retort, i guess you fundamentally agree:
   is it possible that Bush is the most incompetent president _ever_?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

For a day when you feel bold enough to read an in-depth opinion that differs from your own:
...

http://www.slate.com/id/2192696/?from=rss

---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Much like Reagan, I think history's verdict on George W. Bush will be much kinder than your vitriol.....

I get very disappointed when I respond to your email, and hear nothing but crickets....

To change the subject a little...

What is your view of how the two candidates approach the underlying threat of this news story.

To me, I'm indifferent to almost any other issue...this is what I vote on:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080531/D910HKQO0.html

About the only other issue on my radar from a Presidential campaign point of view is the struggle between gov'ts which give their people a voice to affect the policy-making apparatus of their gov't vs. those who don't......

My take is all other issues will be inconsequential in a 50 year window of time if these two issues aren't approached correctly.

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 >
> > >

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 >
>

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:

...

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.