Hi Ate Us

[updated 6-23-11 here and here]
[updated 6-22-11 below]

Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)
US in perspective?

(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)

[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]

[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]

A Penchant for Leaning

Meaning squared*, or cubed**.

* words with frenemies
(not original in tent (off the cliff and ledership/following/tides)

Not to mention a day that will live in infamy. A day of REnown.
[What is the antonym of penchant? The slippery slope of indifference.]

** (x,y,z)
}*{ (C or Sea "words") not exactly Baldwin
Note: sequence of asterisks and references }within{ asterisks

Post comment: Speaking of Triggers(Reich/Boehner & The Place for Politics) Ad Hominem is kind, Lyin'ization is the reality.



[Speaking of Daddy(papa]
[Care2-Raw Story-Move to Amend/ 12-6 Thom Hartmann]
[Lewis Black on Trump.

12-8-11
[Don't Think of an Elephant/DawnKeyOT As for the conventions of the GOP 2012: it may go down the un-Gingrich, un-Romney, un-Koch Brothers or Rove. "Make or break moment for the middle-class." President Obama]
[Jansing and Wassermann-Schultz, Wagner and Steele***(Counter attack, count down, Trump panel.)]
[Capitol Punishment?, Founding Resources ]

*** Is Steele on the edge of the pit e full? Speaking of ledership and X-mass lists & F=ma.

[Sunrise, sunset? Ctrl F tides... and gyro scopes? Note the irony that Germany and France are involved in saving Italy and Greece. Note the balance of the un-bubble-up of the GOP. And the "Reich", "Place" are not the Right Link, but here is the Coffee Party. Which Teddy?]

Notes on anachronism, labelism, seg way, Com Pro Mises[!] (dot, dot, dot...Dylan ? )
[Churned Media]
[Rough Reader/Swift Rider)<-Links Retro-actively inserted. But here is the deal. Also inserting sunrise, sunset, or so not found yet.]
[Speaking of apPEASmeant, see Ed Schultz and Senator B.S.(It seems that both Romney and Perry really want to, but something Trumps them debating on Newsmax.)]
[Last Word / First Word or not, at Rest.]

"just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"

Sotomayor on the letter of the law.
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective

The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]

[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]