FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR

2-12-13 See*FP3*: ^
(b.s.) "stay+course" Who Are They Calling Elitist?, It's Obama's Turn, Spare the Rodney!, PHASE II: We need some movement! , FP?  Stay the Comity of Course , Are We "IN" Yet?, Stay the Comity* What's going on? , I'm not a lawyer but..., Out of Line? "Hogwash", *knot*, ...what about the damage to your Presidency?,  The other ground game..., Tony Baloney, Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , Off the Cuff?, GO OBAMA!*(note2) Weeeee! or Fb?

(b.s.) "navigate"  Fine Tuning. OW2*3, Borrowed Comment!, All Politics is Local? , Try Angle,C-weeeee*, I Told You So.yeah(sc)right, Two Clever by One Third? , ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years, Unity '08 (pOW), Local Content , LeftyBlog? , Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm, **

Note: problematic to LABEL at this time.[[?]] [^^] 
* (sc) [F&progress?]or *knot*
** note on progress in regard to this blog 'n case studies re:CAD) (fn)

(fn) TBA? CAD (Culturally Aided Design), CAD (2 out of 3 be bad), CAD (To be or not 3d), State of Politics, "you people..."? 

^ see more than one level of problematic aster risking and design.  Which should be revisited from the top line down, with focus on Labels, all annotations marks, PAGES and *FN* heading, and TBA laters.

[^^] 2-13-13 [Do I have to return to *legend*
[!] = pun, satire, etc.  [[?]] could mean later question mark inserted. Of course most puns are a matter of timing and sometime anachronistic.  
BUT BACK TO TODAY'S (FP4) Here: Not that I intended to hit(A.) on (B.) the anachronism.
(b.s.) "articulated+bus"= A. NO JOKE , B. UPDATE ONLY? KNOT[!]  [**] {L}

Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)

It's Obama's Turn

[Keep the Change(scroll down)]

Of course.
Stay the course.
The private* sector is fine
verse US economic turn around.
[Hardball Metaphor.  Making the case.***]

* E. G. Private Equity Government
(The nuts and bolts?  If Romney cannot understand that the economy has turned around, then what will happen when he turns it around.)
[Ouch ! ]
[Politics Nation ? ]
[Whip Republicans with Reagan and Clinton!]
Thom Hartmann?
Word of tomorrow?  Pernicious.**
[Coffee Table This! The Fifth Element.]

6-10-12 Keep the Change!
Yes this is a bumper sticker for Obama!  Though the links may be a bumper sticker for Clinton or nuance.  Not that I have fully read them yet, I will try to stay the course, not to mention other threads.

6-11-12
Inconvenient Try-Angle !
NOW w/ Corny Copy Ah. "Mind the Gaffe(added 6-13)": "food fight"



Verse us Tony TruthyahKnow.

** anachronism approved:  "Perspective" was Norman Goldman's word of the day(Thursday). "Scale" was my suggestion(for Friday), and "pernicious" was my word for Monday.

6-12-12
Curb Your Enthusiasm !
[Duct Tape?  Goose Pate!]
[(Middle - Name / N SC ?)]
[ Bubble Up]

6-13-12
Jeb Bush: Walk Back ?
(Hardball)
*** link(s) added
McCain sabotage.
NOW "Picking up the Tab".

6-14-12
Keep the Change!
"Different Visions" NOW!
Past is prologue or (unpassed)Middle - Name.(Scroll-up)

Happy Birthday to us!
The Dickens We Say!
Better to look back than go back!
Preemptive Comment this AM:  Obama battles for Fiscal Reality!
Geitner is speaking on Andrea Mitchell Reports.
Andrea Mitchell pulls Geitner's leg on Romney, but he doesn't bite.

Romney wants to get it done.  He doesn't want to look back, he wants to Re-Right!  If we look back we will see his Re-Write. 
Overhang of Obamacare? 
It's coming back?
[Not to mention "No New Taxes"!  Old taxes will do fine.]
Segue: Presidents Speech to be inserted later.
[Thom Hartmann Couples Counseling/Next President will take credit for "breaking up" better economy.] Talk is cheap?

