Interview with

Noam Chomsky: 'er Speigel[Correction]
My first or maybe second impression is that Noam Chomsky is the anti-thesis of Pat Buchanan. At least in respect to the idea that maybe only I had that when Pat Buchanan says something** that both sides of the political spectrum agree with he might have something. In Chomsky's case it might be where both sides have a bone to pick with Chomsky he may be just right. At least in the respect that he lacks from the two quarters not in fractions but perspective. He is either a tool of the forces that be or their nemesis, but he is not Goldilocks*, any more than Taleb.

*self-correcting or twisting a metaphor, I did not mean to bring in the tea party or mama bears
** at present I don't want to dredge up what one might be as I could be wrong

[American Prospect unrelated?]
As of posting, I have not fully read the Chomsky piece on The New World Order(see correction), but did finish the American Prospect piece, Old Image, New Portrait in paper form, and found the other links for later or earlier(in respect to Keynes and Taleb not bull-lies).]
[Unintended Bully link. Please note that Wednesday's Bully post preceded Thursday's Last Word here, but the Chomsky piece above was much earlier.(when corrected a little less so, maybe accounted for by jet lag)]
[Not really an update but a link 10-27-10]

The Daily Counter Balance

From The Dylan Ratigan Show:

The Daily Rant**: Today*

Speaking of headings or ledes or 4 ehs [!]

* to be linked here(Goodfriend Tribute to Snowe^)

[Speaking of preemptive embedding, Hardball on Romney speaking in pros, "looking for a KO"^?

Churning media or fulfilling the table, Killing Organizing, or Freedom of Foundation? Let alone "life among the cannibals.^" Not to mention AP-Paul-ING^ "Politics Nation". Do we want an Obama Nation or a Bane Nor Nation?*** Not to Pun on Lioness Pauling up Watson Creek.]

** actually this was on a panel (note anachronism of rant and panel)

*** Susan Del Percio^: Interesting Republican Spokes Person(2:42) in her opening talking points or not needing to defend Ryan but whine about the panel being 4 to 1 against her, before attacking the Senate or...

[3-21-12 ^ late links^^ added: Ryan Plan 2013]

^^ Like a Rolling Stone / Wired (Dylan not Belushi)

[The Glorious Revolution is embedded in the academics of "/","not""^^". Republicans want to revisit the mid-17th Century. See ^^ cycle. Sometimes to tergiversate is better than too sate-yore-deceive. (pun on give/take/receive) (Slash Not what you can do...)(If I may quibble withRobert Reich, and Noam Chomsky, I will have to link later^^^, but the former is related byword play to the latter by George. Society plays a part in defining words, so I guess I can't blame Chomsky for using words that we want to change. This relates to the evolution of the wordholocaust and the war on evolution. It relates to groups claiming words while we also want to define them under the flag of progress. Is abortion genocide? Is war murder? The law decides, while some forsake it, and the politics that decide it.)]

^^^ I must find a Chomsky use of the word murder in the context of war. (The connectingtissueis the use of "social Darwinism" in a way that is contrary to the survival of the fittest, that nails trickle-down to the cross. )

[update: Rober Reich ponders run ]

[on balance and more.]

Note that not only do Democrats spend less they generally contribute less to the national debt, at least since the late 70's. OK, so there are only two Democrats before Obama, but look what happened to Carter for being conservative, and at least in Clinton's case he bent the curve in two terms.

P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)

Post-Pyth?

Logical Positivism?
Chomsky's Poker? 



source of link needed
arrow of time?














Inspiration Hegel: 
L P above?  Vienna Circle another D?
The following are unread yet representative sources
L P, ironically LW, Pop/per*, Chomsky

(ironically or logically? v.c.? )
A. B. C. D?

Chomsky? Heirarchy? Parsing? Sch^ ?

Chomsky may be the point [!]
x, y, z ?
OW !



[Note: Facetious* Time Stamp 2014]




* [!] (~)
12-2-14
 War on Hillary[!] A. The Un-Revolved(~) Thread  B. AsIMovian Principles. C. (fp2)

Anachronistic Reasoning?

Rational Actors?

The X-Factor?

Not Exactly.

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

Chomsky/Pillar.

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

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

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

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

**dualing ironies or double down dueling[!]

[or just dualing down?]

*** this paradox is also rational

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taughtology or tut-tutology?

Stallin' collectivists ?
Knot so fast.

