Para-model

I will begin at the end, or rather the present.
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?

Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.

* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?

[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]


[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]


[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]

Still going? QED?]

Ephedra Ban Instituted

It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?

[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]

The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?

The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.

But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.

Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?

This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.

Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?

Throwing the Game

or Tetrahedron.

Or should we call it die with less perspective?

Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.

The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.


[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.

Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.

What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]

[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]

OPEN LETTER: Chatter

[SO MUCH FOR MY PLANS: This piece is sort of an anthology. It does include a letter from the day after the President was selected. So I am posting these in order of importance or as I can access or find them and grow in this process. ]

An open letter to President Bush: August 20, 2002
Whether this will get through the "noise" that you call your consulting advisors or the "chatter" that you call your intelligence information, I would like to let you know that America agrees with you on two things. As you so eloquently said in your September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." And more recently you said, "the end does not justify the means".

To help you sort through the dots here, this means that patriotic people of principle will never be swayed by the results, if improper means are used. We know there are more dots to connect and so many lines to read between, that it is often beyond our means to know what means you mean.

Beyond the ends and the means there are reasons, but like you I am optimistic. I am optimistic that your reasons will not be left in the shadows, despite your apparent attempts to leave them there. These are just two or three points that you must connect before we have many more dots to connect.

Sincerely and respectfully, Roger Larson

Previously sent:

Dear President-elect Bush and Vice-President Gore: December 14th, 2000

Congratulations. As a faithful Democrat I heard two wonderful speeches last night. I wish the best for both sides in working together. I must be an optimist too, since I have hope that good things can be accomplished for America. I will try to put the past behind us, but will watch for actions beyond the words. While it is wrong to disavow the more partisan of each side, it would be helpful to keep their rhetoric from spokesperson roles. But we must be both open and critical of all sides. As president-elect you have started out on the right foot. It is now time for you to move the left, both figuratively and politically and we may move forward as a body.

Roger Larson.

Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST
September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]

AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.

The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While
the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack
on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find
and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if
retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake
up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the
world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since
collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation
that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.

[9-13-01 REFLECTING ON A CHOICE OF WORDS]

I have read and re-read my words and have read or heard those of others and
have come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of
words. A response to this horrific act is of course needed, but
encouragement comes from the first steps taken to get the support of others
in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this
process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is
needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of
sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are
not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the
spiral of hate.

Nader Stunned[While the selection of the President was what really cost Gore the election, Nader's voters and election violations were what allowed it turn on a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. My criticism of Clinton in the following piece may be harsh and unjust, I really did understand much of his moderation, but would only lament that more progress on many issues was not achieved. In addition my intention was to blame him for the fact that Bush is what follows and progress will become regression.]

Dear Ralph Nader: (01-31-01)

In a brief recap online, of a USAToday article, I read that you were stunned by the backlash regarding your blame for costing Gore the election. While I have much more to say, I would just like to say that I am surprised that you are stunned. I would have expected that an intelligent person would have expected it.
Surely many of those who voted for you may never have voted anyway, or came from other than the two parties. However, given the closeness and irregularities of the election, I wonder if you really think that a small percentage of those, would not have voted for Gore and turned the election results around. There may be other possible rational for being stunned, and maybe further information will set me straight.
I am trying to figure out whether it was worth having a moderate like Clinton win the White House or go back to supporting Liberals whether they can make it or not. Judging by the actions of the new administration, we may soon wish Clinton had never been in, since so many of the things are only an extension of what Clinton allowed to happen, if not started himself. While I will probably continue to support progressive candidates, I am deeply concerned about the future and will look closely at those who are moderating their rhetoric as well as those who inflame.
It has been a little over a week, so it is too early to add up the pros and cons of the new administration. But it is not too late to keep score. My optimism leads me to try to take people and what they say at face value, but other traits will lead me to find the flaws. I will try to remain balanced and not refrain from contributing to anyone for the general good.

With hopes for our enlightenment,

Roger Larson

The Billy Club...

needs some explaining.

