Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Er, if I could convince you to hone in on the correct usage of persuade you'd be doing the world a service. As for your question, soccer moms in SUVs might not know the difference nor care, but your mere common or garden road miles that you use up every time you go driving are not original miles, they get re-used every time another car goes past. Authentic original miles are only to be found where no car has ventured before. I don't think a 1957 Chevy is cut out to have 60,000 original miles under its belt and still run good. I bet you put sawdust in the gearbox too. Are you the guy who sold an Edsel to Richard Nixon? Interesting look-ups in the 2-vol OED, IIRC (mine was eaten by termites, sob): - barbarian - prestigious Best Keith Ha! I think it would be a hoot. Next show: A guide to improper pronunciation: Realtor - usually pronounced reLAtor. Correct: REELter. Quiz question: What's the difference between original miles and miles as in: 1957 Chevy, 60,000 original miles. Btw, it runs good. Not well, good. MK DuPree wrote: LOL...let me know when you want to really gear up this show...maybe the Say It Wrong Show -- A Guide To Improper Word Usage with Miss Grundy and Rufus. For any two subscribers who will each donate the full set of OED, each will receive the two volume set in return. Just in case anyone is feeling more sedentary and needs motivation honing their homing in skills. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game I have the bigger two volume OED. I've always wanted the full set. I'm going to start an Internet radio program called say it wrong - a guide to improper word usage. Take a different tact - tack It's a mute point - moot. Irregardless - regardless. Hone in on - home in on. The list goes on... -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: LOL...ty...OED eh? I have the two volume microprint version. Have used it more for etymology than everyday definition. Kind of cumbersome pulling one or the other volume out of the jacket and then having to use a magnifying glass to read what I'm after. I guess not only am I insufferable, I'm lazy. Ah well...maybe using the OED would help me home in on my sedentary tendencies and hone my understanding of context so that I might not be so ready to doubt another pedant's ability to home in on writing that obviously needs to be better honed. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game Insufferable pedants unite! Webster's dictionary just means...it's called Webster's. Big whoop! I can print on up and call it Webster's. The OED is the only dictionary worth using, IMHO. You could say Cheney honed his argument. You couldn't say he honed in on his argument. MK DuPree wrote: Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words in on? There's a case for Cheney having honed his present message to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game 1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't honed as in he honed his argument, it was honed in. He meant homed in on. -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: honed: to make more acute, intense, or effective; and homed: to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for honed. However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Funny you should come up with that take on original miles - I once argued the exact same thing! Keith Addison wrote: Er, if I could convince you to hone in on the correct usage of persuade you'd be doing the world a service. As for your question, soccer moms in SUVs might not know the difference nor care, but your mere common or garden road miles that you use up every time you go driving are not original miles, they get re-used every time another car goes past. Authentic original miles are only to be found where no car has ventured before. I don't think a 1957 Chevy is cut out to have 60,000 original miles under its belt and still run good. I bet you put sawdust in the gearbox too. Are you the guy who sold an Edsel to Richard Nixon? Interesting look-ups in the 2-vol OED, IIRC (mine was eaten by termites, sob): - barbarian - prestigious Best Keith Ha! I think it would be a hoot. Next show: A guide to improper pronunciation: Realtor - usually pronounced reLAtor. Correct: REELter. Quiz question: What's the difference between original miles and miles as in: 1957 Chevy, 60,000 original miles. Btw, it runs good. Not well, good. MK DuPree wrote: LOL...let me know when you want to really gear up this show...maybe the Say It Wrong Show -- A Guide To Improper Word Usage with Miss Grundy and Rufus. For any two subscribers who will each donate the full set of OED, each will receive the two volume set in return. Just in case anyone is feeling more sedentary and needs motivation honing their homing in skills. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game I have the bigger two volume OED. I've always wanted the full set. I'm going to start an Internet radio program called say it wrong - a guide to improper word usage. Take a different tact - tack It's a mute point - moot. Irregardless - regardless. Hone in on - home in on. The list goes on... -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: LOL...ty...OED eh? I have the two volume microprint version. Have used it more for etymology than everyday definition. Kind of cumbersome pulling one or the other volume out of the jacket and then having to use a magnifying glass to read what I'm after. I guess not only am I insufferable, I'm lazy. Ah well...maybe using the OED would help me home in on my sedentary tendencies and hone my understanding of context so that I might not be so ready to doubt another pedant's ability to home in on writing that obviously needs to be better honed. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game Insufferable pedants unite! Webster's dictionary just means...it's called Webster's. Big whoop! I can print on up and call it Webster's. The OED is the only dictionary worth using, IMHO. You could say Cheney honed his argument. You couldn't say he honed in on his argument. MK DuPree wrote: Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words in on? There's a case for Cheney having honed his present message to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game 1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't honed as in he honed his argument, it was honed in. He meant homed in on. -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: honed: to make more acute, intense, or effective; and homed: to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for honed
