Presently Pre-

Occupied with matters closer to home...
I don't have time for this re- search, or rather more than a glance at it.
Fukuyama on "The U.S. has basically failed in the major objective of it's foreign policy." My take, "liberal democracy" is not as he knows it. In other words, we have more "hard work" on it at home before we export it.

Recommended reading in this area...

Center for American Progress: The Fall of the Bush Empire.

"If there’s one empire I want built, it's the George Bush empire," said former Bush adviser and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman in 2005 [One Party Country, p. 102].In this effort to spawn an empire in the federal government, the White House and the RNC have opened up unprecedented lines of communications and have potentially violated federal law in doing so. In a recent investigation into the Bush administration's use and destruction of e-mails from RNC accounts, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) found there may be "extensive" violations of the Presidential Records Act, which stipulates that the President take "all steps as may be necessary to assure" that the activities of the White House "are adequately documented." "This should be a matter of grave concern for anyone who values open government and the preservation of an accurate historical record," said Waxman. Also under investigation is the White House's violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political use of federal government property. The Oversight Committee uncovered serious abuses of both laws by the White House in order to secure electoral victories.

I suspect the above link is not specific and I will follow this up later, with the meany embedded links in this from the Center for American Progress.

[Links now embedded,but not read.]

What the Beck?

[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

Anachronistic Reasoning?

Rational Actors?

The X-Factor?

Not Exactly.

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

Chomsky/Pillar.

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

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

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

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

**dualing ironies or double down dueling[!]

[or just dualing down?]

*** this paradox is also rational

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try-Mentionalism ?[!]

Speaking of Tri[...]*
Think Progress had it's three(best) of the week.

I'm not saying...
I haven't even red[!].

Circular file f(n)or foot in mouth?
Putting myself in other's shoes is more challenging when in their mouths.
This boot strap(lede link) is not the case.
It is a challenge, not that it is in anyone's mouth or maybe only in mine. 
You know, statistics and things...

*reading in progress
[!]: (sic) sars(chasm)

Para-model

I will begin at the end, or rather the present.
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?

Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.

* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?

[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]


[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]


[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]

Still going? QED?]

Hump Day?

To Re:view Page:
Original intent to retrace the War on Hillary[!] links.
Under RE:VIEWING we find: File for Facebook.(but that is a tangent)
So back to 12-2-14.  We find Culture*. Below that we find OW [!]
Then (FP1) parses the Greek. Under which I find a new anamoly.** [A Witt gen stein?]
Within FP! we have (FP2)
Under post-pyth we have more on Hillary.  Prior threads and Pythagorean work on the way.
That's the ticket. C. bad+press Other Greeks*** to Countdown. or un-Vienna Circle?
The Calculus of DOW or coneheads? (Jung, Euclid, Barlow), (Newton Liebniz Asimov), Dar Tan Ya?

But back to the parsing or back from the tangent.
~~~~
(FP1)
~~~~
 (Liebniz Dar Ching)
There is no plausible metaphilosophy. All is metaphysics. 
Wittgenstein/NewLieb/TOW: words, math, subjective  /* objective Larouche / Rand?

Manual Blog Search: Not Just ... a Pen Chant 4 Geo Metrics.
Exceptionalism and the Slippery Slope , I.Q.* (draft) , Gitmo or less. ,
 Reading In Progress[***], Full Read! ?,  Hume or boo , F'N 3
[Need to review labeling of photos, images, cartoons etc]

Is the rational, math or language? 
Is subjective/objective the real ManyKey'nIsm or classical economics?
C-Shelley ? Or pre- stein.

*asterisk in original (* R.I.P.)
** leave as anamoly of [scroll over unclickable]
***  need to adjust way point(that's the ticket)

(FN!) : Starting with the last insert.(*-5) = mics? in regards to the meta-plausible.
(*-9)@ ManyKey'nIsm we (b.s.)Tryunism for 3 links in 2 posts.
A bit more anachronistic(*-1) we are Frank 'n pre-cast[!] 'n loosing the thread with C-Shelley ?
Or Shilling Schiller [!] 

Four Models(~):

 

(~) models : Milo Mulligan / The message is the mess.  (~) Para-model

Penta-meta point ?
Geo-metrics [!] ? (~)





 /*  : (2-4-14) [ / ]=subjective+objective:(b.s.) link inserted also two selected from(fp3)

The Un-Revolved(~) Thread

Wittgenstein:

Facts?  3-mat?

