Bring It On!

Speaking of preemptive...it was only a thought.  But one missed by this author who takes President Obama to task in The End of the Post-9/11 World.  That being, with the obstructionism (update 6-4) the Republicans bring to the economy, what could they bring to national defense or foreign policy?  Actually the missing thought is the NDAA and how hard it is to change laws given the success he had on Gitmo and his budget and jobs act, and it seems the author missed it too. The only question should be who will be in the legislature to change our laws, and who will be the executive until they do. 

IT IS ON....
the table.

[ Speaking of "speaking of"... hanging* in the balance. ]

* in his own words(WH?)

[Speaking of War on Characterizations.(NewsNation) Deval Bane.]

[UPDATE on forks ?  ? ? ]

[Speaking of share 'n angle, Martin Bashir w/Alter 'n Christie on two Americas.

If Bain=Solyndra then Edwards=Wisconsin.  Not! DR out.(Not to mention Pap on Thom Hartmann.)

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, MRS W. Woe Wae! War Against Ethics.]

[6-1-12 Long Story Short? Du'oh!(?)!]

6-3-12  Calm Post Or Tan Gent ?

Punch Line !

6-4-12 Related Carbon Cycle ?

[Hanging Update ! Not to mention S**B C ?]

**acronym anomoly (for pun sake)

(crossing threshold not sterling qualification)

[Two Bills against the Mitt-L?]

QCON: TruthOut

Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:

The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.

While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.

For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.

What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.

I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.

In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times

Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial

McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post

[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]

[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.

Replacement Refs or Not...

If it were a debate* we would have stopped it. 
Not to pun on Xfinity, but while the Comcast links*** will expire.**,
it's the congress John!  Bring it on, Joe!  The President needs to hold a Sit Down.

Before I get down to the task of preserving<*> those links whether read or not, I will explain the Rogue John and Wax Leak of the asterisks.  Although the lesson learned from "Simon says"^^ might be to actually read links more thoroughly, the lesson from the Debate may be more complex but parallel of sorts.  By "rogue",<*> I mean that former Presidential Candidate McCain(first link) confesses an expectation for him lowering the expectations of Paul Ryan, while  disrespecting the Vice President and framing an expectation for gaffs.  Then in regard to the " ball of wax " that Palin leaks, it connects the "boys" to the other "race" speech.^^^  (There, that's the GPS-uncross-Rhodes.)

And a far as my Tan Gents(Dr. Trumps), being a Seahawk fan has nothing to do with my take on the moderator.  Well, who knows?  But Mr. Lerrer has been critcized for not moderating or having a good performance, but I think that given the style over substance versus substance with style, these are not legitimate debates.  And within the political system (such as it is) it was not his job to interfere with the players being themselves in order to let them make the proper contrast.  Again having only heard most of the debate on the radio, I thought that the President walked away with it, but that was under the condition that facts matter.  Neither he nor Lehrer could have done a better job in the case that they don't. 

BTW^: Speaking of "boys", we have heard cracks about the Harvard "professor" and I suspect he has had to deal with a few wise-guys or gulls[!]

*if the link were fact checked...ditto.
(McCain goes rogue.)(Palin leaks ball of wax .)
** not that I have read them yet or the recommend them.
***The point of this lede and the heading...

^ apologies to literary geeks for my style over elements.(But that was Core Knell.) 
^^ added in edit mode
^^^ to be expanded later(but see lede and stupid...I mean congress and John, Joe & Ryan. i.e. the context of the politics of "relief' legislation.)
[In the spirit of medium...? ]
[Not to parse too acutely, but it is the medium and the mess age.]
(Bu' dump 'ump [!] ... )
Re:Ouch?(see FLASHNOTE)
Post-Subjectivism?  Might it be, rational subjectivism?

<*> 10-7-12(See FLASHNOTE: under construction)
<*> 10-9-12  slight edit ( "r.... ",)

A Funny Thing Happened...

On the Way to the Republic.

This thread was triggered by something Mike Papantonio said, sitting in for Ed Schultz on the Ed Schultz(radio) Show. The trigger is now lost, but it may have been the follow-up to the Class War or as some say, Culture War.

Randi Rhodes is not the funny thing. But I hope to find the serious thing she read on tonights show. But it might better play out on The Last Word with Sam Stein about triggers. [Guy Faux?]
[Allow me to recap: week before last, the president held his joint session on the American Jobs Act, followed last week by his method of payment, followed this week by his long term plans. To sum it up, basically he said, there are 14 months left before the election, let's get something done. The Republicans basically said no way. So instead of bring it on, IT IS ON! BTW: I missed this, but that is for the afore mentioned editing(which I edited).]

Live From New York: Saturday Night Live

[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.

Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.

Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.

The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.

Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?

Belated Calls and Commemoration?

NEVER!
HJM 8016
SJM 4027
Wexler wants hearings.
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

What brings these links together? The first three are about investigations into recent history, while the last, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" is timely. I say this, no tongue-in-cheek, in that it is the subject (timing) that links these pursuits of justice.

