FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR APRIL 2013

4-1-13:  KNOT! No Labels / Know Tangent. Or Smith(rather) Know Labels No Tangent.[!]

4-2-13: The Real M-bed [!] ? [Follow up**?] [Now this is the ticket! See Book Ends?]

4-3-13:  See youtubes knot 4 naught ! [] (sc)

4-4-13 Knaught too Farce:  (b.s.)  A. Way, Too Point Oh?, B. Big Bagel Theory, C. D-Day, D. Freedom is not a tool., E. Lib...Ya[!] is not Free! [ :/ /: Nor mock.]

4-22-13 Not to (too) Hume or Mill ?
Happy 43rd Earthday!
(Ctrl F "Q"+"T" = ? n)
Our Story
( Connecting the Dots )
Curve Balls?
Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.
Connecting the Dots

4-24-13 Ctrl F within P.C.? Rocket Man?[!] , Technical Difficulties (sc)[!](bazinga?)
Note on format:  There are six lines under Marathon Investigations(2) and I will forgo more than four Footnote Pages, but my last 4 inserted links were under gore,  PC, -, & PG. The reader may scroll or click but under bazinga here, un-intended links were woven or unwoven. Not just a scroll click(sc) or LOL or EVEN Steven. (Caution: Not PG ! ? under bold link)

4-30-13 : AI[!] or A to I? (b, C(c), D, E ( e ), F, G (g), h, i ) B-AM [!] BTW: there are nearly twice as many people unaware that Obamacare has begun than the extremes of intensity on gun safety legislation polling.

Marathon Investigations

Politically Motivated ?
Not to pun or pressure cookers !
Or pun on Political Calculus.
The clue is in the intialism and Ctrl F gore.
Or Genesis? OW!
(PC - PG)

[Very Circuitous Update ?]  (redacted ?][!...) 

Descartes Be4 D...

...hoRsemen.

i.e.^ // e.g.



^ not for vulnerable ears (i.e. he says the ePH word and more)*

* a tangent for vulnerables minds? (i.e. different ePH words)
~
Wait, I just may have fallen into a legend trap***, ergo Decartes grid-Locke[?]
Anyway, this 3-Minute Philosophy on St. Thomas Aquinas to my listening three times, did not have the -uck word, but might still be awkward to some. 
OW < Hitchens in Mill's coffee shop. 
~

ergo:  Link 1, Decartes wiki, 2, grammar-monster 3. R-rated 3mPh "Decartes"  4. B.S. on E. G.
*1. PG-rated 3mPh "Aquinas" 2. G-rated YouTube "Mill" 3. :-) -rated YouTube "Mill" 3. P/un-rated YouTube** [i.e. = "another words", e.g. = "for example, ergo?]

** inserted link on hold.(The pun was a Wolf in Hitchens form)
e.g.  /  i.e. ~ er / go ? (I am missing a figure(guy) to be found later.)  NOT! Yet C-PC!

***
/ ->Pink Floyd
/ ->A Tale of Two Manicheans.
Cultural Threads are Fine.

Know B.S ? ! Evangelii Gaudium !

Reading List(UC)

Actually Read!
Proof of Heaven  4-20-13
...to be filled in...
Contact (sometime Fall '95)^^^
Not to book mark or end.[f1]^
(Nor to contrast "to read" or "having read".)

^rough footnote #1  (b.s. )twain+meet* (or list: swift + craft )
*(s c )^^
^^review scroll click legend/links
[f2] first link Not two reeds(b.s.) Theory, Left Behind, Punderous Ponderings
[f3] / "gadfly" ?

(4-22-13 ^^^ )PG? Post Graduate [Boston Strong]
(Not to F-Bomb)
PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION

4-24-13 The date may be telling. (pre-post or us? 4/21/13 1:15 PM)
Actually two reads, read & Posted 4/24/13 3:20PM
Ironically: we half two have too ? [!] [?] ...

dem Brains

Bush's Brain has left the building...
Well not yet, but make sure he does not leave the country.

