[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.
My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.
I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.
Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.
[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]
* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]
[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]
[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]
** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query In balance. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query In balance. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Darned if you do, darned if you don't...
bring things(and people) to the table. There is a dynamics of griping in this piece(Sam Steins HuffPo), but one in particular I must note:
[Future pacing? i.e. thanks to Thom Hartmann for reference to "previous pacing" in regards to: Why don't we call it the Republican Debt and Deficits?
[The above presaged the Facebook Townhall with President Obama (video).(ABC? Real Clear or Misc?)]
[Then there is bold or miss-taking taxes.]
[Italics mark - editing - and I note here additional gripe from Sam Stein:
For one, various areas of policy disagreement within the White House remained unresolved. In particular, officials familiar with the discussions say, Obama's economic advisers warned against calling for a final balance of three dollars in spending reductions for every dollar generated in additional tax revenue, arguing the ratio was too explicit.From his (President Obama's) Fiscal Speech:
I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the fiscal commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there’s enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.So it seems the realization could be made that the ratio is much more balanced, recognizing loopholes as spending not additional tax revenues. While this may seem like semantics it is actually a valid accounting of rhetoric. And in some ways it is similar to the gripe that the President as leader is either "the one" or is supposed to leak his strategy to followers. By this I refer to the complaints that he kept some in the dark, yet allowed the Republicans to go first on the fiscal plan. There are many fronts in the process called government, but it is different than partisan politics or military strategy.
[Future pacing? i.e. thanks to Thom Hartmann for reference to "previous pacing" in regards to: Why don't we call it the Republican Debt and Deficits?
But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -- but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -- tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.That is not all...(later referred to as "hanging chad" .]
To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.
[The above presaged the Facebook Townhall with President Obama (video).(ABC? Real Clear or Misc?)]
[Then there is bold or miss-taking taxes.]
[Italics mark - editing - and I note here additional gripe from Sam Stein:
Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing...(cont.) ]
Monday, June 18, 2007
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The Curve or Nuance Thing
In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..
Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.
Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.
This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.
* two charts
** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.
[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]
[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]
[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]
Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.
Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.
This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.
* two charts
** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.
[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]
[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]
[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
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.
*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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Update: "Off The Cliff"
Maybe we are on a ledge now.
But a few things are clearer including fundamentals, except where what Obama said is anything like what McCain said.
[BONUS UPDATE[*]: Organizing For America And More]
In that vein (of the lead update) I append this economic perspective:
And throw out this idea to be reality checked:
a cap in the derivative process.
It seems that the real problem in the financial crisis was the packaging of investments (derivatives) that made them an increasing gamble and risk and further blew up the bubble. This may have already been addressed with new regulation and management, I am not sure. (It still seems a potential for ponzi or pyramid scheme, which furthers government interdependence. But with a clearer understanding of the Cap and Trade for Carbon emissions, maybe this could work for other issues and would have an impacted in guiding our values back to people rather than profits and away from a reliance on blowing things.
While this may be an example of too creative thinking, and too similar to the way I began this dialogue, I hope someone can grasp any threads which they might pull or weave for us. On the other hand a particular part of the Reich piece points to my need for better understanding of an impact. In the area of education reform and Obamanomics: "It cuts subsidies to banks participating in the student-loan program, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did, and it provides some funds for early childhood education." But I guess this just demonstrates the bottom up and balanced approach that in the context of the college tax credits and pell grant increases are necessary. (therefore not "on the other hand")
For a short allegory (enticing heading aside) on how we are all in this together, I just updated:(see ledge now: under construction) (3-18-09)
Since I have possibly dispelled my own concern regarding the one possible glitch in Obamanomics, I leave with another to dispel or verify. How is it that there can be a concern for imagined trickle-down opportunity being dashed by taxes, when business expenses are not really on the table? Food for thought? Or the recycler?