---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---

(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence

It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).

I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.

But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.

* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)

** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.

[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]

[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]

LeftyBlog?

I'm not on LeftyBlog because...
Maybe I don't like tests.
Or maybe only global tests of reality.
[FOR LOCAL CONTENT CLICK HERE : OR SEE LABEL LOCAL]
But a challenge?
This may be a work in progress.

[[BLOG LIST]]
[[LEFTYBLOG]]
[[WASHBLOG]]
[[Northwest Progressive Institute Blog]]
[[AMERICAinSOLIDARITY]]

If I label all my local material under the Local label, will that help? If I link and loop LeftyBlog to my post that helps the reader navigate, will that help?
Well this is not my usual rant, rave or ramble. Well yes it is, because I never know where I will go or end. But the challenge may be addressed by more questions answered by more questions?(see previous sentence)

Originally a look at the needs of LeftyBlog found this:

Remember, LeftyBlogs.com is for local progressive political blogs with original content. Some questions:

I did not mean to read it literally, I just did not include the questions in my cut and paste,(see un#d bullet point 4)of (a challenge) above , and then was so bold as to add bold to "connect the dots", where I will begin with the last first.[leap*] There I go again. (two tangents: not to read )
Then "all politics is local" and "politics is everything". Not to mention just not right.

OK, now I will go back and see if I can follow any of this.
LATER.

* I am tracking better, as I almost left off this quote by taking my tangent
[in the mean time, I put LEFTeBLOG at the top of my RIGHT list, where a typo fortuitously crept in]

[TheLiaisonReport - Between the mean and the out there.]
[Bottom Line: LOCAL CONTENT {UNDER CONSTRUCTION - more later}]

[[WE GOT ED!]]
[[Portland and Air America have Thom Hartmann]]

IMAGINE!

That is what John Lennon wrote...
and he's not the only one.
This is what democracy looks like!
And Jim Hightower is not the only one.

FYI: Hightower was at Petrovitsky Park Rolling Thunder 2002.
Ambassador Joe Wilson was at the Inslee Iraq Forum.

I realize this is a bit of a ramble. But I will leave it for now. The sentiment is in the Label: Civil Disobedience. Thank you for paying the price. Peace On, not out!

[10-13-11 Here is the inspiration for this post: [And my reply (yesterday).] Wouldn't it be cool.
If the OWS could follow the rules? Now I am not mocking the right or left, but "imagine" as John Lennon said: People occupying the park and actually standing for something? I mean literally to not mock Faux News. But I just mean that the more that stand, the more could fit, and they could even go home or to other encampments or facilities. I'm just saying. [Update] GONGA[*] (against the gravy train)
Yes! I am serious. The park clean-up has been postponed and the private owners of the publicly accessible park have come to an agreement with the OWS organizers. But when some protesters chose to march on wall street, they chose not to use the sidewalks. Which is their right not to follow the rules for the sake of getting the attention through civil disobedience. While I have yet to read the details of the agreement, but I can still imagine. I am imagining a conga line of sorts. Imagine the length of any procession moving from one venue to another. [This is reminiscent of a MoveOn rally that presented the anti-Iraq War Resolution petitions signatures to every congressional office in 2002. Well, we didn't do the conga**. Wish I had thought of it.]

[*] 11-22-11 follow up spell check[!]: My original GONGA is noted as a potential typo or pun that I am now missing, or maybe the voodoo that some do.
** like added 11-22-11

WOE / Wae

War on Executives:

Romney charges Obama with "real war upon women".

Hides behind women against women.

WOE to woe-men!

Or War Against Evidence:

I am not saying that the Republicans are waging a war on women or that Democrats are not saying it. I am saying there are two questions which I will not answer, who started the war and who started calling it a war? I am also saying that I have not found the evidence in the links attached here, and suggesting that there is a war no matter who calls it a war or who started calling it a war.

I have yet to find who started the claim that there is a war on women. I am not saying that I don't believe that Obama could have used the term*, I just haven't found it.**

* war on women, war against women, war for women...'s votes.