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
I have the bigger two volume OED. I've always wanted the full set. I'm going to start an Internet radio program called say it wrong - a guide to improper word usage. Take a different tact - tack It's a mute point - moot. Irregardless - regardless. Hone in on - home in on. The list goes on... -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: LOL...ty...OED eh? I have the two volume microprint version. Have used it more for etymology than everyday definition. Kind of cumbersome pulling one or the other volume out of the jacket and then having to use a magnifying glass to read what I'm after. I guess not only am I insufferable, I'm lazy. Ah well...maybe using the OED would help me home in on my sedentary tendencies and hone my understanding of context so that I might not be so ready to doubt another pedant's ability to home in on writing that obviously needs to be better honed. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game Insufferable pedants unite! Webster's dictionary just means...it's called Webster's. Big whoop! I can print on up and call it Webster's. The OED is the only dictionary worth using, IMHO. You could say Cheney honed his argument. You couldn't say he honed in on his argument. MK DuPree wrote: Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words in on? There's a case for Cheney having honed his present message to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game 1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't honed as in he honed his argument, it was honed in. He meant homed in on. -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: honed: to make more acute, intense, or effective; and homed: to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for honed. However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game has honed in on HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again, and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a conservative hit job on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Ha! I think it would be a hoot. Next show: A guide to improper pronunciation: Realtor - usually pronounced reLAtor. Correct: REELter. Quiz question: What's the difference between original miles and miles as in: 1957 Chevy, 60,000 original miles. Btw, it runs good. Not well, good. MK DuPree wrote: LOL...let me know when you want to really gear up this show...maybe the Say It Wrong Show -- A Guide To Improper Word Usage with Miss Grundy and Rufus. For any two subscribers who will each donate the full set of OED, each will receive the two volume set in return. Just in case anyone is feeling more sedentary and needs motivation honing their homing in skills. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game I have the bigger two volume OED. I've always wanted the full set. I'm going to start an Internet radio program called say it wrong - a guide to improper word usage. Take a different tact - tack It's a mute point - moot. Irregardless - regardless. Hone in on - home in on. The list goes on... -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: LOL...ty...OED eh? I have the two volume microprint version. Have used it more for etymology than everyday definition. Kind of cumbersome pulling one or the other volume out of the jacket and then having to use a magnifying glass to read what I'm after. I guess not only am I insufferable, I'm lazy. Ah well...maybe using the OED would help me home in on my sedentary tendencies and hone my understanding of context so that I might not be so ready to doubt another pedant's ability to home in on writing that obviously needs to be better honed. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game Insufferable pedants unite! Webster's dictionary just means...it's called Webster's. Big whoop! I can print on up and call it Webster's. The OED is the only dictionary worth using, IMHO. You could say Cheney honed his argument. You couldn't say he honed in on his argument. MK DuPree wrote: Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words in on? There's a case for Cheney having honed his present message to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game 1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't honed as in he honed his argument, it was honed in. He meant homed in on. -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: honed: to make more acute, intense, or effective; and homed: to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for honed. However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game has honed in on HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Things would be much more betterer that wayMike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the bigger two volume OED. I've always wanted the full set.I'm going to start an Internet radio program called "say it wrong - a guide to improper word usage."Take a different tact - tackIt's a mute point - moot.Irregardless - regardless.Hone in on - home in on.The list goes on...-Miss GrundyMK DuPree wrote: LOL...ty...OED eh? I have the two volume microprint version. Have used it more for etymology than everyday definition. Kind of cumbersome pulling one or the other volume out of the jacket and then having to use a magnifying glass to read what I'm after. I guess not only am I insufferable, I'm lazy. Ah well...maybe using the OED would help me home in on my sedentary tendencies and hone my understanding of context so that I might not be so ready to doubt another pedant's ability to home in on writing that obviously needs to be better honed.- Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org><mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game Insufferable pedants unite! Webster's dictionary just means...it's called Webster's. Big whoop! I can print on up and call it Webster's. The OED is the only dictionary worth using, IMHO. You could say Cheney honed his argument. You couldn't say he "honed in" on his argument. MK DuPree wrote: Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words "in on"? There's a case for Cheney having honed his present message to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus- Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't "honed" as in "he honed his argument", it was "honed in". He meant "homed in on." -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith.Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_:"honed": to make more acute, intense, or effective; and"homed": to proceed or direct attention toward an objective.Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for "honed." However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game "has honed in on" HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are "still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again," and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a "conservative hit job"
[Biofuel] The Blame Game
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again, and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a conservative hit job on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a bottom-up review of defense needs and priorities, the assessment concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together represented a formidable coalition of social conservatives, neoconservatives, unionists, and hardline Republican nationalists. The Coalition to Protect Americans Now revived Reagan's window-of-vulnerability claim in its demand to abolish arms control treaties and construct a defense system to protect our families from ballistic missile attack. It sponsored a website featuring a map of the United States where, by selecting a town's location, a reader could receive often misleading information about which countries had or soon supposedly would have the capability to strike it with an intercontinental missile. Further enflaming the hardliners was a 1995 CIA National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that asserted that apart from Russia or China, no rogue state could possibly pose a long-range missile threat to the United States before 2010. In response, congressional hawks, who after the 1996 elections controlled both houses of Congress, promoted a Team B-type evaluation of the NIE, resulting in the creation of a blue-ribbon panel known as the Gates Commission (after its chairman, former CIA Director Robert Gates). In its 1996 report, the commission concluded that the technical obstacles facing rogue states in developing intercontinental missile capability were even greater than those described by the CIA. Unsatisfied with this outcome, the peace-through-strength lobby pushed their congressional allies to establish various independent commissions. Congressional figures affiliated with CSP successfully lobbied for the creation of two commissions, both to be headed by Donald Rumsfeld, to examine the ballistic missile threat and space-based defense capabilities. The unstated agenda of these commissions was to increase pressure on the Clinton administration to support new weapons programs and substantially increase major military spending. Both of the so-called
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
has honed in on HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again, and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a conservative hit job on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a bottom-up review of defense needs and priorities, the assessment concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together represented a formidable coalition of social conservatives, neoconservatives, unionists, and hardline Republican nationalists. The Coalition to Protect Americans Now revived Reagan's window-of-vulnerability claim in its demand to abolish arms control treaties and construct a defense system to protect our families from ballistic missile attack. It sponsored a website featuring a map of the United States where, by selecting a town's location, a reader could receive often misleading information about which countries had or soon supposedly would have the capability to strike it with an intercontinental missile. Further enflaming the hardliners was a 1995 CIA National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that asserted that apart from Russia or China, no rogue state could possibly pose a long-range missile threat to the United States before 2010. In response, congressional hawks, who after the 1996 elections controlled both houses of Congress, promoted a Team B-type evaluation of the NIE, resulting in the creation of a blue-ribbon panel known as the Gates Commission (after its chairman, former CIA Director Robert Gates). In its 1996 report, the commission concluded that the technical obstacles facing rogue states in developing intercontinental missile capability were even greater than those described by the CIA. Unsatisfied with this outcome, the peace-through-strength lobby pushed their congressional allies to establish various independent commissions. Congressional figures affiliated with CSP successfully lobbied for the creation of two commissions, both to be headed by Donald Rumsfeld, to examine the ballistic missile threat and space-based defense capabilities. The unstated agenda of these commissions was to increase pressure on the Clinton administration to support new
