I was thinking of you as I practicing typing. I agree. The yellow bull-doze cats knock down trees. They kill myriads of life forms. It sounds like fibula's' and femur, skull and white collar, elbow or chin, humor bones too, getting ground and crunched. The sound is as real as a skull bone cracking wide open from a rifle's gun in a war-zone. This is done for a fraudulent fake and deadly economy. A trap-- A noose. A slave block in each town. A Negro (o, stop it, I am respectful) fenced in chorale, a brief visit, a short walk, and after a lobby appointment with Sea'a'toe Joe___.

O, it's all in walking distance from 'our' "honored" "elected" representative's. no. 'Um down in DC propping a stage-block yard sale? There is nothing in their house junk closet a sane person need to buy.

Greysky, people here remind me of people I spoken with, and listened to...the ancient field thinker came to mind reading your post. A good instructor would teach *oiko-economics...

...post bloodshed...plant platoons, squads, regiments, and companies of greens, collards, watermelons, french flies soar into the blue, bees buzz, and gads I love to nod a quit yes-um to you. Planed lavender, Gnosticism's pepper tasting flowers for a mixed salad (Milk Sativa) and colored other plants...see open blossoms...piston? stamen" babies... O, Milky Way out there, we HOPE. yes.

That's real investment...Mr "S" would say, and all the while having a "tiny-bit" of pleasure to dangle ten toes in a creek so the black minnow or little colorful guppy fish could tickle yuze toes for free. It was Socrates. His 'gal' had a tiny few maladies and could be seen in K-mart's of that bygone era?

Greenwald: "...George Tenet's new (and unconscionably and unforgivably belated) book..."

Check out David Corn's post on that very point:

Tenet Owes Public an Apology, not a Sales Campaign

"Should Americans have to pay to get the truth about how their government failed them?

* * *

"I am looking forward to reading Tenet's account. He's a smart guy who saw much. And he was screwed by the White House, even though he did fail to make sure the intelligence on Iraq was properly vetted and responsibly used. But if Tenet indeed believed before the invasion of Iraq that Bush and Cheney were pushing the nation to war without adequately assessing the threat or assessing options other than full-scale war, he had an obligation at the time to make that known--at least to members of Congress, if not the public at large. He did not do so. Consequently, he owes the public a full accounting and an apology--not a sales campaign."

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/04/tenet_owes_publ.php

OT:

Take a look at this post on Digby.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/truths-consequences-by-digby-since.html

There has been much talk on this blog and in these comments about the failing of the MSM. The story above may give sharp insight into why they act as they do.

I've asked Glenn if he'd like to follow up on this. I think he's best positioned given his recent writings.

Truly it has been the folks like Stewart and Colbert who have kept the light on with many folks who otherwise didn't care about politics, and now it is snowballing as more wake up. Those of us with a strong interest in politics have been watching in horror from the very beginning; I'd say the only way I kept my sanity in the earliest days of this mess was having these 2 keep my spirits up with some well-placed political satire, when the rest of the media was at their most sycophantic, stenographic worst (and they aren't much better now, excluding of course the few like Charlie Savage). This is when blogs started their rise and the downward slope steepend for the Broder's and their enablers.

To this day I think Colbert has huge brass ones for his correspondent's dinner performance; who else could have stood up there and delivered that blistering take down of everyone in that oh-so-exclusive room? And without the internet, almost none of us would have seen it and the Broder-ific press would have been able to bury it (not that they didn't try). And I agree with the previous poster that this seems to me to have been a turning point.

Jon Stewart does the most respectful and incisive interviews of anyone out there; he will have on guests that he totally disagrees with and still have a respectful conversation with them (he is certainly a better person than I could be in the same circumstances). We certainly can't say that for the right's entertainment interviewers like O'Reilly or Limbaugh, who have been reduced to insane ranting by the fact that Media Matters simply posts transcripts of exactly what they have said on their shows.