[Google of the Day? Is it an anomaly that Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow Blog is the second hit for the question. "When did..." re-framed as "Has President Obama said there is a war on women?" Third Frame: "Obama talks about war on women." Fourth fishing trip? No War on Women. WOW! ]

[OK, I have an un-Warren Ted side trip, and not a cheat sheet. But just to be clear**]

[Jumping in the Lakoff! But Republicans cannot win the VFW.(Victory for Women or Victory from Whining.) It is a victory for wordplay.]

< Speaking of victory for wordplay, Thom Hartmann takes on the West word Hoe[!] >

** added 4-13-12 (** that is) Haven't found the President using the term but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is quoted using it without full context in the CSM.

** Follow up?

I'm sorry?

Did I hear that right? I will have to dig up a link later, but this is about the denial that Bush is still in, and the qualification Wells Fargo (CEO or someone) made, about the bail out not going for executive salaries. It is unfair for me to begin this blast without further digging, but just the surface sod is soaked with effluence. So I will sort some key words from the Bush: "capitalism" in conjunction/contrast to "free market".

With Wells Fargo it is a matter of bookkeeping and an earlier flip-flop it seems, on the matter of what the bailout is going for... are we rescuing failing institutions or helping those that are efficient? In this case I have rather unparsed and taken a tangent from the trickle-down of the bonus problem, but there is a righteous problem about the housing bubble and fundamentals.

Maybe a graphic form will help:
Capitalism - - Free Market
Bonuses - - Book Keeping
Rescue - - Help
Bubble - - Fundamentals
Meaning, Myth, Model, Metaphor; may be my mantra,
but there is a cycle that needs work.

And to my estimation (tergiversate[**] or not) the housing bubble is a result of a fundamental flaw in economics. It works for those that buy it. But it really matters what the it is. Not to mention who sells it.

Not to mention the media again: WWWWWH? I might return to give more particular sources, but for now I leave with the answer: who, what, when, where, why, and how? as well as note the only labels at this time are Progressive Media and Thom Hartmann, and if I return I will [bracket][*$*]changes.[*]

[* as soon as I finished this and bracketed that, I thought, and must note that I have now made minor edits (& bold) for clarity sake, unbracketed.]

[** I wonder if I am a De-tergiversator ***?]

[*** I had to go old school and open a book, the answer is; not if it is (the latter) to change one's opinion, but may be others, not the De. Yeah, the De and the Un.]

[*$*] passing the buck I have not returned but simply connected here

Speaking of timing

Or counting (or FOX)and follow-up(I could swear there are 6 legs unless it is on the other hand*.)
{italics not fully read yet but it is the point of departure}
{the point of arrival is not always originally intended, or that is the question.}
{note on labels, Navigation is regarding the blog, Navigation II is regarding our course changes. Maybe I should add Navigation III(a combo?).}
(Oh, and a leed change is also a challenge...to read)
* Third Way is point of tangent
[Maybe Thom Hartmann(AM1090) is coming to a realization, which I just missed(taking a call) regarding the power of Obama and his base and secondary potential thread. My points here are: Obama's base is not the liberal left. The Right's loss is the Left's loss, but the middle's gain.(I just coined** that.) My original metaphor*** was, as Republicans lose voters, they become more concentrated, while as Democrats gain voters they are diluted. ]
** critics please pick a better word for this new paraphrase of my original concept, other than coined, is in not that it is not making money for me, but I am just not sure that you coin a phrase. "turned" may suffice.
*** actually a metaphor would have a concept like Lemonade or Kool-aid as an ingredient, which apparently I have previously avoided saying directly at least.
[Still needing to read the italics link, Thom Hartmann and callers are still frustrated, and discuss the Marxist concept that things have to fail first. I am uncertain that is technically a valid name for it, but my point is that dynamically it will not work that way on two counts. It would take people who want it to fail(whatever it is) and it would take people giving up on changing it. That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again.]
[Post-Pre-emptive Comment: or rather footnote regarding bubbles and cliffs and easing the wall down. Post Hartmann comment: one of my tangents was inspired by the concept of not enough mentionalism, a pun on the dimension of perspectives and whether there are two parties, or three or four or whether the labels matter. But the more the merrier or at least the more the discussion and the bigger the table.]
[Post Building on Change update: "That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again." Bold added above, but link back provided as promised here.]
[Just in...Breaking or rather Re-Creating the mold: and I am only up to the word "defecit" in Steve Clemons question but I am having a feeling it relates to my just bolded and repeated quote in last bracket, and to wrap this up before it is too diffuse I seems to build upon earlier comments if not leeds.]