(~) or resolved
(~)=alt sic/pun or irony [!]

(fp?)(links in order)
1. The lecture on the Tractatus.(picture theory)
2. (b.s.) Wittgenstein (a.) (b.), (3b) Post Romaticus ,(3c), F'N 3 , "Timing is everything." , P'P' la Pew , ( ) , Ghost Busters , Crooked Timber , Coin-age of the day. , Wittgenstein , (/) No Teddy , / OW , / Forward (Ironically)
3. (b.s.) Witt gen stein
Asymetric nature of ?, Logical Track it Us[!], Reading In Progress[***], (fp), (fp) (3a-e)
4. mat/label *

* anachronism (2c=3b), (2e=3c)
(~) indicative/asterisked &(~) explained
4m@ / Asymetric nature of ?, Logical Track it Us[!] , Post R.I.P. , We have met the yogurt , Going through Hegel or... , escapement? , Epicyclical Poet Tree , Forward (Ironically) **

** label's content needs updating but (b.s.)/blog searches will evolve(see 2b/~)
(i.e.) at this point in time Wittgenstein label includes 4a thru 4h.

Third Level **/4mat: or 4p?
1. Lecture on Tractatus (27:00)
2. Discussion of Metaphilosophy
3. Intro to Tractatus
4. Vienna Circle
(fp!)

Q. E. D. [!] [?] Anti-semantics or...**

4MAT Shift?

Hyper-Dig?^

~ of 6 links)
Spoiler alert: ala FP? Or legend of sorts...
The (#'s) below are the sequence of inserting above.
The M-beds within are links to blog searches of this blog.**

(4.) April 23rd, Openly Secular Day!
(1.) The Labor Market Conundrum: The Cyclical And The Secular
(2.) What Would Don Draper Do? Reading Dante in a Secular Age
(5.) Document Proclaims Secular Government
(6.) Mullahs and Heretics [!]
(3.) The Godless Delusion*

* Bingo: Started Reading!
** these italics are bibliographing in progress

Cyclical A. F'N Too Point Oh[!], B. Proof of Life..., C. In "F"n able?, D. Politics is local?, E. Rubber/Glue "Unhinged".
Reading A. A counting Trick? , B. Long Story
Document A. escapement?, B. Absolut(ist)ly..., C. Temporal, D. Two Birds
and A. Reality is the 4D., B. The dig?*** , C. Better Business Bureau
[!] A. Being a Blank "is Hard Work".
delusion A. TIP OF THE FLAME , B. But for Angle , C. Phase II?

*** anomaly of (sc)

Cyclical B:art ~ Rib~L [*~*]

^ 3-26-15
The Dig ? 2b Kantinued ?
1,2,
5, The Vox: Cruz Control?
3,4,
6. Progressive Values: Ctrl F Reich

Dukes or Hazzards

Or
Perils* of Paul-ien**? 

*NYTimes subscription required or use of your alloted limit:
(in lieu of scroll click) David Brooks ~ Building Better Secularist
**NFRY: reading in progress former(*) embedded in latter(**)

Rather than further annotate or embed links... (dot, dot, dot)
TBS(2 B S...) Fukuyama Strauss
2. ★Re-initialism★ / Mises... / Cultural Threads are Fine. / Neo-Context ?
B. SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE) /\ /, Give 'em a break! //,  Mises... /,  Technical Difficulties  /?/, GOLEFT TV [!]
S.  E A R C H : Flash Back, Fast Forward, Regime Rhetoric Reply, Open Threads.

[or / of rawls ? P'op'e ?]

#1 Discipline - Philosophy

Philosophy should be the top priority for the Democrats!
It is the top priority for the Neo-Cons
and the Republicans are all too disciplined.

Philosophy is just one discipline.
Discipline is not the only philosophy.
Their philosophy is just "offensive".
Our philosophy must be "everything matters".

Not just more discipline, but more disciplines
as in "law" and "politics" "Get No Respect" as Rodney Dangerfield said.
And as I have said, hence the dangerfield we are in.

War is a "last resort", but does the President still have the "war powers" which congress gave him to fight "terrorism"?
His philosophy is that his word is the exception to every rule.

The other two points of THE POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT,
may be Physics and Psychology [*].


These should be the next two priorities, which should focus on what goes on in the world and what goes on in peoples minds,
besides the philosophy that "We are No. 1" for each and every one of us. But it must be noted how much science is devalued, at least in getting it together. Of course we know what physics has brought us in terms of the nuclear age, but the matter of which came first is still a head game.