I must say though, that McCain's performance on TDS last week was when I really saw how McCain has devolved into grim desperation and is now spiralling the drain. He was only concerned with puking out as many of his campaign talking points as possible while talking over Jon and avoiding the questions, and ended up looking foolish and irrelevant at the same time. In the past his appearances there actually added some sympathy and humanity to McCain; not this time though. Somehow I wonder if Guliani (who looks like the neocon chosen one for the republican nomination) has the guts to go on TDS; I doubt it.

And how is that not a total indictment of the media: that if I want to see incisive questions with follow-up that does not let the guest off the hook, I have to go to TDS and the Colbert Report? And of course to Bill Moyers and Charlie Savage, but not to anyone from the MSM. They've become so embedded with the DC culture that they have yet to see just how much the rest of the country is increasingly tuning them out. Deservedly so.

I'm glad you share my sentiments. I felt pretty naked and vulnerable stepping out with such an optimistic comment, and wasn't sure how it would be received, if it were even noticed at all. I want to reiterate that I don't say such things lightly, and my feeling comes from both intuition and an abundance of concrete evidence popping up everywhere.

From the events you mentioned in today's post, to the practically innumerable examples of insiders speaking out, corruption being exposed, opposition gaining strength and confidence, and the steady, heavy flow of new revelations literally every week, I think the trend is unmistakable. And, again, it is also psychological. There is something immeasurable happening, permeating people of all political persuasions. I use my super-conservative friend as a sort of canary in the coal mine. He is well-connected to conservative networks, and is unmistakably signaling distress coming from those quarters. I go easy on him personally, as a friend, and also because I think he's himself seeing how out of control things have gotten. Enough about that, though.

I just got done watching for the first time Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room, I think is the name of the documentary. It made me reflect even further on the changing social/political climate. The Enron fiasco is, in so many ways, the corporate counterpart to what has happened and is happening in our government (and it's no small coincidence that the two were so well connected and shared such common goals). Here was a small cadre of men who thought they could outsmart everyone else, manipulate and evade rules in order to pursue radical "big ideas," using immense secrecy and unaccountability, continually rationalizing that they were "on the side of angels," at the enormous expense of everyone around them and, eventually, resulting in their own demise.

That pernicious psychology and sociology, with all of its many, clearly identifiable features, is common to both the Enron bigwigs and the current administration. Not only that, but this mentality has existed literally since the beginning of humanity, embodied in countless historical examples, and will continue to exist for as long as humanity exists. Lest I make it sound entirely evil, however, it does have its place. It is strong and resolute, sure-footed and unyielding -- traits often useful and necessary in certain contexts.

On the other side, however, is the psychology and sociology that we are seeing take resurgence now. It bears the hallmarks of reflection, scrutiny, logic, and restraint, among other characteristics. These polar psychologies and sociologies (one could say yin and yang, I suppose) cannot be trapped by political party or ideology. They exist independent of such smaller things. But often, at different times and in different contexts, parties and ideologies often serve as their "hosts," finding convenience and furtherance in specific vehicles of ideals, ideas, and communities. The two poles, unspoken first principles, form the invisible gravitational force behind so much that we see concretely. Is it pure coincidence that most scientists hold values currently defined as "liberal?" That networks like PBS are not only favored by liberals, but also focus so strongly on the arts and sciences, and slow, no-frills discussions of ideas over ideology? That networks like Fox most heavily use visual and aural demonstrations of power and decisiveness, and fixate so strongly on mainstream faith and institutions of mainstream faith? Examples abound, and too often people fixate on these fingers pointing at the sun, instead of the sun.

I don't want to get too metaphysical (too late?), and I don't want to make it sound like either psychology is absolute and ever exists in pure form without some interweaving of the other (again, like yin and yang). And neither should either psychology exist unbalanced. What we are seeing now, instead, is a gradual restoration of equillibrium of the two in our culture and system. Or, at least, the beginnings of a restoration of equillibrium.

And, as with all things, equillibrium is the only state of progress and true strength. But the first budding shoots on that revitalized tree are reckoning, healing, and justice. May they blossom.