Think Progress
U.S. Attorney Iglesias filed complaint in April. TP
Political briefings disclosed the same month. WaPo
Mother Jones / Waxman follow up. MJ
Associated Content reports AC

THIS MONTH
McClatchy/Truth to Power Bush V. Hatch ACT!
Thanks to clipmarks CM
Rove departure GovExec
Thanks ToDay White Collar Crime Prof WCCPB
WaPo Follow Up

OTHER FRONTS
Iraq - Iran Not Pressed "informed speculation - useful for readers to know." (control F, pg.2 pressed ) NYT
More Informed Sources from the front NYT

CONNECTING THE DOTS
"who sent you there..." ?
"the George Bush empire". DigitalJournal DJ

Who got us here? (I ask)
"you forget", so says Former Republican Chair Ken Mehlman DJ
[Note the taken liberty with words.]

[Post continues, wanted to post it before I lost it.]
connecting the dots . . .
Speaking of New Fronts: all from DJ
Rove's (Evil) Twin.
(Note: Evil and Twin are redundant.)
"Rove's Good Twin" would be oxymoronic or is it Bush?
Old Front
New Front

Good News/Bad News - No Front WaPo

More links:
href="http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=%22open+source%22">Open Source
Earliest Dots
ReP Brains
Bi-Cameral Brain

[Now who's gone too far? 10:18 closing post]
[10:27 AM- Just a hint... of remorse at a poor pun imbedded above.]

{11:30 This pause was to dig deeper and update some archives: In all this cutting and posting, my search was for a meme or talking point or some counter to Rove, the irony is that I may have found it in my own search under "ironic". Something to get the choir on the same page. Note the tent shape and who may not be in it, but the people are the base not just dots.]

Flash Back

[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]

*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link

Gatekeeper on a High Horse?

George F.* Will?rides on.
Gatekeepers are us?
George "Fiat" Will?
______________________________________________________________________
Speaking of the high road, the above may be rather high brow, and the following might be considered in the gutter or the trenches where we need to fight too.
______________________________________________________________________
[Re: the above (first two) links provide contrast and balance as well as rating (G.F.W.-P.G./R.W.F), but the bottom link(see warning as to "expletive deleteds" being unbeeped), and does not reflect my views but do provide more than adequate contrast in their own right. Harriet Christian manufactured? I don't know, but natural reactions? Maybe.]
[Update: And imagine the Gaul, Will had to write from Pearl Harbor not to mention bladder or the sheen]

*WARNING! Fowl language embedded in bottom link, not necessarily connected to the "F" between George and Will. But maybe Fear, Fiat, Foe, fumes?

Market of Strategic Information Slash Influence Is Too Right!

A small news item July 29th, pg. A12 deserved more attention. "Pentagon betting plan attacked" was a fair title for the disturbing program aimed at intelligence gathering but too little useful information was provided. In such a system, traders would and apparently (in some cases) already do, bet on outcomes of foreign policy, elections and military actions. Other sources (MSNBC) indicate it would start with 100 experts and expand, then the sponsors DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) claim that they would not be able to identify traders who sign up.

It sounds similar to the former fiasco Office of Strategic Information/Influence, now titled a Futures Market. Reports on 9-11 have indicated the poor handling of the volume of Intelligence that was already there and now they expect to have help from the economic forecasting arena? Not to mention the idea that misinformation that was hypothetically strategically planted somehow missed processing by any Office in the Administration that would keep things straight.

Markets may be efficient indicators of the futures, but they may be too efficient for interpretations that would be meaningful in time. Setting aside the aspect that DARPA would be sponsoring or turning a blind eye to insider trading, which would admittedly be a required component, how would they separate trading by terrorists from ideologues and analysts from capitalists? Not that there is anything wrong with some of that.

Efficiency would have been if voters had taken warning from the markets (in 2000) at the risk of a Bush election.

Fast Forward

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. […because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. http://www.msnbc.com/news/781783.asp

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/87582_will19.shtml

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]

Regime Rhetoric Reply

[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?

There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).

Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.

There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?

If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.

Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.

I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:

Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.