Bad cop, no cop. 
In reference to the divide*** and the "end justifies the means" irony.

A. The end does not justify the means. 
B. That does not mean that the means is not justified. 
C. Or that all ends don't need means. 
Or that the person who said A. justifies B.
Or that C is justified or not in B.

Now back to the Cop word play.  Amy Goodman with Noam Chomsky agreeing with Ron Paul.  The irony is platonic^socratics in an Aquawhynian(stet)* way.  Antagonist to bad cop is Chomsky. 
Protagonist of no cop, Paul ? **


***  Spoiler Alert uniter? (also click later ABC links)
New Label : hoodology
^ Need to Re-read or De-context: Slate.
* UW (unique words)
** OW
[Not to be branch dividian.]
mea cul...pa ? [!]

Academic Freedom

Not the best heading**, let alone lede.

But not to be preemptive, I am being rough*drafty.

BTW: I don't know if I should have a disclaimer as I have "liked" Noam Chomsky on Facebook.*** Now should I wonder if he needs a disclaimer from this being on a youtube page he is featured on.

But I will note that I have only viewed about 30 seconds but find the heading provocative. And I will pull some words from a thread I contributed to recently: We can not pick the personalities of the sources(or the sources) that might influence our thinking. That does not mean that educated people can't have bad ideas, or that less educated people may not have better ideas. Nor that some people don't have a mix of good and bad ideas and that others may not be suited for choosing from them.

In the mean time(pun), that thread extended.

* I hope to find a more colorful and humorous link in my BS(blog search)

** see "extended" reference: not a bad heading (round and round)

*** not to pin the tale on this dawn key ode (Ouch those frackin' wind mills)

[Bottomline, not to ode on economics or hummin' resources. BTW2.0: I have two "disclaimers" considered above, one in relation to Facebook and Chomsky in regard to the "pulled" words (in grey high lite) and the other in regard to the "this" on YouTube, which I only previewed a bit. I do not claim it a fluke as that is probably the nature of the technology in another A word regarding math and search engines. Dont' trouble yourself to the fluke as it is just another "A" word.]

Temporal

Problematics
Rachell Maddow: more than just a perspective. Facts do change with time. Past facts are still past, but present facts will soon be. Not to pun on what will be, but Osama bin Laden's past was really not so much the issue. Nothing will change* the mishandling of facts and choices made by the Bush administration. (By this I mean the importance of not having focused on getting bin Laden when the Taliban made offers asking for evidence before September 11th, 2001)

*actually congress can change and the presidency did (see "hypocrisy" and "flip-flop" under can change link)]

[Dylan Ratigan: Mega Fatwah.The difference* between opinion and ruling.

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]

An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future Muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

*spirt and letter of the law]

[Speaking of timing, I mean Dylan. It is alsmost as if, I had already read these. Not. Actually I have read the last link here, before this Temporal rant, but the rest of the links in this bracket are yet to be read, yet seem to fit the bill or fill the tetrahedron, and a prior intent, or rather a comment yet to be found. Note on timing thing: refers to monkey see monkey do of original intent, meaning an email going around about the psychology experiment(a seam in time with the Dylan cracks), and how some people think they know better.]
[Note bolds as read in balancing act or narrative of labels and perspectives. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, No Labels, Herman Cain, not in context of "more than as if not to be".]

OMG

Chomsky Harris : Dis~course?

No Teddy

No Bully* Pulpit.
Disagreement and innovations.

Main Stream Perspectives:
CBS
ABC
PBS
Huffington Post
Salon
Washington Post
YouTube
Boston Globe
"Contensions?"(sic**)
More Follow Up.

[Mean-while up date*** No Rapture.]

* Mika 1 Joe 0 Are you serious, Joe?

** counter intuitive: Bully Pulpit is a good thing, like American Exceptionalism, unlike the link or the namesake.
*** and I did not see the Herman Cain link before my Teddy reference and there is no relation between my pen name LeRoy-Rogers and the therogersinsitute, nor Newt's middle name (Leroy).
[See ** "Are" yes I may be. Apologies for the multi-dimentionalism again, but in regards to Newt and Libertarianism, I think that it could be called Tea Party Nuance, and Ginrich is attempting to be the Obama of the Right(or the No Labels of the Right), while I am somewhere not between Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz.]
[Profits verses Prophets(Chris Hedges) and more.

[The square of the esoteric.

