March Madness

Normally this refers to Basketball,

which involves a tournament.

There are reasons Sarah Palin is not in the running.

She is only in the change game.

And that is a shame.

Simply put: Put up or shut up!

Get in the Republican race and you can have your debate.

Short of that, someone should accept her challenge.

And I don't mean Hillary or Katie*.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin might do well to find out what a debate entails.

Even Comedy Central or MSNBC, should not be considered as early round qualifiers for the Final Four.**

* The Colbert Report or No Labels is not the shame, but Olympia Snow did come up. Being an enemy does not make you a candidate or a debater, let alone a journalist.

**Who would compete in this evolution?[i.e. Who would stoop to taking Sarah Palin serious let alone qualified to debate. Not that that would qualify her to advance to a final debate round. There was so much C-rap here, I thought I would d'ribble the punch line. Wouldn't we love Palin to actually debate*** someone of her watch-ama gotcha?]

[But speaking of tournaments, I don't think the Raw Money Class wants to be facing Obama anytime too soon.]

*** Buddy Roemer has left the building. Not to mention Gary Johnson.(C-Hillary Link*/see "actually debate" links.)

"Fair and Balanced"

Unless you have been stuck in an allegory(Plato's Cave, not Obama's Cave), you should recognize this as the motto of FOX NEWS.*

Instead it is a review of an article in The Atlantic. In some circles it is almost name calling. But for James Fallows, I mean it as a compliment of his article Obama, Explained.

It is also a nice segue.

It is also a description of Obama's economic strategy.**

C-Try Angle(Chart and earlier context.)

*not that it is(News or "Fair and Balanced")

**Ouch Speaking of Truth in Name Only***.

*** Homophones Unite ! Utopia and Eutopia: or the tombs of balance.

(Original intent? Rowe and Rove under "Name Only".)

Framing Narratives

Don't even Think of an Elephant!

The Last Word

Game Change

The Rachel Maddow Show

The gist of this riff?

The impact of whine and geez!

Walk** Like an Egyptian!*

[3-14-12 asterisks added ]

[ "I feel like I can say anything[!]..." NOT!***]

*It is ironic that Betty Knox went on to be a war correspondent.

** U.S. Autumn

*** an example of spin: former quote actually in latter link.

(Excuse me for the cross threads, no pun on mean [!])

(warning under "anything" (maybe)requires Facebook membership)

[Not to pun on Dead C Scrolls, but I hope there are no cross ups(2) in my links.]

[Oops, see comments, and cartoon.]

[Re: Market Forces]

[Re: Comments ! ]

[Re: never mind N-FRY.]

Under "never mind" I have now read the latter and the former maybe later. The "mind" is a very academic place. The "never" a more pragmatic problem under the umbrella of our creators. Whether I ever get to read the "git mo" piece may be irrelevant. The point germinates from our "Try Angle" and the dilemma of transparency and the dangers of ab-solutions. (pun on absolutes) [I don't think absolute freedom of information is possible, let alone pragmatic. But the emphasis it on "absolute", as well as a careful reading of our architectural documents, which I believe lay the organic groundwork for progress, as opposed to Jeramiahs. Critics of the president must realize that he is responsible whether Congress frames the right tools or the Global Village (let alone Supreme Court) goes along. Yet I am still digesting James Fallows take here, where ultimately it is our choice to choose forward or Re-verse. C- Elephant (3)]

Try Angle

Here are a few pieces that intersect.
Re-Rights,
Checks,
And Balances. [^^^]

How? Well, we have the Judiary, Congress, and the Executive perspectives.
The bottom line is account ability. Yes, that is two words under three branches.
We have the accounting of Bush v. Gore, trickle down, and the slippery slope. Juctices can't count, economics does, and they all matter. I will try not fall into the trap of the previous post with technical difficulties arising from the burden of
tangents and links, or whatever the problem*** is, but it is a matter of looking back** at where we were and how we got there, with Bush the Decider, the current economic climate of understanding Trickle-Down and Slippery-Slopes, and the Executive we are lucky to have in the face of mythical* obstructionism and obfuscation. In fact, again I have only read the first and glanced a bit at the others but they are almost a protractor or other instrument of our graphic nature and the geometry of purpose that some have. i.e. It was not my original intent but maybe there is some intelligent design, in that it is about Re-Writing our social architecture. Re-writing checks and balances, economics is the bottomline and whether there is Bane or Change, and I don't mean Bain or Boehner.

* mythical: as in monstrously huge if not fantastical.
** well they did arise so there! I mean here:
and see Lord of markets,
and values politics. Economics is not without politics and values.***

*** "convenient" link see placement(^) of asterisk "the problem" re: positive/normative "dispute" or die-manics of dynamics.