P.S. For a more deeply embedded compendium of sorts, where I picked on Chris Matthews (In an aside) and picked up on Jon Stewart(FNBC). And as far a fundamentals of McCain and Obama it is in the media that the difference lies as much as earmarks when it comes to comparing apples and oranges or pork and ham where we have a rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.
[And this addendum: Go Stephanie Miller! Thanks for being on CNN to balance Tucker'd out. And it is more than just funny, but that I have only stumbled on this now, and it is deeper and more on message than just video or Unsatire as the world evolves.]
[*] CORRECTION: These are not bonus links. At least the first is right on target at the fundamental difference: focus, fix and the press.
[Update 3-20-09: I never really did read Off The Cliff but used it as an allegorical leap, but here is a good point which it may have taken me some time to get to in the link I had.]
But a few things are clearer including fundamentals, except where what Obama said is anything like what McCain said.
[BONUS UPDATE[*]: Organizing For America And More]
In that vein (of the lead update) I append this economic perspective:
And throw out this idea to be reality checked:
a cap in the derivative process.
It seems that the real problem in the financial crisis was the packaging of investments (derivatives) that made them an increasing gamble and risk and further blew up the bubble. This may have already been addressed with new regulation and management, I am not sure. (It still seems a potential for ponzi or pyramid scheme, which furthers government interdependence. But with a clearer understanding of the Cap and Trade for Carbon emissions, maybe this could work for other issues and would have an impacted in guiding our values back to people rather than profits and away from a reliance on blowing things.
While this may be an example of too creative thinking, and too similar to the way I began this dialogue, I hope someone can grasp any threads which they might pull or weave for us. On the other hand a particular part of the Reich piece points to my need for better understanding of an impact. In the area of education reform and Obamanomics: "It cuts subsidies to banks participating in the student-loan program, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did, and it provides some funds for early childhood education." But I guess this just demonstrates the bottom up and balanced approach that in the context of the college tax credits and pell grant increases are necessary. (therefore not "on the other hand")
For a short allegory (enticing heading aside) on how we are all in this together, I just updated:(see ledge now: under construction) (3-18-09)
Since I have possibly dispelled my own concern regarding the one possible glitch in Obamanomics, I leave with another to dispel or verify. How is it that there can be a concern for imagined trickle-down opportunity being dashed by taxes, when business expenses are not really on the table? Food for thought? Or the recycler?
P.S. For a more deeply embedded compendium of sorts, where I picked on Chris Matthews (In an aside) and picked up on Jon Stewart(FNBC). And as far a fundamentals of McCain and Obama it is in the media that the difference lies as much as earmarks when it comes to comparing apples and oranges or pork and ham where we have a rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.
[And this addendum: Go Stephanie Miller! Thanks for being on CNN to balance Tucker'd out. And it is more than just funny, but that I have only stumbled on this now, and it is deeper and more on message than just video or Unsatire as the world evolves.]
[*] CORRECTION: These are not bonus links. At least the first is right on target at the fundamental difference: focus, fix and the press.
[Update 3-20-09: I never really did read Off The Cliff but used it as an allegorical leap, but here is a good point which it may have taken me some time to get to in the link I had.]
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Daily Counter Balance
From The Dylan Ratigan Show:
* 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]
[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. )
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)
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Everything is on the Table!
That's right! Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.
Robert Reich counts
8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*
ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.
Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.
Robert Reich counts
8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*
ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.
TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.
THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.
FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.
SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.
SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.
EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.
* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.
[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far. Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C. this is the kernel of the matter:
Especially the bold below:
I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)
[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far. Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C. this is the kernel of the matter:
Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.
Especially the bold below:
Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’
I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)
Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’It could not be that bad.]
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Phase II?
Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.
The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.
Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.
Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.
Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**
On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"
And The Hidden Power or con-science.
I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.
*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Billy Club...
needs some explaining.
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
Friday, September 07, 2012
Google Works...
in Mysterious Ways!
Or YouTube [!]