Strauss on reading In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing, commonly understood to advance the argument that some philosophers write esoterically in order to avoid persecution by political or religious authorities. A few readers of Strauss suggest esoteric writing may also seek to protect politics from political philosophy -- the explosive reasoning of which might well shatter fragile opinions undergirding the political order. Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus), Strauss proposed that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning. As Socrates says in the Phaedrus, writing does not respond when questioned, but invites a dialogue with the reader, thereby reducing the problems of the written word. One political danger Strauss pointed to was the acceptance of dangerous ideas too quickly by students. This was perhaps also relevant in the trial of Socrates, where his relationship with Alcibiades was used against him.

Ultimately, Strauss believed that philosophers offered both an "exoteric" or salutary teaching and an "esoteric" or true teaching, which was concealed from the general reader. For maintaining this distinction, Strauss is often accused of having written esoterically himself. Moreover he also emphasized that writers often left contradictions and other excuses to encourage the more careful examination of the writing. Leo Strauss's favourite novelist was Jane Austen.[5]

This spin off is from actually reading the previous bold "and more" but is relevant to the Gingrich "Exceptionalism" and Obama practical and incremental. And Platonic Dialogue.(sic)]
[Spell Check Gingrich: left Ginrich for link & search purposes: but note Strauss to Chomsky philosophical dynamism(Wittgenstein) via esoteric Tea Party Gingrich attempt at nuance.]

TMA

Too much or Tuesday Morning Associations.
MDA Memorial Day Associations?

Glenn Greenwald The Intercept.
Lede or Ship? 

A. quarter backing
B.  NYT Trumpets US Restraint Against ISIS, Ignores Hundreds of Civilian Deaths
C.  Noam Chomsky: Are the Media Still 'Manufacturing Consent'?

B was read before ABC were footnoted such, and pre-A~QB. 

The inspiration was anticipation of perspectivism on the part of these sources.  After reading Greenwald, the subject was perspectivism in the face of restraint. 

Update:  Sunday Related Difficulties Resolved*
*not exactly. 

Not to bury but...

Owe but I did. 

Knot to mention di-Spencered with.*

Con Text
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/david-vitter-alan-grayson-bills-101965.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins385842.html

Meta-4's
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/busted_10_myths_that_reveal_just_how_dangerous_the_nsa_really_is_partner/?source=newsletter **
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/paul_krugman_republicans_are_enemies_of_americas_poor/?source=newsletter

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/no_christies_scandal_is_not_like_benghazi_why_the_rights_defense_is_doomed/?source=newsletter
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/chris_christies_forgiving_fan_club_why_elite_centrists_will_back_him_all_the_way/?source=newsletter

Salt Lick?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borate
http://inogolo.com/audio/Wittgenstein_4139.mp3


* Having browsed the busted myth and read the Krugman, and contexted the mess, I accidently deleted, so the above is a revamp(Or V-ramp) of sorts, to reprocess later. 

** I may have mitt-flopped the original Salon selections, Akin to progress and chem mystery.

Footnote***--- me: "I like the context you put it in". kNot said yet.  

*** alternet point of deparcher[!]{!}

Parallel Fields. ? (Re: Con Text i.e. GOTO Hegel?)

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21113-disimagination-machines-and-punishing-factories-in-the-age-of-casino-capitalism
http://truth-out.org/news/item/21197-noam-chomsky-on-the-legacy-of-ariel-sharon-not-speaking-ill-of-the-dead-imposes-a-vow-of-silence
http://truth-out.org/news/item/21198-fifty-years-later-the-war-on-poverty-working-better-than-the-right-or-left-will-admit
http://truth-out.org/news/item/21199-turkey-in-crisis-understanding-the-erdogan-gulen-split

These I have barely dug into.  And I have left the paddle ING to you.

Generalization Warfare

[Posted 10-27-10]
and Characterizationalism.
Unmarketed forces.
What's Christopher Hedges' problem in this problematic read?
Class warfare? Liberal is not a class nor the answer.
VALUES ARE THE ANSWER and politics the process. Liberal as "object of public scorn"? Yes! But a word does not make an object, nor a class. Nor do they adequately describe the institutions of the church, press, academia or party.
Now... "low", "middle" and "upper class", may be a more proper use of terms, especially when it comes to labor, incomes or wealth and it is no more fair to blame the class as a whole. But it would seem that the middle-class bears the brunt of any blame if that is the game. Where were they when the so-called liberal class failed them? Satisfied with their progress and taking the liberals for granted, as well as the powers they thought they wielded. But warfare is not the right field of political correction.
[It may have been just over my head, but it seems a cheap shot at Chomsky.]