Post-Turkey Day

RSN[11-25-11][12-1-11 Punchline? Spoiler Alert, do not click on Punchline, before reading full post.]
Krugman, connecting the dots,
Will Durst,
Relative Exceptionalism

Speaking of good dialogue and jokers and will. I met Will Durst at a Democratic function probably in 2004. I managed to catch him at a disadvantage, not intentionally but anything to get a word in. His hands were full or reaching for something in his pockets. Well maybe it was an advantage )IF[*]( you wanted to be prepared for a spit take, as he had an empty coffee cup in his mouth. So I tried out a joke that had come to me. "If corporations are people, where does the death penalty fit in?" So, he was polite or inconvenienced enough to laugh, if I recall correctly, with the cup still in his mouth.

Where do we go from here, the Turkey table? Well... have a good one[!]?

Post Game:
Stieglitz and Krugman new paradigm or paramorphology. Lexical creativity, texts and contexts.

Speaking of Turkeys or even the country[!] {t}=tangent slash criss cross or Relative Exceptionalism, or satire and witch[!]came first, the satire or the jihad? Thanks to Joseph Campbell...

Reader Supported News: The Sharia Turkey
The American Thinker: Happy Halal Thanksgiving
Rob McKenna
Literally in that order. The McKenna ad was found in the American Thinker link, which was in the RSN link, which was from TPMMuckraker. My original intent was to track the satire. Which came first the halal or the peta? Well more correctly in who was sat iring whom? I mean is this really along the lines of the war on Xmas? The FOX in the hen(turkey) house? I mean sat ire[!] at the table! No not IRE but pass the trip to fane.

Actually, I am trying to find something in common*. But I must check the history of halal** and the people for the ethical treatment of animals. The only point in common may be the freedom to choose, another brand, and that may be sharia. Am I carving the irony or just stuffing the turkey?

*Geller and PETA?
** Sharia and hunters: healthy treatment of food
[*] typo original is to IF.

Not Exactly

Random (not so) links:
Beck Ed:
Bachman Palin Express How's that new normal working for ya?
the Apostle Paul in letters
Cognitive Policy Works?
Obsolescence?

Of hate or humor?
Media Matters?

As a personal recipient of the Palin humor or bumper sticker advice, I have a suggestion: advice does not fit on a bumper sticker and apparently not even in your rallies.

I was at a metered on ramp and a white SUV was aside me, with the character driving smiling and speaking through my slightly open window on a beautiful day. As I smiled and rolled down my window, he said: "How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?" (To be honest I am not sure that he or I now have it correctly spelled or quoted.) I flashed an even bigger smile and a vigorous thumbs up, and he continuted: "Are you a commmunist or do ya just vote for them?" To which I replied: "Are you kidding or(?)" ...we moved on. But that guy did not know who he was messing with (someone who knows better*)... someone with a sense of humor and a sense that righteousness is a lack of faith. (I just came up with that, as I really had some wise cracks, some even appropriately expletive(Tea "partier")adjusted. Speaking of what's in the bag. I have mysteriously completed a loop as to who or what is working? I will call that my Ribble of Intelligent Design at which I will give the links by number.

{It might take a while to sort out the serious, but I do emphasize the jest or just nature, rather than any unintended vitriol(wiki google branch: ethereal.) or Con Sequences. See Comment.]