Now... the rest of the Harvey, for Pete sake (and Mary).^^
What transpired this morning was opening my blog from my desktop and reading "Mysterious "(scroll over or click on). A Ty Cobb reference was embedded in my post. He was also embedded(earlier) in a family photo as a frame liner or stuffing in the form of a Seattle papers sports section. His batting average was around .410 at the time. The photo is of my grandfather on skid row. (I walk past it every day as I come down the stairs for breakfast.) But it was not our dad's Skid Road. It was a logging camp taken by an historic*** photographer with my granfather proudly centered.
Literal Flip-flop?**
Not to tangent.*
[sorry for the anachronistic asterisks]
Obama is Ty Cobb in the following context:
We are the borg, not the cable guy or Picards.
* Is of sorts a tangent, as in a recent encounter with "Proust"
** link 2 "Ways" black and white
*** the one on my wall has not been found online, but found the 3rd link under the historic*** YouTube.
^ Bush league
[In context? Not to pun.]
^^ [Post edited for Pete..."sake (and Mary)"]
FOOTNOTE: The third link is high-lighted. The balance is how we get there. The Mysterious Picards the content of context.
Or YouTube [!]
Now... the rest of the Harvey, for Pete sake (and Mary).^^
What transpired this morning was opening my blog from my desktop and reading "Mysterious "(scroll over or click on). A Ty Cobb reference was embedded in my post. He was also embedded(earlier) in a family photo as a frame liner or stuffing in the form of a Seattle papers sports section. His batting average was around .410 at the time. The photo is of my grandfather on skid row. (I walk past it every day as I come down the stairs for breakfast.) But it was not our dad's Skid Road. It was a logging camp taken by an historic*** photographer with my granfather proudly centered.
Literal Flip-flop?**
Not to tangent.*
[sorry for the anachronistic asterisks]
Obama is Ty Cobb in the following context:
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he^ came from, it is interesting that some^ would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.(but on the level field of dreams.)
We are the borg, not the cable guy or Picards.
* Is of sorts a tangent, as in a recent encounter with "Proust"
** link 2 "Ways" black and white
*** the one on my wall has not been found online, but found the 3rd link under the historic*** YouTube.
^ Bush league
[In context? Not to pun.]
^^ [Post edited for Pete..."sake (and Mary)"]
FOOTNOTE: The third link is high-lighted. The balance is how we get there. The Mysterious Picards the content of context.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Hierarchy of Hypocrisy
Hating to generalize I note my potential logical fallacy in the following. Nevertheless, between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment, there seems a hierarchy for some. From Right to Bear Arms to Citizenship Rights where does the 1st amendment fit in? (*)
A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)
Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.
My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.
(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist
[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]
A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)
Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.
My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.
(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist
[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]
Thursday, May 22, 2008
DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)
Thomas Barnett [***] YouTube presentation
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace
Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **
[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.
[***] earlier link to Barnett
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace
A friend sent me this, very optimistic, and saw it as so non-political. Fine. How does this come about? How do we create a "New Leviathan" albeit, calling it "New Everything Else"? This is fine as long as we realize it is political or it is the same old thing, otherwise know as the battle between realism and idealism.
Transparency and secrecy do have their distinct applications,(especially in war and diplomacy) but accountability and rules are in the getting there. (Power is not good or evil only results are and even they are seen from more than one perspective.)
A-to-Z rules focused on dealing with everything? How does one get them? Of course that is not the idea. Excusing based on result, is that the excuse? Hmmm. He has some good metaphors. Networking force? Where does it start? Where does it end? Security? Funny?
I think that he has some good points, but it all could be hinged on a point the world would love to get to, and they would all love to be there, to be the decider. I do not minimize the need for something, and he points to many good ideas to separate expertise and responsibilities, but I would emphasize that there is much more to talk about that may need the same (or better) analysis. There is a "heckuva" lot of work getting the world to see that there is somehow going to be a "new world order", no matter who brings it about and what it is brought about for. And there is no denying the current balance of powers and just wishing or demanding or excusing them away.
This is a good approach for the military, the rest may be everything else. Including looking at how we came to learn this lesson and whether it was already plain to too few.
Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **
[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.
[***] earlier link to Barnett
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)
Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.
Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.
In memoriam.
* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.
** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.
*** maybe him but not here
Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]
P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.
Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.
In memoriam.
* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.
** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.
*** maybe him but not here
Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]
P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.
Monday, August 09, 2010
In Balance
In a recent conversation with a rather critical* or independent Democrat(i.e. moderate or typical American) the issue of why the Democrats might lose in the mid-term elections came up. I don't think he used the word populism, but he did note that something should be done about jobs, or rather outsourcing/imports and addressing it dramatically with some sort of tariff. The discussion revolved around doing something, even if it was not the effective thing; it would be what the people want and it would show that the Democrats were doing something. One of the tangents took off on the Arizona immigration laws, as an example of the states doing something because the federal government wasn't. And fighting them in court was wrong, because it went against what the people wanted. i.e. do something about China and imports because it looked right, not necessarily that it would be most effective.
Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**
*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]
Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**
*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]
Monday, November 15, 2010
"One Can...
Reasonably Hope".
(Henceforth, bold links will be fully read.)
[update Point Counter-Point:
Parsing Focus or Focus Combat:
My point is that the two articles, before I read them, seemed to indicate a proper balance. Unbeknownst to me the McClatchy was even updated but I have now read the original McClatchy (Point-above) it was based on, as well as the other two (Counter-Point) and find my original embedded feeling that it was a good transition balance from military to political focus. This is a multidimensional* refocus, which even Rand Paul has played a reasonable part in. The focus is not so much on July 2011, but ultimate success**, and the aim to bring the discussion from military to political focus. Must we be reminded that while Congress does have the powers of the purse and war, the President is commander-in-chief and there is no real constitutional branch of diplomacy or foreign policy or Department of Peace.
* balance of powers within our nation and within other nations (from military to diplomacy)
** July 2011, Transition begins.
[Related Micro-Mess Aging. "the medium is the message" the Mess age is the medium?]
(Henceforth, bold links will be fully read.)
[update Point Counter-Point:
The White House vehemently denies that there is any change in policy. "The president has been crystal clear that we will begin drawing down troops in July of 2011. There is absolutely no change to that policy," said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman.(This quote appears in both McClatchy sources
Parsing Focus or Focus Combat:
My point is that the two articles, before I read them, seemed to indicate a proper balance. Unbeknownst to me the McClatchy was even updated but I have now read the original McClatchy (Point-above) it was based on, as well as the other two (Counter-Point) and find my original embedded feeling that it was a good transition balance from military to political focus. This is a multidimensional* refocus, which even Rand Paul has played a reasonable part in. The focus is not so much on July 2011, but ultimate success**, and the aim to bring the discussion from military to political focus. Must we be reminded that while Congress does have the powers of the purse and war, the President is commander-in-chief and there is no real constitutional branch of diplomacy or foreign policy or Department of Peace.
* balance of powers within our nation and within other nations (from military to diplomacy)
** July 2011, Transition begins.
[Related Micro-Mess Aging. "the medium is the message" the Mess age is the medium?]
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
New Approaches?
New Intelligence Estimate New York Times
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *
Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.
Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.
* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07
FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:
Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *
Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.
Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.
* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07
FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:
While many disciplines and departments are involved there are three primary fields that make up the dynamics of individuals in society, and those are the Physical, Psychological, and Philosophical, and the fourth is represented by the dynamics which is about the people and their goals and that is Politics. These are the areas that need work in society before we can hope to prevent let alone predict people who will take thoughts and feelings into actions. But some of the circumstances that one guest listed as contributors to radicalization are the lack of issues being addressed by society, issues that could be said to cause violent radicalization. Issues which are just the ones that Republicans refuse to address, and Democrats just barely stand up for. Those being basic needs and government accountability.
Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)