Is there a better time to stand for justice or is there ever a time it is too late?
And if we are not standing for justice, just where will we sit? This may be rhetorical, but what is the alternative? At a recent progressive event, with a progressive crowd and a progressive speaker, the speaker replied to some issue, "The people will not stand for that." Does that mean the time for not standing has come? I humbly suggest that anyone with doubts about starting a process that is about justice, read "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" and wonder what is the alternative?

I am not comparing the courage of those that wish to begin this process with those of the past, but the lack of courage to proceed to bring light to the process is as harmful to justice and is a neglect of each branch of government's job and their oaths for which they stand. And the press is doing a 'heckuva job" as well.

Even Martin Luther King Jr. comments on the time he takes from his reader with his letter, but he says earlier: "We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability." He says a lot more if you have the time, but it is never too late, or is it? Apparently some argue so, but we must not just move on.

For those who miss the point, violations of law must face consequences and too few have even the courage to shine a light. [In describing this article, if it reaches that level, I point out: The Dream is Justice! Sent by author, To Whom It May Concern. Checks and Balances. Civil Disobedience. Letting our representatives know that the law must be enforced so that it can not be preempted at will, let alone enforced preemptively. Breaking a bad law is the only way to place it before the process of enforcement and review, but it might even be understood by this administration that it is just a matter of time.] [Updated with slight corrections 1-18-09]

[footnote: Inspiration for the timing thing? Postman on Politics and my belated links following 1-15-08 a day which I missed commemorating but was reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and a day on which I missed another good speech (text of above video) which was not too noted, nor connected. But speaking of timing. ]

[1-17-08: Yikes! Deleted Whitehouse E-Mails; Another Bush Criminal; Another Reason To Impeach by Rob Kall That is not the "Yikes!" part. But this:

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he has no reason to believe any e-mails were deliberately destroyed.

From 2001 to October 2003, the White House's practice was to use the same backup tape each day to copy new as well as old e-mails, he said, making it possible that some of those e-mails could still be recovered even from a tape that was repeatedly overwritten. "We are continuing to analyze our systems," Fratto said last night.

(my bold added)
It is the gap in the logic here that points to the disconnect between intention and cause and effect. Yet these guys had the intelligence to decide to review a National Intelligence Estimate? One thing they are expert on is gaps, and I guess they are good at filling them or leaping them.]

Laughter is the Best Medicine?

This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.

*on disagreement with involvment in Libya

[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]

[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]

** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.

Brackets and the Debt Clock

[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]

[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]

The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.

The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.

Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.

Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.

But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.



[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]

*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself

[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!

[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]

"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.]

BRING IT ON!

Thank You
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
A MUST READ

I repeat.
BRING IT ON!

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.

Buy In or Sell Out

Red Lines and Towing the Line(on Syria). 
The President is not putting America's credibility at stake, he is staking out the credibility of International Law and Globalization. This is a far cry from the Bush Era "war" president and unifier.** 
Pre-title or heading: Rogers' Soap Box, might read "Pit Lip Schtick ".

Related: The Vatican, Steve Clemons, Steve Benen, Maddow Blog, [Boehner let her.]

8-30-13
From Thomas* Roberts, on Crisis in Syria: Re-Bolt On / Bring Em On [!]
(scroll click) Bay of Pit Bulls or Bay of Lip Schtick?
Wiping the Floors @ the UN[!]
* Italics reminder re:(un-bolds too)
** ibid[!]

(FP!)
(b.s.) read Make it so.

Bolt On: A. Toning Down the Lines. , B. Waiting for [Calm Cast] , C., D. Trick Question of the Day? , E.
Bring
Em On: a., b., c., {}D. Congress- - to boldly go... , E. Everything is on the Table! {Why not Hagel?}
{Will Obama declare the end of a war?/ Fix of war powers?}

*** (b.s.) 
[(NOW) SOS Kerry]{..."standing on ceremony"}, }by Ghosh{, ^ un-telegraph/playbook

Clear segue: Secretary of State Kerry begins w/ my running notation
["read", un-Rumsfeld "know", smoking "social media", ^ }pinnacle of our perdicament{, "risk"/"do nothing","matters"..."know what we know", "respect" ...  }general body/China-Russia-Arab signators/jury{ "ultimately".] close. [SOS]

Note: Quotation "marks" =Kerry comments, ^ marks= tangent to NOW,  }{ = marks/highlites my comment/{urgency of now} AM "telegraphing"

[Juxta Position? ... AM numbers?/Clemons/Congressional Bane or?(letter) }I cannot say there should not be a debate, or a vote, or that it won't matter, but it is very important how the resolution is worded and if we can imagine congress krafting it?]