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this articleCheney hasbeen focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition: "honed": to make more acute, intense, or effective; and "homed": to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for "honed." However, from the article itappearsthe present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff thatbenefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game "has honed in on" HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588Right Web | Analysis |The Blame GameTom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006IRC Right Webrightweb.irc-online.orgStumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are "still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again," and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration.As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a "conservative hit job" on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts.Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism.Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a "bottom-up review" of defense needs and priorities, the assessment concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together represented a formidable coalition of social conservatives, neoconservatives, unionists, and hardline Republican nationalists.The Coalition to Protect Americans Now revived Reagan's window-of-vulnerability claim in its demand to abolish arms control treaties and construct a defense system to "protect our families from ballistic missile attack." It sponsored a website featuring a map of the United States where, by selecting a town's location, a reader could receive often misleading information about which countries had or soon supposedly would have the capability to strike it with an intercontinental missile.Further enflaming the hardliners was a 1995 CIA National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that asserted that apart from Russia or China, no rogue state could possibly pose a long-range missile threa
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't honed as in he honed his argument, it was honed in. He meant homed in on. -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: honed: to make more acute, intense, or effective; and homed: to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for honed. However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game has honed in on HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again, and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a conservative hit job on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a bottom-up review of defense needs and priorities, the assessment concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together represented a formidable coalition of social conservatives, neoconservatives, unionists, and hardline Republican nationalists. The Coalition to Protect Americans Now revived Reagan's window-of-vulnerability claim in its demand to abolish arms control treaties and construct a defense system to protect our families from ballistic missile attack. It sponsored a website featuring a map of the United States where, by selecting a town's location, a reader could receive often misleading information about which countries had or soon supposedly would have the capability to strike it with an intercontinental missile
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words "in on"?There's a case forCheney having honed his presentmessage to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus - Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game 1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't "honed" as in "he honed his argument", it was "honed in". He meant "homed in on." -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: "honed": to make more acute, intense, or effective; and "homed": to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for "honed." However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: "Mike Weaver" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game "has honed in on" HOMED!!!Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are "still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again," and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a "conservative hit job" on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a "bottom-up review" of defense needs and priorities, the assessment concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together represented a formidable coa
Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game
Insufferable pedants unite! Webster's dictionary just means...it's called Webster's. Big whoop! I can print on up and call it Webster's. The OED is the only dictionary worth using, IMHO. You could say Cheney honed his argument. You couldn't say he honed in on his argument. MK DuPree wrote: Aint even gonna touch references to my dic...otherwise, ok, I give, kind of...what about dropping the words in on? There's a case for Cheney having honed his present message to mask the real message his ilk have homed in on during the present and past administrations. Rufus - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game 1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't honed as in he honed his argument, it was honed in. He meant homed in on. -Miss Grundy MK DuPree wrote: Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition_: honed: to make more acute, intense, or effective; and homed: to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I vote for honed. However, from the article it appears the present administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a few at the expense of many...as usual. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game has honed in on HOMED!!! Can't anyone write anymore??? -Miss Grundy Keith Addison wrote: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 Right Web | Analysis | The Blame Game Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular message: Terrorists are still lethal, still desperately trying to hit us again, and Democrats are no good at security (Washington Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton administration. As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused Wallace and Fox of undertaking a conservative hit job on his administration's national security record and of neglecting to adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a bottom-up review of defense needs and priorities, the assessment concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby mobilized a coordinated grassroots
