Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 12:57 pm

A little "back to basics" woven now into fabric of weeks news:

>Your bus is going down the street with ten riders and no blacks sitting in the back.

>At your next stop two people get off the bus, both from the back of the bus, and at stop nearest the ice cream store.  One elderly rider gets on and with senior citizen discount.

>For the next three stops no riders signal for a stop and no one seems to be standing near enough the bus stops to actually "be waiting."

>Then three riders exit that have been sitting apart from each other and seemingly "not together" and five new riders board, seemingly in two "clicks" at this the nearest stop for the public library.

>You pass by three churches and another house of worship before anyone seems to signal for you to stop either for them to board or for them to exit.

>By now three riders all black seem to have chosen among the many empty seats to sit at the back of the bus, but two together and one seemingly "solo."

>Wow, school is out!  Twenty plus white youths all looking much the same but of coed group seem impatiently waiting at next stop.

>> So, and well it seems a puzzle now for two others usually wait at this time, but seem more prone to detention, but next stop at least three usually unboard, and with a bounce in their steps, and a tune in their head, so near your stop nearest athletic fields, for seniors.

>>>And now the hard reality - the quizicle to civic awareness, as has been asked for as long as I can remember:   WHAT COLOR ARE THE BUS DRIVER’S PANTS?


And, now some real math and judgemental awareness:  How much can President Bush be at fault for spending this supposed 1 trillion on war mostly in Iraq, and "quilty" and "shunned" for not having spent that much, that much that was deficit spending largely, and, so much as "should have been spent in United States"?  First we need to subtract how much of this was spent in Afghanistan - Obama’s JUST WAR - and then subtract a large amount of this spending for Iraq that Obama fits more to Afghanistan as his JUST WAR but that was the deficit spending needed to reverse the slide of our military from the gross and irresponsible unfunding and underfunding during Clintons’ eight years.

And, so with that "subtracted" from "Bush’s Trillion" presented by President Obama as like of all spending outside of United States territory proper of such "trillion" now how much of such was actually in state spending for troop salaries and support staff expenses as well as equipment and state side logistics?

And, now how do we "discount" or "value" the commentary asserting by President Obama that this money should have been spent near entirely only on social causes within United States territories, proper?  

How to "value" such "spending" assertion while President embraces Clintons, both, and while trying to only blame Bush administration, yet while history recorded Clintons in their eight years of leading us to such spending, such spending Obama presents as more proper use of such deficit spending yet of Clintons then saying it wasn’t necessary and that unfunding and underfunding of such domestic programs what Americans should embrace?  So this "hypothetical" "other spending/budgeting" also of  Clintons and Dems during Bush’s years of trying to keep him from reversing their unfunding of such "programs"/"line items"?

And, should the Iraq Operational budget get a discounting for Democrats largely of reversing seemingly then reasonable arrangements to see United States start getting some "payments"/"credits" from Iraq oil sales while operations on going?

How much should be subtracted as well from Obama’s "Trillion" spent that he seems to be saying shouldn’t have been spent and for what the costs of maintaining sanctions and "no-fly" zones and such of operational costs that Bush likely would have had to keep up for all eight years, just to be safe? 

And, how much now would we be having to spend now just to give "bite" to sanctions for others like Iran, if Bush hadn’t put sufficient "bite" into sanction on Saddam Hussein with such "Trillion"?


Do you remember, such seeming math quiz, of old? 

Did you remember? 

Did you remember that "You are the bus driver"?

Did someone say "pants"?  


Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 4:35 am

"After two years of warfare, the major causes of the war had disappeared.  Neither side had a reason to continue or a chance of gaining a decisive success that would compel their opponents to cede territory or advantageous peace terms.  As a result of this stalemate, the two countries signed the TREATY OF GHENT on December 24, 1814.  News of the peace treaty took two months to reach the U.S.,  during which fighting continued.  In this interim, the Americans defeated a British invasion army in the Battle of New Orleans, with American forces’ sustaining 71 casualties compared to 2,000 British.  This great victory gave the Americans their final war goal, restoration of national honour.  The war had the effect of uniting the peoples of the U.S. as well as the people of Canada, and opened a long era of peaceful relations between the United States and the British Empire."  (Wikipedia, War of 1812)

Today as well is a good day to GOOGLE  "More Poetry, Please" column by Thomas Friedman, in New York Times sometime in past year.   Sorry, but my blogged column that took on Mr. Friedman’s commentary, in poem form, is of the 227 columns hidden at www.jphogan.org from first year’s content, hidden until further notice.

And, "news of the peace treaty took two months to reach U.S."?  What is there still to learn about/from New Orleans?  What was it about the British that had them back to warring in America so soon after losing its colonies?

Was it all Napoleon’s fault? 

Well it seems President Obama was poorly served by the "spell check"/"editing" duty of his State Department what with, again, a seeming calling like Friedman’s MORE POETRY, PLEASE, as so many left to wondering now on the "momentum" of the Taliban commenting. 

>> "Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who – under the command of General Petraeus – are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum."<<

Ummm?  Taliban’s "momentum"?  Interesting concept.  "Taliban’s momentum"???  But, wait they haven’t had "mo" since Clintons’ eight years, right?  The "home team" of "momentum" or just Taliban going about their daily lives with a growing occupation force now more of "neocolonialism" and president’s fondness for "punk rock poetry"?

Taliban "momentum" still of ruff shoes/boots - climbing and traversing rocky mountain trails in regions not just with plumbing and running water but even without roads to speak of, and usually of "horsepower" still of "one".

President Obama, though really seems to have the Republicans on the ropes - what with the spending on Iraq so high and with Clintons not solely responsible for "surpluses" as much about diverting federal funding from such "spending" now "necessary" or at least far more important and worthwhile than such funds of massive amounts, was it spent on Iraq freedom, or just as implied (falsely?) "in Iraq"?

Surely Bush didn’t drop a trillion of our dollars in just one nation of about 25 million people, but instead did budget rebuilding of our armed forces and support structures with spending "on" Iraq but here in America, and, so of "change" to Clintons’ and Republicans PEACE DIVIDENDS before their time reckless surpluses, right?

But, still it seems to have cost so much more, and now in greater hindsight with "sanctions with bite" again a necessary policy posturing quite too much more than it should have if only the need for "bite" was pushed by Clintons on Saddam Hussein within their unexpected first term administering so soon after Bush was at 87% popularity for prudent prosecution of Saddam Hussein.   It would have cost less and gone more smoothly if we had returned to Iraq after just giving Saddam Hussein at most three years to fully comply, right? 

And, we would have had greater cooperation and trust from Iraqi Shia and Kurds for the full eight years of "abandonment" by Clintons, that chided at Al Qaeda for seeming maybe an insufficient prosecuting of Saddam Hussein post his Kuwait invasion?

So.  It cost so much because the Clintons let the Taliban get some "Mo" and as well for they in their intimate "two-fer" did let Iraq fester, all their eight years? 

Really, there are a lot of parallels between Iraq and New Orleans, and with both of action maybe better pursued before a "surge" effecting.