Two Points

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

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

[Belated Jack Sparrow]

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

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

[More Maddow, Cain and Perry and more.]

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

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

Mission Accomplished

(AP photo see link)
A case of colors.
The Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the first source for Obama flag waving, but the lede is this: Obama Lauds Troops as Iraq War Winds Up. But under my ledership*, I must note that "Mr. Obama was careful not to declare victory." But Colonel Wilkerson and Rachel Maddow rally** my reasons for the lede here. "Hooah!"

* yes "ledership"(sic)
[link is leadership]
** link yet to be embedded (here)

[Speaking of battles and drafts, yet to be. (Ground Troops***)]

*** i.e. foot noted
[PEA CE OUT]


12-15-11 [*] "Hooha!" Not Exactly,
but close enough[!] (for gov'meant work)
[Nor black and white, but here are four perspectives. This is a deeply embedded line. It is about working together and leadership, not without ledership. The gist of it is in regards to the process of crafting good documents(let alone with imperfect people). As in what the heck is Obama doing, let alone Ron Wyden, or Rand Paul.(or Keynes/Hayek) The most important ingredient in these threads is the people, their understanding, and elections that matter. Issues bring the people to the table, and the ballot box.]
[No Horsing around.]
[*]Well maybe a little horsing around. But with respect to follow-up to Awkward Segue, and "four perspectives"(text today) I note that Norman Goldman addresses the NDAA, and was looking forward to Randy Rhodes giving her perspective, but David Sirota was sitting in.]

One of my readers

if there is more than one, is concerned about my communications.
Note Under Construction label. I agree, it is problematic at times and heavy in links to say the least.

Fair and Balanced News? is a link directing to The Daily Show.

That is called Ledership you can choose to follow.(The FOX NEWS motto versus Comedy Central as a news source.)

Debt is a Red Herring, is a statement and a link and spins from here:

Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:

1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy

The rest is context and more sources, which may merit more spin and unembedding here: segment,the club of association)

If you don't get it you maybe out foxed.

Nonetheless i will further comment on some of the above links.
Club: The Norman Goldman 4-Point Plan to Rescue America
Association Lawrence O'Donnell, Dennis Kucinich interview about Tea Party coordination.
More: Randi Rhodes interviews Ron Paul
Spin: It is hard to believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be outed by prank, as puppet of Tea Party Sugar Daddy David Koch.
And back to O'Reilly interview of Beck, it completes a circle. The democracy that means the so-called communists and fundamentalists Beck says will be at the table in Egypt will be practiced in some repects in America and there will be uprising against the crony capitalism of Governor (Mubarak)Walker.
[2-24-11 See Comment and added footnotes in the form of the last two links embedded.]
[Late find of Lawrence O'Donnell v. Beck: tangent out ]

The Big Dig

Ron Paul not so much.
Mitt Romney not so much.
Newt Gingrich, deeper.

Re-Group?

NOW, was that what I was talking about? Just teasing. Or "tough surrogate"?

Not having reviewed each of the links, nevertheless here are hints to my G'Ribble.
Under "Mitt Romney" there was a hint that the debate was "on a topic that he should dominate: the economy". Hence the "ledership" of The Big Dig? Investment in infrastructure anyone?

[Then there is the Laffer Curve of Regulation Job Growth. Which is my twist on not just the misuse of the curve, but the avoidance of* regulation. Regulation could be increasing jobs, if they were not avoiding the regulations.]

*the real laugher is in the "willing to report" and the needless "math genious".

[Coffee Party / Organizing Wall Street: De Calf anyone?]

Health Reform?

[UPDATE 8-21-09
Bernie Sanders w/ Ron Reagan
Maddow on Grassley
And me on Maria Cantwell facebook wall.
(see comments there & below)]

Sic Democrats Rachel Maddow
RX Dylan Ratigan
Alternatives Ratigan
Obama double think
Weiner v. Whiners Morning Joe

[A reminder.] Obama weekly 7-18-09.
[8-19-09 UPDATE: We Got Ed!] Ed Schultz

Pink Floyd

Post e. g.
Shades of Plato.
Knot too Cave. 
Lost ^ in Translation.

^ trans-something/not mogrify labelism
[The E Ron Crisis.]

From the bottomlineup!
tergiversate/Di-spencer with/the wall/social Darwinism.

BFT:(back from tangent^)
In the "corporations are people" and "government is bad" absolutist field, Kant we see that death to a country(read that the ideal of the name) is not death to a people(except if change is the enemy)^^.  The act of saying/wiping any name off the map, does not mean people die, unless people die.  Changing or wiping off a name is not an existential threat.  Anymore than American describes a people, or Zion is a race or state.  This can be seen in the poll(I speculate), that Iranians might hate America, but be more favorable to the people and other principles.  It might also be seen in the take on Israel from True Torah Jews.  But change is a threat to a part of us all.  Even the name Zion has geographical and metaphysical branches.(Castle/Dry Land/Brook)    

^^  context is everything and Mani-Hegelism; like might means maybe, and duality does not mean to exclude. 

(too the moon!)
[Supply and Demand Myth]  Supply more money and demand will increase.  Oops that was too Economic. Demand must come from the bottom up, that is how the money gets created.  Ironically or Mani-Hegelianistically answers don't come from above.  The slippery-slope or domino theory are about the set up and playing the game, not the slippery game and knocking it all down.