Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)

QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

Summary of a Flap.

Bailout or Meltdown? [UPDATE: above expired link with likely replacement.]

Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.

LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.

* not to mention George or Will

[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.

OH REALLY FOG

OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?

Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.

But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.

Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.

By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.

Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?

[Update: 2-13-12 labels and links]

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?

Farewell Guv, Hello Energy Welfare Queen

I may have more to say about Cap and Trade but Palin's Cap and Tax hit needs only a check of her accounting.

Maybe I won't, but I will be back on sabbatical. Meanwhile I leave with this segment of an email exchange:(slightly adapted)
I should have been reading this but maybe not.
I think I will agree with much of it, but I think my last email covered the change problem. But don't worry. I do not think that capitalism will be destroyed, and socialism is just a boogie cognomen. Just how do you think it would work if we could find anyone that could fix the economy who had not been a part of creating it? I don't know if Obama has the right people but others could be standing in the way of potentially right or left people. I mean if the complaint as O'Reilly put it is that somebody will make billions, well duh. Doesn't that support the system? Well not the system, but as most conservatives argue for it.

escapement?

While thinking about the type of people who can take a watch apart and put it back together again, I thought... I've never done that.  But in thinking about the mechanics of it, I may have recalled
something in regards to the nature of pendulums, springs and gears.  The term "escapement" came up in regard to clocks on the History Channel. That aside I may not get around to taking a clock apart, let alone following up* on the particulars of what I will now put together, but it feels** similar. 

How Many Ways Can Maureen Dowd Embarrass Journalism? by Charles Pierce Esquire**
Tea Party hatches quiet-but-insane plot against democracy: Meet the “12 Percent Solution” by Paul Rosenberg ***

P versus NP problem wikipedia with credit to Elementary
The Secular Coalition and Religious Freedom Day. 

* 1-17-13 added 2 inserts based on heading alone, and added labels
** (indicating read) Journal** about Journalism and Humor (Manichean Duelity) (Hegel tine Identity?)
*** only begun to fight(I mean read)(OW)^

Note: there are 3(**) but only one Mani[!] (buh dump ump)(ow)

^ 1-19-14: Before I go further. (bdu)
to reads: Personally I do not think Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, nor is the debate over. Nor is the last read yet connected to the second to last, but maybe to the further and the branching problem.

The Jig is Up?

Metaphors aside the Debt Ceiling "negotiations" may require a short-term vote.

[Cut, Cap and Balance: Cutting Jobs, Capping Responsibility, and Balancing on Disaster. That is a not only a non-starter it is a nation ender. Spending is not the problem, Congressional responsibility is, and we know which party. The House sets the budget, with the approval of the Senate and with only a veto threat by the President. A balanced budget amendment with a cap on percentage of GDP is a form of capping the mechanisms of government to get anything done.]

[The President addresses the nation.]

[7-26-11 Misledership: Cut Cap and Balance - The Whine and Teas
for the American P-ease-
Hook, line and sinker.]

[7-27-11: Reel Time*? Blank Check? Bounced check for previous Republican administrations(See Chart).]

[Respected Sources: Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnell. Ezra Klein. Norman Goldman (7-28). ]


[Disrespected Sources: Whiner of the House.]
[Debt Picture 101: or cut, cap and balance.]

* Lawrence O'Donnell, Howard Fineman, polls and results.

[7-28-11: Down Riggers and Reel Leders set the bait. There are apparently three options: something that will pass the senate without the presidents veto, a clean bill or no bill. And no bill (to mix metaphors) is a punch to the tackle box. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment(see bait) not only is the right solution, as the debt ceiling is probably not constitutional. It makes no sense to pass budgets that are not paid for, let alone put the present administration on the hook for earlier non-sense.]
[7-29 Thom Hartmann , Rerun O'Donnell- Nancy Pelosi and Grand Bargain: Leg 101.
Stephanie Miller: Leg 102., Debt 201. NG 7-29. N.G. Prophesied: Two weeks for John Boehner as Speaker, since he cannot control his people. I don't think they want to control their people, so he may remain. It leaves a bit of denial to the party, or would be a total association with them if they replaced him with someone who could.]
[7-30 I'm conflicted or caught in a net, is it deal or bounced check? If you can expect a deal why not a clean bill? How about a no bumber stickers or banners and slogans, pledge? But get a deal done or the president will have the biggest line item veto any Republican could wish for. Or invoke the 14th Amendment, impeach and MoveOn. Clean deal or no deal?]

Political Strings Pulled

Bush upcoming big speech.

McCain wants debate delay.

Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.

If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.

On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?

Maybe we are finally there.

White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.

Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.

Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.

What the Beck?

[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.

My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.

I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.

Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.

[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]

* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]

[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]

[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]


** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus

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

New Approaches?

New Intelligence Estimate New York Times
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *

Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.

Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.

* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07

FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:

While many disciplines and departments are involved there are three primary fields that make up the dynamics of individuals in society, and those are the Physical, Psychological, and Philosophical, and the fourth is represented by the dynamics which is about the people and their goals and that is Politics. These are the areas that need work in society before we can hope to prevent let alone predict people who will take thoughts and feelings into actions. But some of the circumstances that one guest listed as contributors to radicalization are the lack of issues being addressed by society, issues that could be said to cause violent radicalization. Issues which are just the ones that Republicans refuse to address, and Democrats just barely stand up for. Those being basic needs and government accountability

.

Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.

"The irony..."

(in turning pages)

...is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families-- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. * The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world than we inherited.

(in three paragraphs ...we... can agree) but he continues.

The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in.

It is not fair of me to pick on "a few" words that bring up age, since it is valid as well, that Obama is young, but not that he has bought in to what is old, but maybe what works. And McCain has bought in to change, but who has bought in to him? It is good that attitude is brought up as well as faith, not to mention the people. But it is not these words that must be brought up, but the forces of history that must be held up to scrutiny and evaluation.

* "for too long" we have let Bushisms outrun our media filters(them and us). Have they been vetted enough to not get used to this? [...this run around? and I just caught a mis-embedded link, bottom lined**, that fits. The Bush exit strategy may be a good example of a Catch-44. Where is McCain? [Let me make perfectly clear,*** the above block quotes are direct from McCain's speech and three paragraphs in the gap are commendable] Where will the Democrats be? And where have they and Republicans been in "your government". I was going to say the bold was on me, but it also on you and on them (?).

** previous post bottom link
*** bonus hint

[final comment: "The irony" is that McCain's words start a paragraph here as well as a serious tone, while it is ironic that I saw any humor (not) in age earlier.]

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.]

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]

He said, She said?

Enhanced Interrorgations?
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.

* meaning the sorts the thing

[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]

A Plea to Congress

Please support the President and his economic leadership, in particular the comprehensive if not yet always comprehendible rescues and reforms.

The immediate fixes cannot be perfect nor the long term costs of delay neglected. The powers that are needed are not there yet and must be considered carefully but much of what is on the table was placed there by those who were part of the problem while that alone does not take them away from being part of the solution.

I urge the TARP oversight board and Finacial oversight committees to investigate all bailed out institutions and not only how they came to need rescue, but to make sure they do not get out from under their need to change. Any reimbursement of bailout funds must be complete, and there must be an understanding of how things will be different, before there is any back tracking or refunding.

I think that all political measures should be considered in supporting the four pillars of Obamanomics; Energy, Education and Healthcare reform and fiscal responsibility, as well as the international scope of financial and progressive reforms.

Please see the Humpty Dumpty allegory for the wall that needs to come down, between people and progress.

Sincerely,
Roger Larson

[Update 3-27-09 bold added to Obamanomics: it is a link to an article by the president and international scope has one too. The rest of the body of the text can be read with the links as footnotes.]

[Without getting too into the term "political capital" which the previous administration really had none to spend, it may be something that if you don't use, you lose. I do not see how doing what the people sent you there to do is a risk.]

The Dream Blog

Just another one of those things, a dream or this time blog that was so vivid, I made no attempt to hold on to it. And sure enough within two steps from bed it was not so clear. Well, I will make no attempt to recapture it, instead recalling an earlier idea from the previous day. I told a buddy, there needs to be a new party. De Calf Party. But after a few minutes of his rant on current events, something stronger was called for. In related matters, we do need something that presents a stronger plan[***] to the American people and someone who bargains like Boehner.[**]
Meanwhile I think I will try this De Calf.

[The Next Big Thing: The Debt Ceiling, And Speaker Boehner says it will not be raised without something big attached. Polls show people against raising it, as well as against* raising taxes. The only thing left will be more cuts.]

* but it depends on the poll

[** 4-12-11 link and previous asterisk's links added]
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
[Opinions Excused. No Comment.]

[***]On the other hand .
MSNBCTV Test Pattern [B... ] or Truth Out [...ingo: Bernie Sanders is not De Calf I meant but Harry Reid could be. And my hunch is that there will be a lot on the table.]

Rachell Maddow Wants You! [talking points]

[typo-alert-confession: Sorry Rachel: (She may be Liberal but with only one "L".)-
- I do not want to mess with the links I have distributed.]

First:
[Who needs to investigate if abstinence works? How much money do you want to waste finding out that pregnancies can't happen without sex?]

That was my submission to the new Fox Funny channel. But they wouldn't get it. It was probably on Fox News already.

Speaking of talking points: I have a whole FRAME to put things through.

POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT: Imagine a 3-sided pyramid, with the constitution as it's base, and the goal? The pinnacle. The base being the 3 branches of government, the aim being "of, by and for the people."

The spiritual being that it must be balanced or it is just a burden on the people.

RACHEL: I think your skills, have honed my point, at least in that I arrived at it finally with fewer words.


What started me this time was the talking points which you called for from our side.
WE ARE THE POINTS!

Another point is that The Earth is Not Flat and but this is one "aspect" of our model.