Less than raw links:
catharsis
RE:Schadenfreude
Gloom at other's successes.

Raw links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+3&version=NIV
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_Paul_in_the_Bible
http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html
http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/is-the-apostle-paul-one-of-the-12-disciples/

* in the particular case I am a minority (OK, I did not take the poll, but it is hard to believe it is representative of the truth. That would mean a thumbs up for the media, and I don't know what for congress.) But that is really cherry picking.

[Speaking of Bridge or post lonesome roads or sections of a train?.]

Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.

===========================================================

Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".

They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.

It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.

The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.

I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".

Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson

Moving on:

I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.

I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.

Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.


That Train Keeps On Rolling.

Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.

Roger Larson


(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)

* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.

[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]

Over our head.

"hortatory subjunctive" is the latest excuse. Again, I believe I saw this coming and had touched on a similar issue just recently.[A & B] The above link seems rather authoritative but a more definitive explanation is even less an excuse. But it may be in the ballpark but still an out if you look at the "deliberative subjunctive".[The definition just above "hortatory subjunctive".] The similar field I hit from may be strike one and two. OK, I am carrying a baseball field metaphor a little too far and I am not the only one swinging and missing.

But "Give 'em a break" [A] is in the area of a conditional reference in a similar manner that is not necessarily suggestive. "all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around"

But "failure is not an option" [B] is a declarative grammatical oxymoron. Still I am only doing this off the top of my head, and may just now have gotten a little closer to the field than simply a "true oxymoron" [as I had noted.]

Oh well, the point is that there seems building evidence that they [the adminstration] have couched every action and intention in confusion, even when they are at their clearest. This could be just a result of creative CTR,(covering their rear), but I am talking about their preemptive confusion and grammar.

Note that the two previous examples are not just about me or them, but some of us on the critical side [can] get lost in the rhetoric too, while sometimes their grammar is more reliable or at least carefully calculated. [The truth leaks.]

[Also the biblical preemptive excuse. "let us" does not seem to be recalled.]

[Bracketed material was added the following day, except for the preceding line.]

Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?

Why OWS is bigger...

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

Whine and G's?

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

Really?

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Not your grandfather's "traditional".

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast

Really?

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.

[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]

[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]

[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.

Leaking Intelligence

Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.

{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?

BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.

Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.

[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]

Take Back the American Dream

The 99%?
Jobs not cuts!
Occupy K-Street etc.
Big Tent Technical Difficulties.**

[Are we ready for some football?] [!]***

[continued 10-4]I feel like I have broken something in recent days. Maybe my perspective. Maybe I need to change fields. The above lede is an example. Maybe I don't feel like occupying anything. I am encouraged by the generation of interest and a movement of the people. Maybe nailing down what that is is the problem. Someone from one of the groups at the conference expressed concern that they not be co-opted by unions or the Obama campaign. That seemed an interesting perspective, as if they are on the same page. And my* teaching to the test may be a root of the problem. Jon Stewart covers the "Occupy Wallstreet" scene, but after the break deals with the NRA and their "conspiracy" theories.

[Segue: I will break and post be4 I muck up more.]
Back from a tangent:
I will simply foot note.
(Thanks to the Thom Hartmann Chat)

* see the 10-3 Just to be clear... & its asterisk(1)
** This was originally the extent of my draft, normally I might insert some loose tangential links, but I am continuing on 10-4. Maybe I wanted to be point blank, or not follow things to a T. And maybe I have done just enough to change that course.
*** last insert

[Sorry for the anachronistic asterisks, but4 original-I-T[!] Not really...neither of these may the T-rigor for my thoughts. However under "these" lies a similar transmobrificationlation:

Back in 1787 when the Constitution was being worked out, conservatives pointed out that what John Adams called "the rabble" couldn't be trusted to elect representatives or - even more dangerously - become elected officials. As the father of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), famously noted: "The occupation of a hair-dresser, or of a tallowman [candle maker], cannot be a matter of honor to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule."]

Truth Tellers

Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.

That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.

Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.

*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)

**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]