FOOTNOTES (Janurary 2013) PAGE ONE

THIS IS THE FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE !!!
...FOR JANUARY 2013!
Begun 1-3-13(appropriately)
[!] punctuation = irony/sarcasm/pun
(now to scroll up or down...that is the question) (fn2)
(fn3) anachronistic (b.s.) blog search 1-3-13 "me me"(sc)
"but seriously" Killer Ad from Killer Group(sc)
Out Foxed? ...knot!(fn4)
--- --- ---
1-3-13 [^] Clog Alert!  For later parsing the (b.s.) of Clog and Clogs, but now for the "Rodney".
Stay the Comity of Course (sc*) , P.M. , Spare the Rodney! , #1 Discipline - Philosophy , Give an inch, Take a mile.
*ouch :  Stay the Comity of Course / Ctrl F (SC) (spare me: fn2)

1-4-13: [p.s. on (fn) (b.s.)]  Pop Yogurt[!], Now this is the ticket., A Revolution?, A wonder..., Where everyone needs to read... 

1-4-13 (fn) date noted  Pre-Capitalization   i.e. posted Friday for Sat.

1-5-13 Try-Mentionalism ?[!]   Normal post/time stamp.
" You know ": by Stiob?!?, I'm not saying..., Flip-Flop, Nuance, Mitt-Flop, The Other Debates,  FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012, Dimentionalism(sic)(sc), Frackin' Trickle Down(sc),  Bridging the English Channel(sc)?
(sc) scroll click anomoly (swift creak?)
I Ron Knee (Iron ne) of Progress.


1-7-13 Punchline?  Level Three. Last Resorts?

1-8-13 (1) Change of Tune?  See this heading! (fn)HAPPY NEW YEAR[!]
RE:TITLED THIS PAGE
(1) Fearnauts , Pre-Capitalization , December FOOTNOTES 2.0 , December 3G FOOTNOTES, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger" , Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. , Turning the Page (2.0) , Turning the page (On Humor)? , THE COUNCIL OF NICE , ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] 

1-11-13 CapTenseLog (English+only)? Not found under Ctrl F "as is", i.e. interesting Al Gore Rhythm

http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2003/02/exercise-lie-or-confusion-original-of.html , UPDATE ONLY? ,

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)** , Comprehensive English or Reform Immigration? , Axe not what you can , 

FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012 ***INTENIONS  SNAP , Fear and Running , V for Victim , Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels , QCON and Flip-Flop: AN IRAN OUT , Flip-Flopper-Crafting

1-14-13 UnTense?  (*) before I go all footnutty... [2]  {un in ten did undid but 90 =uncap brackets (qwerty CAP'd or De-bubba upped?}

1-16-13 Ouch.  Grid Irony and Tour de'F(LA)?  Or should I say Off Law?[1]

= = = 
1-18-13  SoDo Amalgam  /Post-PAGES: FC, TBA/\  (bs): The Real B. S. of the F. C., FC "Hammer", In "F"n able?, QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL (may he ... live strong and prosper)

Stay the Comity of Course

I think the president’s address could be summarized by a comparison I made the day before, but which Senator McCain reminded me of in his call for comity after the speech and which he spelled out so as not to be confused with comedy. The Senator made a reference to bygone days of cooperation across the aisle, and a plea almost of why can’t we just get along. The day before a thought had crossed my mind, that Bush is probably a cross between Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield, but you just take out the first names. Senator McCain expects that we should just get along, while Bush just gets no respect. That will be very difficult if Bush thinks he is King and we are expected to stay the course through the Dangerfield.

Are We "IN" Yet?

Can you hear me now?

Are we there yet?

Or is there more of the same? ("catastrophic success"}

The president's problems are "IN", and if it is only a choice of black or white, us or them, they must be either INcompetence * or INtentional! Is a third option there?
Oh yeah, stay the course and look back later, and when we have more to face, stay the course and look back later.

* * Why New Orleans is in deep water.[by Molly Ivans]

[My personal note] is that we really need someone to simultaneously kick butt and filter the memos or whatever is not being read to the Captain or whoever is in charge. Meanwhile if we cannot point fingers and fix things at the same time, how can we hurry into a decision on a Supreme Court Associate Justice now Chief Justice nominee? How can we depend on due diligence in that decision while we find so few holding the President accountable? All I am saying is that given the president's catastrophic successes do we really have confidence in his ability let alone meaning in making any decisions?

Spare the Rodney!

"I get no respect"
That is what the troops can say.
But who also gets no respect?

To put it plainly, lawyers and politicians have been the butt of jokes for quite some time, but it should be noted that "we the people" are the real bottom line.

What does this have to do with the issue of supporting troops? Talk is cheap, lives are dear. Law and politics should have the highest priority because of this connection. And that was not even where I started out on this course. My intention was to show that when all is said and done it matters who is in charge. So even behind what some say, what they do will be different. Context is always important, who says what is also important, but who is leading and who can follow it is the key.