FOOTNOTES FEBRUARY 2013

2-1-13 Trilemmas and Cultural Calculus :
Fishkin's http://www.philosophy-of-education.org/uploads/papers2011/Bamfield.pdf, Trilemma http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/410-pol/pojman-outline.htm, 4M Try Lemmings,
in tent  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma, Mean  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Trilemmas_in_economics,
...   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/business/economy/11view.html?_r=0,
?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Trilemmas_in_economics, ?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox,
easy  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma, at  http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_chapter_01.htm,
least  http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?s=16f6647f676b31bf8e738901daabc68a&threadid=1927,
loosely  http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=tetrahedron+of+will,
drafting  http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=math+is+next+,
un- http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=math+is+next,
M  http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1,
bedding  http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=godliness,
tan http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1#!/JohnHenryLG/posts/484801448229006?comment_id=5254201&offset=0&total_comments=13,
gent  http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1#!/suzette.sommer.9/posts/4281975535675?comment_id=57783597&offset=0&total_comments=29 *,
shall  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/07/david-and-goliath.html,
2-4-13 *source or 4moolah 4  the platonic 4M.

2-4-13 Quoth the...
Brackets and the Debt Clock under the "birds"(sc)
not : (b.s  pen+dull+em) a Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em (sc), b Failure is always (sc), c Go Left Young Man! , d  Slippery Slope (sc).
else: (b.s. poe) Fair and Balanced... (sc)

2-5-13 Flack...Oh
and blame : War on Tea Party?
  gaming. (b.s. share+n+angle) Mitt's BO*Son, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger", Try Lemmings, Bring It On!, Cautious Black Friday!!!!, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!, "FACT: References To Al Qaeda Were Removed To Protect National Security ...", War of the Skirts, The Hope'd4 Campaign, Who Let the Dogs Out?, Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S. .

2-11-13 Owe(b.s)= Post-Pyth, Post-Pyth, Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? (d'oh=sc),Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ?  / OW=?(under al gore rhythm of pyth)4 later search or earlier brackets ! (Ctrl F "hood")

2-12-13 update, *FP4*, *FP3*, LEGEND PAGE, Format Change , Updates
2-12-13 Carpe Diem! Seize the Day? Latin 4...

2-13-13  D-Day *seams* = pun on *sowing* seems to thread in Lincoln and Darwin's birthday.  Further, I should let you work it "into the grand picture of how things work".(FP2)

2-14-13 SOTU label/[**] & subheading edit after Tea Kettle Sports[!]
TKS[!]: Fry/Pan{L} pun on gaming politics.(OW) you(sc) Hint: NCAA/Olypics/CAPitalization[!]
(b.s.)"PBMP" A.,  B.What the Beck? (sc), C. Follow-up and Flip-Flop (sc)  D. Follow-up and Flip-Flop  E. Proof of Process? F. Looking Back, and Moving On. (sc) G. Geometry of Purpose (sc) N F L [!] (F P too?)

2-15-13  HAPPY V-DAY!  Note the anachronism of con sciousness & science.

2-18-13 Technical Difficulties!   "Where": A. Follow-up (sc) , B. What Obama can't say. (sc), C. What the Beck? (sc)  /   "inter": Score Won...  / "tubes": A. As the Inner Tubes (sc) , B. Table of Contents  (Senator)
** "Rush"(pun) / "ah!": A. WTF?, B. The Hope, C. Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right. (sc)
"foundations": A. Science Fiction Writers, B. Four More Years!, C. Slash Segue (sc), D. Notes from Al-Qaeda .

2-19-13 Splitting Rails... to
"Share": Technical Difficulties! 
"'n": HAPPY V-DAY! 
"Angles.": Garry Wills "(c)atholicism" The Cycle
"Not ": (b.s.)"yogurt" C. Pop Yogurt[!]
"just": Harvard class on Tarantino.
"President's": ladders of opportunity
"pastime": Three Shed Monte 

2-23-13: OW?  Unspinning Charlotte! 6., 5.(Wills), 4.Future Bubble?, 3.(b.s.), 2., 1. Gnaught ?  [FP2]

2-26-13 under(stands?) or PEG legs?
Preface to FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012, Simon says... , The History of B.S.,
What the Beck?  BS-Table?

2-28-12 ...SCrolls: Lap Top?  No Tab Let's. Krauthammer / Walsh (Breaking Bread?)(FP3)

In the Beginning

is Rhetoric*.
Paraphrased:  Everything begins with rhetoric.
i.e. there were many nice Iowa speeches
It seems very parallel to "all religions begin as cults."
Also very Platonic in relation to form.
In terms of the idea and the ideal,
not necessarily in kind.

Not to run with caricatures, but what is that look on Romney's face?
A hard to be humble when I'm lying look?  Or a devil may care but I don't look?  Or is that his do, or due?***


* I wish I could remember who said something close yesterday. Either a candidate or a commentator.**
BTW:  ledeRship is often provocative [sic/pun]
Bring it On! The Table[!]  
Footnote: [!] / Irony.

[** who else is there?]
[Related later comments Thom Hartmann Show.
Rough notes on Romney/Bachmann: He fears us being European.  She touts China as example.
Sanders on Colbert, Citizens United.]
*** NPR & NYTimes ( retrack, field narrowed, what it means, Republican Strategist, Foreign Affairs, Romney, Obama v. Congress. Bachmann out, Dionne/Continetti, End Run Recess Appt., good riddance)

< previous post >

Turning the page (On Humor)?

[For orginal post go here]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)

Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)

But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)

[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.