(^) (more ttdl: footnote search own comment(^^) re: economics being engineering. ...?)

(^^) [3-13-12 update: my ttdl(temp tech difficulty linking) is now corrected, also found my comments on economics being a field of social engineering. Featured caricature? Herbert Spencer. ALSO RE : Politics ]

[ Unrelated: if war were not related to economics.(NFRY) Also too bad.]

[^^^ Tag tomorrow : From the original Try Angle we have the 3 branches as we navigate the world of economics and power relations.]

Can you feel this working?

Or even follow this thinking?* Is George Lakoff practicing the same reinforcment and fine print? On the feeling front ? **

Does the market Lord over Republicans?
Does logic Lord over facts?
Is it really the slippery slope Lakoff sees?

The bold indicates the suggested read. Links are often footnotes or tangents(see [**] ), not primary sources that need a full read. I am commenting here on different results that reading this article may have on those from different parts of the political spectrum, and the impact of having read it on their perspective of their perspective.[*]
(You will have to read the Lakoff article, and then will you be prepared to answer the questions?) The focus on the metaphorical may have an underlying greater impact. The President is pounding on the pragmatics of values and that may be an over arching message.

*The Santorum Strategy by George Lakoff
** unembedded mixed front and other
*** (temp tech difficulties w/links: see footnotes)

Footnotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Point: Metaphors evolve or are hijacked. (flip-flop over the centuries)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=snob
Point: Pop Culture? Pontifical Santorum?
Concepts:
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Republican+table
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=divide+to+table
too http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=conquer

These last links found on Footnotes PAGE. (A, B, C)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/p/footnotes.html

[*] last asterisk to note that these two "perspective" links are tangential[**] perspectives on perspectives.
[**] speaking of dump ties? (see *** ttdl See placement of link/asterisk inconvenience. )
[Related Breaking Toure on KONY 2012]
[Related Background: http://fora.tv/2007/06/28/Francis_Fukuyama_End_Of_History_Revisited ]
[And Martin Bashir: "but what am I?" Romney childishness.]
[Citizens United: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Citizens+United,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Strategy+of+right,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Brothers,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Roger+Ailes, purpose of these inconvenient (see *** & ttld) links, is to archive and find later reference to the divide further the table for their conversation. http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Table,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/karl-rove-vs-wa-hyperbole.html,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/politics-of-table.html, More Bashir: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Pee+Wee , http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Herman ,
Happy Birthday Romney http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2010/03/snooki.html, Infinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8 ]

Breitbart Lives!

Not exactly the Starting Point, but Soledad O'Brien "clashes" with Big Journalism** Editor-in-Chief over "critical race theory" and a with-held video.

It almost seems that CNN* is a wannabe FOX or MSNBC.

It is more than swift iron knee that FOX has any concern for material being with-held.

* not to single out or be overly critical of CNN or Soledad O'Brien, but they do seem to be competing for "fair and balanced" between the other two "news" networks. FOX is the veritable "you started it" network. The media was too liberal so they had to have a "fair and balanced" take on their reality. Making room for MSNBC as a counter force. CNN has the real challenge trying not to be either, but still news or journalism in a market environment.

**[aka Raw Money Dot Com or Culture War in context and con text !]

[More perspective or not ? OOPS!]

[It's Alive !]

[in balance here is more]

[3-9-12 Tocqueville lives?*** And so does Calvin and Hobbes?

*** promo(not found) for "Up" balances de Tocqueville's intent.

[BTW: if corporations are people, should they also have...reproductive rights? Please note that I self-edited the last(see cartoon) health reference. (i.e. founding mother of all probes or ultra-sounds?)]

[3-14-12: The Ed Show, The Last Word. Who needs Spin? ]

Anachronistic Reasoning?

Rational Actors?

The X-Factor?

Not Exactly.

[Note: it was not my original intent to post so much comment. A reading of the asterisks in order,(* through ***) may help the flow of reasoning, such as it is. (i.e. get to *** before reading asterisks.)]

Chomsky/Pillar.

The dilemma*** of dealing with irrational actors, seems to argue that the reason for not allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, is the same reason for supporting the Republicans for leadership: Only irrational actors can deal with irrational actors.**

Ironically it seems that it is the same reason for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear arms are needed to prevent the will of an enemy from being forced on one's homeland. Hence the irrational* also enforces the rationale that Iran needs nuclear arms for rational reasons.

This is not to argue for nuclear proliferation or disarmament, only to expose the paradox of expecting forces to be irrational, except when it is one's own. And this certainly does not argue for Republican leadership, at least as it expects to enforce their rational behavior on irrational bases. Such rationale is only loose talk or worse, intentional escalation of world tensions, and certainly not incentive for nuclear non-proliferation, global understanding or economic progress.