Where does this fit into the current affairs? Some might say, it is the "Power of Intention" but it starts with trying to determine what other's intentions are while devaluing what our own intentions are or should be.

[any links will be added in due course]
[italics are additions, and bolds are for emphasis, and minor editing within 10 minutes of original post]

The above is not based on a reading of the following... yet!

The Next Act By Seymour M. Hersh Iran? Syria? [update here  ]

Kristol: ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’

These are just two links,
that are yet to be read by me.
HAVE YOU? - - NO MATTER,
if you can process and address the rest of the above.

For deeper matters see these two organizations;Center for American Progress
and
just foreign policy

[* UPDATE 04-08-08: pinnacle or tetrahedron to be added phoney or funny to political points ] as in
[1. Physical
2. Psychological
3. Philosophical
4. Political
(power loop of phony and funny or what will happen)
Hence the battle over not just temper but meant and there4 humor's another battle field, not counting Dangerfield.]

vis a vis

partisan
furcation
~~~~~~~
We R all Right?
Left ? In Sync ?

[...]
Reading In Progress[***]
"Timing is everything."
NOTE:(b.s.) "amigoes"*

*need to unMbed Amit Goswami
Q-3
Ghost Busters
"buying a stairway"
String Cheese Theory?
Dimentionalism(sic) // (s.c.)
Para-model -- //
From Political Calculus to Theoretical Physics
Dateline: August 10th, 2005

Reading In Progress[***]

R.I.P.?

Bill Mauer and Sam Harris are the best case for religions.[***] 
Before I exscrabble[!] my case, I note three reference points.  First to Hegellian dialect(ic), second to democracy (Churchill)and the best, and third to Voltaire's gardening and the best.  Let alone the full crumb or hinge pin of tolerance. * (neo?)

[binary references]

[!] Witt gen stein  (and I hadn't even bit on the "binary" bit or subjective/objective "heritage".) Let alone hoist on his own cable. 

*seg way D-fact-oh? ex facto[!] (paragraph 10 militance?)
(p ll clash reaction) [p12 "willy nilly"]{p14 Jell-oh}
"stacks the deck" shelter
Fn1 (original inserts R.I.P. / neo)
Fn2 (shelter / oh)**
Fn3 (crumb / hinge)
** HeGel
Fn4 “Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes.”  George Carlin
FP? : A. Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality, B.(R) F'n P[!] , C. Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
(R) adjustment>B
1.  Hegel, 2. Churchill, 3. Voltaire (i., ii.)
2b. C-p, 1. 2. 3. 4. What are the Frackin' Odds...
Steal [***] yourself 4 the binary.

 

 

 

 

[***] (10-9-14) NOTE: 3 placements of the triple asterisk:

Heading, Lede and Steal. (Could read *Steele*.)

 

I may nail Wittgenstein to the door Erasmus[!]  Dimentionalism and TryUnity.

Three amigoes and the sine of the cross?   Hume or Confucius? In the name of the age of consumerism to fed up.  The branches(*4) of his(s)tory[!]  Pythagorian, Platonic, Judeo, Christian, Papal, Islam... Every age has a pater and mater. We all need a John. 

 

ITALICS (here)mightB the Paul Harvey... /(Peter Rabbit)  Re:history WholeEness.

(p."Feel the Love"?   / Q   r. R not, R2, R not, R2, R2, R not. )





 

 

At this point.

12-23-14
Googled how does one respectfully reference Muhammed [?]

(r) A. Temporal, B. Justice? , C. Reading In Progress[***]

Anti-semantics or...**

Parsing Semitics.
        -  /  -


Anti-Semantics.*


A. Not In My Name: Some Facebook funny-business brought the first link to my attention.
B. Facebook Empathy the 2nd insert.
C. True Torah expressions.
D. Not In My Name but whose?
-/-

* See D irony?
---


Kant we all get along without going to Hegel, or without Hume or Mill?
Thesis/Anti-Thesis/Sin-Thesis?***
---


** Work in Progress!  But before I get too fractal or tangent shall, the terminology is pertinent, what is the difference between insurgents and rhetorical terrorists?  They certainly Rn't strategic terrorists[?]  ALSO: Caution with the reading of semantics and semitics[!].  Rhetorically, why is anti-semitic a word while semitics a questionable word?  Could it be in the parsing of semitics?  Pardon the Escher-risks.
...


*** Not to Escher the Charlotte.[link is late insert not fully read]