Yikes! 3.0

[Posted 2-7-11 PM]

I won't track the first two,(or last two here- or 4 ) but here is a back log of leaps.
Allow me to preface by saying that Rush Limbaugh is no* Glenn Beck, not to mention vice verses(sp!)...well...I don't know about that. But my the leap is not a vicious cycle or a virtuous cycle but a patronizing childish cycle.
And where is my leap? The Chomsky crack. And back to the future. These latter certainly need sorting.

* they have different formats and resources

[Christopher Hedges' language is too complex to un-nuance. Michael Sandel may need a second look. I have not finished either of these sources at this point.]

BLANK NETWORK

Dot Tool* to be named later. This is just a list of the Wills and Bills.
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]

The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical

This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.

While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.

* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)

RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley

DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare


Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann

Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz



[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]

Two Points

Please note that just because someone endorses the priciples of a movement, that does not mean they endorse any of their tactics. Obama has been accused of distancing himself from OWS, and the 99%, but I think that is only in terms of some of their behavior and some of their demands.

Who am I to suggest what might work for Occupy Wall Street, but it could be strategic to give them the park back and MoveOn[*] (pardon the Irony)! While I have associated with MoveOn, DFA, and a # of other acronyms and parties(individual and organizational) I think that their message can evolve and be more dimensional.

[Belated Jack Sparrow]

[* 11-4-11 link description added: Ron Suskind on The Rachel Maddow Show, discusses the Financial Transaction Tax And on a related issue, replacing Tim Geitner. The man, any man is not the issue. The policy is the issue. But replacing any individual in the face of Republican obstructionism is problematic.]

[11-4-11 My comment on Left Business Observer is "awaiting moderation". Maybe it is actually awaiting radicalization, but I realize the practical difficulities of moving from Zuccotti Park.(Packing up, needing a place to go, but with the opportunity to return, unless the police occupy Zuccotti Park.) I just mean to take success from the fact that there are so many "Occupy Places" around the country and around the world, not to diminish the value of general assemblies, and the logistical need for occupying some space. Meanwhile here are some other perspectives:
Marc Ash Anarchy v. Non-Violence, The Movement Is Tested
Michael Moore on "Occupy Oakland"
Bill Moyers America Occupies Wall Street Because Wall Street Occupies America
Noam Chomsky Occupy the World
Robert Reich The Occupiers' Responsive Chord

[More Maddow, Cain and Perry and more.]

[A gestalt? Jon Stewart asks about OWS, North Dakota and Syria.
Walk like an...Obama?(up/date plank**)]

** See **B here with follow up.
[And Buffet sages. Note that this is likely the root of Obamanomics(Robert Reich) as I found it, and the root of our problems as Obama and Buffet found it.
More followup. [See deter/mined and Sat Ire.(Buffet v. Trump)]
[Three Points: A. B. C.]

Strike the Right...

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

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

Rush and Pills.

The Economy not contraception.

It is about religious freedom.**

Energy Policy.

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

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

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

SEGUE

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

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

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

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

** original single asterisks unknown reference

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

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

SEGUE 2.0

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

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

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

Order of Inserts

 6-3-15 Not Exactly ?

6-16-15 Back from Tangent? The lede is Chomsky! 
From the brackets up:
(b.s.) pinnacle+disciplines #1 Discipline - Philosophy
(b.s.) Art+Young Forward (Ironically)
(b.s.) dimentions [A thru I]
A. Counter Intelligence, B., C. Ouroboros, D. Ghost Busters , E., F.,   
G. Throwing the Game, H. Facebook Town Hall (amended), I. Dimentions
(b.s.) Oriental+German Economics 2011

Tangent/Spoiler Alert [Let alone to read later]:  (or move FP?)
The point is in the Orient~ation, or Ergonomics of Change...or Ergodynamics of Culture.
To break down the Ying-Yang and Jung, there are languages of various nature. 
Words, Numbers, Symbols...far be it from me to label a forth. 
former: a. Neo-changian?, b. Recycling Trash, c. Here We Go Again, d. D&R Tan ya?
latter: A. Bring It On!, B. Hang down your head Paul Krugman!

This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL