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.

Media Whores*

Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:

[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]

Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.

It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.

* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.

* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]

[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...

HELP NAVIGATION

[update 2-5-09 LABELS Under Construction ]

[5-15-08: (nfry)= not fully read yet * and I have not followed through with * yet.]

This page is for those who may be new (or just old) to the world of blogging or in particular my train of dialog. Politics is about help navigation of our course. This page invites you to join that world and this. Have fun, following the links, and trains of thought, otherwise known as threads. TO THE RIGHT (I have not navigated the instructions enough to see if I can move it all to the left) is a column under the heading not beating around the bush? which was suppose to mean links to other sites, but now includes links like this. HELP NAVIGATION, then LOCAL POLITICS? which has a question mark added as that is not all it is about. Not to mention that it is definitely not original. (OK, there were two tangents, otherwise considered footnotes)

SEARCH BLOG: Top left corner of every blogspot page see SEARCH BLOG to insert a word or phrase to find all posts which contain it on this blog.
[Ctrl F] to search individual post pages use your CONTROL [Ctrl key] [type "F" key] to pop up a word search on your own computer, it should probably usually work.
LABELS: like Local that categorize post subjects(content is not completely labeled, but it will be a work in progress) note: italics sometimes used to hint at double entendre or sometimes emphasis in bold. Quotation marks may reference something that is just out there unattributed or used by me somewhere else, unless noted or linked.
Links: an option below the bottom line of every post that may be there if I choose to insert a link[*]. [12-17-07 Example: In this case the link provided at the bottom is also embedded at the GoLeft.TV and I take this opportunity to note the inconvenience if you do not have high speed internet to view the video, either way you get there. ALSO there, In particular if you scroll over you will see google search and if you click will get you the list of links to one of the runners-ups. ]

[12-14-07: See THE GAME to take the trip and follow the loop.

[ Bottom Line:
There and Here and around Now.
EMBEDDED QCON Quicke Comment on News ]
[Hint: another little clue to playing the game is that by scrolling over a link with your cursor (that is the little thing your mouse moves) you can see it on your bottom line before going there.]

12-17-07: our course [link added] Earlier: Local Politics? is now Local Content.

12-18-07: Note Right Column Content
Media Filter: Media Matters etc.
The Word: A Dictionary
The Law: The Constitution
The News: GoLeft.TV
Thought Crimes Act: Stop the Preemption
Find Senate Bill: example S. 1959
Find House Resolution: example H. 1955

[*] [4-9-08: henceforth referenced as "bonus link"]

Obtusity?

Not Here.(Kay label added)
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.

In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.

In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?

[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]

** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:

If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

With my lemon twist on it:

If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.

OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]

[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]

There was nothing...

necessarily prophetic meant with Third Time's the Charm. Or was there? It may have been the spin-off of either or and the likes of Beck and some evangelicals. Even just in the either or of "I'm just saying", which might be related to a silver lining, which only has three sides. There is the light, the dark and the actual cloud that matters. [SAVED IN DRAFT & CONTINUED & SUBMITTED 3-22-11) Third Times a Charm, means that if you look right, look left, cross the street, and there is a chicken already on the other side, you may have learned a lesson...or not. Not to be making light of recent tragedies, but that actually is the point. That nuclear energy is not on the same plane as air or traffic accidents. But back to the original point, that Third Times a Charm regards Toning Down the* Lines.

*Or were we?

[SUB-TEXT: the table and I Ron Knee.]
[Update: my original assessment before the air strikes began was that the President was following the letter of the law if not the spirit. I won't get into the spirit of the Patriot Act but is part of the law as well as the 1973 War Powers Act and the constitution. My point being that it is one thing to debate an action by the president, it is another to make a law determining or undermining his powers. Any reassessment will have to take into account the current politics as well as earlier circumstances not to mentiuon the politics then. It is that frame in which I am optimistic that change matters as well as who is in charge.]
[Footnote to power and politics not to mention economics.]
[Not exactly breaking, but one reason going to congress would not make sense. Would it make sense to make doing the right thing even more political? Would it make sense for journalists to be giving detailed intel to an enemy? The right thing being to save lives rather than waiting for a massacre. It can be wondered well why not other places, well then get some consensus, but some are in the past and others may be prevented in the future or nothing may change. And there may be a bonus feature[**] in this turkey on the table and that is the subject of war funding and the budget process or complacency.]
[**] 3-25-11 links added

Update

Since my sabbatical began, a lot has happened. Palin is trying to escape from hot water, Cheney is finally getting warm and the CIA has its own bubbles, while Supreme Court nominee Sonja Sotomayor begins her confirmation hearings.

[There seems to be a misuse of words and wise old men and wise old women in the attack on Judge Sotomayor which is actually an agism. For it is context that matters and wisdom is hard to pin on age. In fact it is hard to deny that experiences are a key ingredient in wisdom if not related to age.]

[Jeffrey Toobin CNN: "applying the law is not a judicial philosophy" after defending the right to decide confirmation on ideological differences, yet it seems similar to the judicial philosophy of the right. Republicans sure can complicate meanings, like having your cherry picked apples and oranges cake and eating it too.]

[7-14-09 Bold added to begins (The Uptake: Sotomayor hearings... Huffington Post) and old men (LA Times Blog/Text of Hearings) links
in addition Sessions miscounts * right meaning.]

[Things could not be more muddled from 3 takes:
The American Spectator: Ricci: A 9-0 Rejection of Sotomayor
The New York Times: The Opinionator
Slate: The Fray
It seems the Summary Judgement hinged on the Second Circuit Court getting it back, and that it was a 5-4 activist court which did not rely on precendence. The only 9-0 would have been if Sotomayor and the Second Circuit would decide the issue rather than the Supreme Court. It might even be said (per curiam) that we have a failure of trickledown and a slippery slope in the ability to act.]

[It might now be clear that for Sessions experience is prejudice.]

* The above analysis not counting the 3 takes just might make Media Matters (See miscounts ) more clear. Failure to account for failure to remand must be counted.

Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

Lt. Watada: "Unbecoming" Mistrial

“Very interesting" Oops, wrong accent or show.

“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.

My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .

My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."

NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?

I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.

But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...

NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.

A funny think happened

on the way to the protest.
[SAVED IN DRAFT "AS IS": RELEASED 3-29-10]

I was going to report to Media Matters Beck's use of a September 2000 clip where(at 2:07 to 2:40) he yells, "Look at this! Far Left!".

I intentionally framed my original protest(speaking of "Hot Standby" including the finger/air quotes)to Media Matters as, "MSNBC let up on Beck!" but now see my own bit too hot of a standby and oops. Incidently, not the oops noted, as that involved other adjustments to my thinking(or spelling), not the thing(sic*) intended.

OK, after yesterday's heavy linked play of words, I had better stand down a bit. BUT...
The September 2009, Pittsburgh G-20 Summit was covered, but the intention of its undercoverage is mixed. So, back to my message to Media Matters(not yet sent and still evolving):

Originally my outrage was over the appearance that it was Sept. 2000, well no one is perfect. Beck still misuses the facts it seems. BUT there is an odd twist which is actually standing operating procedures at FOX. It was a G-20 Summit (2009) and the violence sprung from free speech zones, or the caging of it, so to speak. So I would hate to imagine what Tea Party events might be like if they were corralled or hurded away from a major event or prohibited from getting their message out? It almost seems like MSNBC is attempting Fair and Balanced or is it nuance?

It really seems the mixed intention of the coverage or undercoverage issue fits right in with the fanning or under fanning of messages perspective, not to mention who is running or leading for what.
[Sometimes oops can evolve, sometimes being right don't.]
[Or sometimes you feel like a bloomin' ...]

* flip-flop of intended spelling(this time)
** see the oops of seque(sic)[there]: truly mispelled but I may have no lemony snippets but there might be some natural snickers.

Conservative Foray (4A)

The right wing rhetoric suffers
from four faults or defaults:
Anecdotal
Apocryphal
Anachronistic
Academic[*]

In particular:
Lew Rockwell
Anne Wortham
Betsy McGaughey
Floy Lilley **

I did not select these, they were being spread by a victim of the victim hoods.

[* This 4A was held in draft, and pondered till I arrived at the right Initialism. Speaking of design and initialism the origin was:
often A$$ Backward Oops!! - Pardon my Cheney , I meant acronym-ism.]

**[Hopefully I have these in descending order.]
[(CTTC)Cutting through the Cr@p:
I would love for economists to cut through some of this.]
[Academic is a word like politician and lawyer that have developed a poor reputation, not to mention rhetoric and Swift Boaters. Or Bottom Line? ]

[(CTTC2.0)I have two bold links above that I would like economists to examine, in particular in light of the bad rap Keynesian economics keeps taking. In that regard, on a lighter and less silly or harsh note; Greenspan seems to be learning, or has he, and in regards to the Floy piece and the bottom line;
is there not some synergy that needs to be worked out? Meaning current efforts cannot be compared to past efforts directly, while problems that are missed will be the devil in the detail. The Carbon Market may be a solution, but not if the Market period is the problem. In other words, I have not looked too deeply into the hot air side (climate matters) of the equation, but feel that the thin air problem (financial matters)is deeper. To re-embed in aphorism, there is bang for your buck and there is the value of your bang. And there is likely more that matters.

Re-Coop?

Building a new hen house or egg heading?*
Is
badge
dough
M
toxic
?

(!?) above (? !)

* this is the point (pre-Hint) I wound back to
(to**)insert links in this line, post-verticle ramble.(***)

Hint:  There is a method to this B.S. (!?)

[bottom lines]

[Seg Way (not exactly){Ctrl F "branches"}:
Thom Hartmann simul-post."Stock pile voters"!]

**7-27-12 (edit) & note admission in yesterday's comment
*** 7-27-12 The important thing in the missing link (see comment 1) is that I selected the indicated links from some b.s. to log them for future reference not to form the vertical sentence from their first word or letter.(see * &**)

[7-27-12 Post comments 1&2: If there is anything that matters in the process above, here may be what anti-matters. Not to pun on serious matters.]

I'm sorry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"More Scrutiny Needed!"

Bloomberg Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Not necessarily the one to do it.

Update: 2-13-09 [Shout Out: Media Matters]

[Update 2-12-09 "Conservative Media Echo Chamber..."
Also more on Misinformation... ]

[from dialogue with Thrasymachus * ]
...the last paragraph was an eye opener if you believe it. Well not really; it confirms my world view or rather your world view. Health care should be a growth industry and cost is no object.

But second: health-care reform is made up of more than just government programs, and will not replace the healthcare industry or the insurance industry, so it is very easy to cherry pick and hits the nail on the head with my last post:

It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.

And this gal is not not up to Journalism 101. WWWWWH? (that too...or also)

BTW: I really did some ridiculous math (further amendment to my blog) that went on in the comment section. If the $800 billion (jobs bill) were purely partisan or completely extremist (utopian?) and the choice were between more Bush tax cuts, and all food stamps (which I can't imagine anyone proposing) (but probably some on the right might) the Bang for the Buck would be negative .71 / dollar or positive .73 / dollar. But that is only if some would have it only their way. HOWEVER it seems even a balanced partisan bill would result in closer to zero effectiveness. This is extreme rhetoric(and math), but seems to demolish the moderate approach as well. It does however prove the importance of new thinking rather than more of the same.

* a nickname for an emailer
** see previous post for these asterisks and below link for Bloomberg

Politics Local and National

Find your local party organization.
DEMOCRATS
Republicans- not so easy
Liberals- at your own risk*
Conservatives
Green Party
Independents (you are on your own)
Libertarian or Ron Paul
Actually this was just a quick search which evolved from "find your(specified)organization" to find your specified "party", and my comments are more about the ease with which they are found.

As a local example: 41st LD Democrats **
Puget Sound Liberals
Northwest Progressive Institute
Progressive Radio
Organizing for America
Democracy for America
King County Democrats
Washington State Democrats

This may seem condescending, but what the Beck!
MoveOn
Think Progress The Final Act for Health Reform
Media Matters
not to mention Democrats.com Save our Democracy!

[BTW: two proposals(rhetorically)
a. If corporations have individual rights, where do they come off as being able to own other individuals?
b. And where does an individual share come in? I mean there is the equal protection clause but an individual gets one vote per share of stock?
c. It seems that congress should tighten up immigration when it comes to such commerce let alone labor.
Actually these could be substantive considerations.]

*if I can't offend my own, who can I offend, well maybe everyone, but I am being ironic with a keen political calculus. Actually my own is "progressive", and we must stop running with(or at or from) words like scissors.

** attendance at District Nominationg Convention and Caucus was surprisingly low, but could be attributed to the forgone conclusion that there would be no opposition to our incumbents, satisfaction with work being done, anticipation of the work to come, and the nature of the top two primary holding some surprises if not a field for competition from the wings of hope and cynicism.

Who is "Lighting a Fire"?

President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.

If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.

We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.

(from an email of 9-25-03)

Move On and Look Back.

Dear Honorable Leaders:

Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.

My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.

After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.

Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!

I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."

If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.

The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.

On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?

Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?

The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.

String Cheese Theory?

Or Quantum Theory of Mitt ?

Related Strings:

Ouch[!]

Q E D [!].

You** Tube
Double* Ouch![?]

[Matter / Anti-matter ?  The Declaration of Independence does not have a preamble. Note that Speaker BaneOr misquoted the Constitution, which does have a preamble.  He was quoting the Declaration of Independence which does not have a preamble.  It matters that Rachel Maddow did issue an apology.  Should it Anti-matter that NewsBusters thinks it does? Quote:

 Of course, if she or her crack fact-checking team at MSNBC had done their homework, they would have found "We hold these truths to be self-evident" does indeed come from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and not the Preamble to the Constitution as Boehner said. 

     It seems they gaffed their own smug face.

Alas, when one fact checks, especially as arrogantly as Maddow does, you should be completely accurate or you end up looking like a bigger jackass than the person you're mocking.
That oughta wipe the smug, condescending smirk off her face!

Right?]

[Speaking ***^ of Flip Flop? QED!
And I don't mean cue Ed, nor buy George or Bill-E-Club !
But D E^^ Vo ! ?]


*Schoolhouse Oops?
Woe? [!]
** Original Rachel Link is missing under You "THE Word".
*** Bingo [!]

^ Think Progress's link on President Obama's personal evolution.  It is the people that must make the political and legal fight. A president's opinion does not make either federal or state law.  Not that he is not responsible for interpreting and enforcing them.

^^  a day that will live in infamy?
NOT!  Thom Hartmann caller on radio.

5-10-12  Related Issues? Or matters ?
Now with Alex Wagner "The Book of Mormon".

Swiftboating of McCain?

As I pointed out the term needs adjustment.
And I "really" dislike the headline US News and World Report uses:
New York Times Drops Bomb On McCain and forgotten?
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY by The Drudge Report.
Not that I have fully read these, but this:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk is worth the read and fits in with the image management that needs exposure.
Hence the term Swiftboating should not be used as that was a campaign of misinformation, while FlipFlopperKrafting provides double exposure.

[O'Reilly "Lynching Party" is really a Fox Hunt. Media Matters is Hard Work]

[2-22-08 Flip-Flopper-Crafting? I still like the "K". But I will amend the comment to note that often headlines are sensational, yet The New York Times understated the issues "For McCain..."

“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter," said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

and a more direct headline "No Public Funds for McCain" from Politico has an interesting bottom line that is well summarized in the last few paragraphs.

But even if the commission were meeting, one must wonder if the panel -- an organization that decided the cost of field organizers doesn’t need to be added to the overall cost of winning a state primary -- would tell the Republican Party that its nominee can’t slip through a newly carved loophole and arm himself for battle against a significantly better funded and unrestricted Democratic nominee.]

If Only It Were Black and White.

Now don't read between the lines*.
SIN comes in all peoples. (Shift, Ignore, Name call)

[note: anachronism** and update, labels and links]

* caution language: not rated for sensitive hearts
(not to mention subject matters) Crtl F: "vote"

[Please note this was not meant to be such a challenge. The only thing black and white is a vote, and sometimes even that is questionable. But the underlying current is that the two parties are incomparable, but that does not stop people from choosing tents or not even entering them. The point is, what the "F" are people thinking when they are voting? Well, they may have left their sinking ship of the right and will proceed to dilute and delude the left.]

** not to mention acornyms(sp!): Strength in Numbers? Sea challenge[!]
[There was an embedded point on strength and ** was not it(but there is a hint in the labels or scroll over).]

[I almost inserted an image, but can't find the right place to put it, maybe this is where it fits.]

[Follow up or down. i.e. Bottom links represent actual sequences(hopefully), they have been adjusted for the sake of format.]
[But hold your horses.]

[BTW***: this was not intended as a Halloween special. WC/RC/SC...Warner/Chamblis?]
*** Brian "Tangent" Williams [If only...]

The Other Debates

Substance over*** Style? 
Here I go again,
preemptive over* reading**. 

* preceding two links are top embeds in prior two links
** links all inserted before reading ** or any others(including last insert ***)
*** retro GPS of sorts(C-lede/heading)

[Ouch! Mid^ -PI solar^^ flare... ***]

^ scroll over(not exactly^^^)
^^ having read ***...
Inslee is no Biden or Obama, McKenna is no Romney or Ryan. ^^(Re...)
But on the issue of conflict of interest, the conflict is ironic.



^^^ F'n notes:  Show me the money, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road ? !

^^(Re...) Don't call me..(Re...cycling^^)
...except for the Congressional connection(Biden/Inslee/Ryan and party differences).  Note that it is quite different to be a Republican governor in a Democratic controlled state(Romney), than a bipartisan Democratic president in a more evenly controlled but partisanly divided congress.  Republicans have been against what they might have been for if they had been in control(less so maybe locally given this context).  The debt being the Toll Keen under the bridge.   C-Mythmatic. Not to mention the road we hoe or Rove. The irony is even more dimentional in the local situation in that, Inslee as governor (re:legislative branch) would be more Obama(re:leg.br.) than McKenna as governor would be either Romney as executive.(re:either state or national leg.br.)  See Romney touting his term in Massachusettes with an 86% Democratic legislature. (It doesn't take much to sit down and cooperate.)  This is no excuse for thinking that divided government means more partisanship rather than cooperation and compromising as Democratic principles. (Further editing if NOT *,^'s may be needed[!]#$%)

[Re: Cycling notations (*,^,#'s) F'n Apologies Tour, not there yet. (quid pre**quo?) Stop that ? Ouch. ]

[ WeGotEd: Sherrod Brown / Uncle Joe/ Uncle Sam/ G.I. Joe / Gastro-Intestinal Joe! Roger Out! ]
[ Alter Net ... Substance/Style, Objective/Subjective, Reality/Matters(slash)dimentionalism what the heck is the point? ]

[Editors Note:(me that is)...the entirety of this post was finished before this. Bolded above from "The debt"...to..."Rove". They can't handle the Biden.  The key crack @little troll friends.  So...(I will have to review to see reference to Rove, but here is a rant or ramble(NOT) his nickname is "Turd Blossom"!]
[Randi Rhodes] 
[Paul Ryan Told 24 Myths in 40 Minutes]

10-16-12 Biden/Ryan Debate added.