It is too much to ask that those that disagree just shut up, but that seems what some are doing, without having the guts to even stay the course of saying it.

The point I can't put too plainly is that whatever is said, the context of who said it is important but that even different players taking the same course could do a better job, but it could be more important avoiding them.
[update beating around the job]

PHASE II: We need some movement!

Here is a look at the Middle East conflict through the filter of Bush,
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.

--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.

---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.

Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.

---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners

Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...

THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.

His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?

Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.

Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.

* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.

Stay the Comity

Of Course :
Click Here
Don't Click Here[**]
Foot[*] Note: Faux News
[*]GO HERE
[More Course Work.]
[**]just burying the lead (but really see [*])
[Or is it WMD, weapon of mis-direction.]

I'm not a lawyer but...

my post on Lt. Watada's "Unbecoming" Mistrial seems to have gotten to a point that others seem to run around. [Breaking Related News * ]

Here is the crux of the matter:
"...the military judge, said the case could end in a mistrial if Watada’s lawyers refused to let the defendant answer the judge’s questions about potential inconsistencies with a "stipulation of fact" that Watada agreed to before the trial began. "

"The defense has consistently tried to call into question the legality of the war, because Watada said the war is illegal and a command to fight in Iraq is also illegal. But the judge has said the argument over the legality of the war is not a matter that can be settled in military court." *

Note that a crux must have two lines. It seems that the case cannot proceed under the "stipulation of fact" that the prosecution prepared and the defendant agreed to, yet the judge felt had inconsistencies that he expected the defendant to clear up and was not for the court to decide.

Later reports seem to confirm this thinking even without necessarily getting to that point so easily. That's what I am here for, even if an occasional misspelling or misthinking is occasionally caught. At least it is not as bad as the misjudgement that brought us here. Not that there will not be calls to stay the course.

By the way, is that not another error or actually what we should be doing? I may not be much for grammar and neither is "The Decider", but what we seem to have here is a missing preposition. We have never been on a course but it must be stayed. It may be a "Catch 22" or the "8th Wonder" but there is often a missing link and sometimes you have to follow them.

* [IMPEACHMENT EFFORT: see link go to February 1oth on calendar]
In my view, this is where the matter lies.

What's going on?

Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.

But enough of the usual stuff.

Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:

Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal

Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]

Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!

Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.

One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001

Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.

And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]

In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.

[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?

Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]

These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.

So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?

Two more sources - in their defense?

Out of Line? "Hogwash"

Cheney with Wolf Blitzer is on course. McCain and Cheney must stay the course so that the rest have a line to hit and run from. [The Situation Room]

[submitted from an email exhange]

... looking into the matter more fully myself. [Watch Cheney's response to questions about his daughter] I'm afraid I can't characterize the players the way others would.

[[ I "fundamentally disagree" with Cheney, and agree with Wolf that it was a "reasonable, fair question." It was a poorly framed question ending with, "Do you want to respond to that?" Cheney replied: "No". And before Wolfe could rephrase or follow up, Cheney interupted him with his response which I firmly believe was out of line. ]] *

On the whole issue of fair play I agree with your so called "naive" view but it seems more to my point, which I won't jab at again. [but the quote was from "Focus on the Family"]

The whole "Situation Room" is suspect in my book for having any of the Cheney's on. It must be for ratings or to serve the purpose of media whipping boy.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/30/lynne-cheneys-slapdown/

The old saying "if you can't stand the heat" sure takes on new meaning these days. http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/ifyoucantsta.html
When it comes to an interview we should all be served.

By the way, from the transcript p.6 (third from last paragraph): "Well, Wolf. If the history books were written by people who are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago." This is some piece of rhetoric which if it says anything seems to endorse my theory on the "Situation Room" if not that others could and should be in "the kitchen".

Roger

P.S. Did I start this? Sorry. Really, remind me.

* The bracketed section was inserted last as I seemed to be less than straghtforward in that area. Then I decided to read the whole transcipt but could not. It was out of line 2 1/2 pages into the 9 1/2 page PDF. It is a shame that this distracted from what was more of the same.

[ A full read of the transcipt seems to support this surmise, and today even the senior Bush has joined the chorus about the media being "out of line"(in other words)]

October Surprise? Changing "Staying the Course".

Is this the October Surprise? Bush has changed the words he will use to stay the course.

Let us hope that things don't get any worse or better, depending on whether you are planning the "October Suprise"

Hint: The suprise is buried in the planning, but they won't say it.

...what about the damage to your Presidency?

Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq

Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".

Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.

Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.