* not so irrational in the foundations here: as it is irrational to claim that Iran is irrational as a rational for preventing their nuclear capabilities. It is rational just attempting to rationalize behavior despite potential irrationality of the players.

**dualing ironies or double down dueling[!]

[or just dualing down?]

*** this paradox is also rational

This piece is based on a reading of the Chomsky and Pillar pieces.(in light of the "Actors" clip) But not before a re-reading of the complete Kroenig piece in a paper bound edition of Foreign Affairs, not fully available here. I had not yet stumbled on these articles, which may shine more light on the exorcise here.[!] From the former of the last two:

Matthew Kroenig's argument for preventive military action to combat Tehran's nuclear program -- "Time to Attack Iran" (January/February 2012) -- suffers from three problems. First, its view of Iranian leaders' risk calculations is self-contradictory. Second, it misreads nuclear history. And third, it underestimates the United States' ability to contain a nuclear Iran. When these problems are addressed, it is clear that, contrary to what Kroenig contends, attacking Iran is not "the least bad option."

--

Kroenig's inconsistency is clear: If Iranian leaders are as reckless as he seems to believe, a preventive strike would likely escalate to a full-blown war. If they are not, then there is no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would be uncontainable.

[Bingo: just in! Generals against of war ! or "loose talk"^]

[No Fluke? Yeah Right! ...and more Breaking Presidential Press Conference ! And ABC Fact Check is not Fact Check.]

^[Under "loose talk" a self-deprecating reference to my occasions to both hear and speak in-person with General Eaton.]

[Note that "anachronistic" pertains to the reading of the sources and the top three lines, not to mention the ongoing nature of who's interests are reasonable or to be forced, in the flow of the rationalizing. (Also asterisks and late found sources.)]

[Not exactly breaking, but Ed Schultz notes that Bill O'Reilly believes it was "No Fluke", that Sandra Fluke did not get "in front of that committee" by accident. No, she was rejected by a House Committee and was forced to appear before a Democratic Sub-Committee.]

Congress is Like Herding Death Panels!

Who do you want the Ring Leader?

Co-Wink-E-Dink?

Or Key Dink?

It was Friday night and I just happened flip the channel and stumbled upon the Prophecies of Kim Clement. (links obviously not from then)

'Nuff said, but later I looked up* the word "prophesy" (no concordance) But the spooky thing is that as I popped open this book of over 1300 pages and it opened right to the word "prophecy".**

Another interesting intersect.

Bottom-line my hard copy is not available online so I might say that it is a cross*** between "online" and muse-ic. "To be called"-"in the spirit".

*Vine, White, Unger (Expository)

**(Ctrl F - prophecy)

*** Summit in May?

[President Obama at some point has noted an upcoming Middle East summit or conference, which I believe was penciled in for May, if I recall. I feel that it is just one more plank in his platform for progress: education, health, energy and diplomacy.]

[Follow up of sorts.]

[It is with mis-givings that there is no"key dink" here (or above), but there is more to sort("of sorts") in the last link.(previous bracketed & "_ _" 's.)]

Strike the Right...

Balance[!] <-[Meet the Press]*
Rough Notes:*

Meet the Press (w/) Gingrich /Cantor***,

Rush and Pills.

The Economy not contraception.

It is about religious freedom.**

Energy Policy.

"The Catholic Church is about charity and philanthopy for everybody." NOT!

There is an exception to the rule for those "of the faith". But not if they are dealing with everybody, or the Catholic Church will be violating "religious freedom".

Access is not the ability to receive. The argument (is that) insurance companies must not descriminate. Religious institutions have their exemptions.

SEGUE

Then Wasserman-Schultz ^ and then the panel.^^

"...re-framing the debate on (the) Democrat(s)ic terms"

* "SEGUE" added, brackets being removed, and (^'s) aside, adding links.

[i.e. Rough Notes are basically "as is".]

** original single asterisks unknown reference

[In search of links, "Footnotes". M-H Perry: ]

*** correction (also links being added "with difficulty" / "red lines"?

SEGUE 2.0

[It was with specific intent that I delayed a reading of "diplomacy" here.(to reread Kroenig in Foreign Affairs). It was not necessarily necessary. But having now read the Chomsky, I agree.]

[This seems a three pronged attack on the Economy by the Republicans. Prevent the President from succeeding economically, diplomatically and energy wise. Opposing Jobs measures other than their own which have been used to compromise Progressive successes(i.e what might work better), war monger[*] on Iran and other efforts in the Mid-East, dove-tail (Ironic Albatross/pun) into higher gas prices to ensure regime change at home. Politically, do we want to return to where we were going 4 years ago? That is what a change of course would bring. Where is the pun you might ask? C-gull able. Hmmm, I just may have struck gold in this here heading.]

[*] 3-5-12 or "loose talk"