On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:

Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.

I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.

THE GAME

SEE STAY THE COURSE or
HELP NAVIGATION
See Bottom Line there.
[UPDATE same day]

[5-15-08: Review - The Game is not supposed to be taken lightly, nor always meant a reference to Hard Work required of the readers. The troops are the ones that politics has bearing on most, and the reference to the media troops of ABC seems to take more credit for hard work than they actually do at times.]

[4-17-09: Update Patients for Change reminds me of Sabbatical and other Reviews.]

The other ground game...

<*>

I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.

I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12

*  Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality?  OUCH.  I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least.  And while I might read more, I might not have more to say.  It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics.  BTW:  Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.  

OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.*** 

** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
***  To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.)   Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious.  Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing.  Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.  
    
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*

Welch Rare Bit?

The Cycle: Rep Peter Welch 3-5-14

Spoiler alert or Stay'n the Course:  Good Cop / Bad Cop / Rowbeau cop (*)?
I should not be so hard on Beach Boy McCain, as he serves the part of a bad cop, in order for Obama to have any stick for his bully pulpit. 

(*) Bully Pulpit Not for Pitbulls

['n Ari Melber Toast!]

3-20-14:   ^ too dig stochastic rhetoric? [Godwin/s blog search? Pare a digM, Pair a docs. ] [Stock Home Vaccine?] ** it also might be RealDiploma$y[to pu(i)n on c or k?]

9/11 Shade of the Bush

General Douglas MacArthur quoted an old military ballad:
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

Now it seems that:
Good Generals never lie * , they just shade away.

My point is clear. Generals have a job to do. They take orders. Congress has a job to do. They declare war and fund government. If the General gives testimony, is he not sworn in? Apparently not. (This expert was ejected for suggesting it yesterday.) This does not mean that General Petreus lies or betrays us, he is only apparently doing his job. Will congress? **

And on my earlier point: The surge has worked. That is easy for them to say, when they have not said what working means, and only count "hard work". It was supposed to be political and the report was to measure it's success. There has been little political success ***, unless you count changing the subject from exit to drawdown. So it has been so successful, will we stay the course **** till next summer?

And we are quibbling over words and the honor of a general? Tough! If he can't stand the heat... Not to mention, the attention that MoveOn must generate, if people will read the lines, that the general has generated, one need not even read between the lines.

* & ** embedded recommended reads
*** this link notes 2006 as "Year of Transition".
**** speaking of time

Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart

It is with no schadenfreude that

I note the "passing" of Andrew Breitbart.

Nor to stay the course.

News Feed:

CNN,

NPR,

New York Times.

He probably did change the face of journalism.

I am not sure how that works, but the above image*** was linked to the "face" link.

Yesterday, David Bender interviewed former Senator Alan Simpson, who really tore into Rick Santorum and the Stephenie Miller Show. I hope** that was not what put the "Journalist"* over the top. I regret putting any meaning into what were hopefully "natural causes", not that they are any better than the best intentions sometimes. His dreams or nightmares will live on.

*3-2-12 BS added...(i.e. blog search)

** and asterisks: I hope "hope" is not a humor. "I'm just" reporting. (A wisecrack on sayings.)

*** apparently it may be how "Google" can work for some.(note image replaced below)

4A: not to pun on a death but there are categories of writing and communicating. Why do you think they have wakes?^^

3-2-12(continued): In fact I think I will take it back a notch.

See "face" change. The original "Google"^.

Note: Face moved and replaced.

(see "image"*** switch)

RIP: Respect in Place (Face adjustment)

^ unembedded from Big Journalism today

^^ link added post post

[3-8-12 Update: It certainly was my first reaction that Breitbart died of Righteous Indignation, but not in so many words. I did not even know he wrote the book, that I know of. But it could have slipped through my safety net.]

GO OBAMA!

GO US! As in "We" .
Go Ed!
Rachel? (Stopping the tape...)
I guess I took Randi Rhodes' advice, not to watch the talking heads or whatshe calls 'em. Now I am behind the curve as to the reaction that seems a bit off.
I have yet to hear much about his Gulf Restoration Project. Maybe because we need a media restoration project. Meanwhile...
Robert Reich
Marc Ambinder
Think Progress
Center for American Progress
NPR
Politico
The White House
[Good question?]*
I think the president was very fair and balanced. A bit of Get'r done, and a bit of stay the course.

* Whitehouse YouTube raised interesting question regarding the Oil Spill Recovery Institute. Re: R&D (TED) [UPDATE 6-18-10 links corrected(in *) and added]