By Buy[!]
Not just to be cute, but a recent poll shows the public priorities are Jobs over Cuts in spending,
as suggested by Ryan Grimm in the Job #1 segment of Rev. Al Sharpton's MSNBC show*.
Sea-U Later.
This almost makes a documentary of a mocumentary. There was the "domino theory" and "love it or leave it"... but Vietnam and Outsourcing have put a whole new spin on such slogans. I think that Water World and the Pacific Gyre would just about unspin and recreate the Libertarian Elba.
*(7 to 8 minute mark)
[Note that the narrative holds.]
[Inserted between comments 1 & 2:Retracing the anachronism of this post...the original inspirations was a mixed label/metaphor(yet to be found), that morphs the party of cuts, with the T-Party.
(Inserted post comment 2)Let alone the QE2 pun and the Hayek/Keynes Canard lines or anchors. Post c3- Or Bouts.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query T-Party. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query T-Party. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Nailed It! T-point Oh!
Tangent or Tetrahedron:
Not T-Rx or Too point Oh, but my segue from Jon Stewart and the T-Party to the Peas** Party, or the adult in the White House, also is symbolized in the 3* part response that is just the beginning of the Iron Chef.
*by 3, I mean, the joint session, the follow up and the long term, as represented in presentations of the Obama plan
** or Broccoli[!]
[Another T: Tangent or Tax issue see ** there ]
[BTW: It's MAD, I mean "math", but it is this simple. From T-boned to L-boned(an accidental vehicle metaphor) the Lincoln Labor / Capital reference is pertinent in a "fair and balanced" tax structure -- i.e. treat capital gains as income.]
[Not to make light of food or metaphors, but there may be something to the Cain and able of 9-9-9. The number may not be important or that it is the flip-flop of 6-6-6. but that there is nothing wrong with a flat tax, if there are flat, and sufficient but limited deductions and exemptions, as well as a sufficient safety net. Note no mention of capital gains which I read as considered income.]
Not T-Rx or Too point Oh, but my segue from Jon Stewart and the T-Party to the Peas** Party, or the adult in the White House, also is symbolized in the 3* part response that is just the beginning of the Iron Chef.
*by 3, I mean, the joint session, the follow up and the long term, as represented in presentations of the Obama plan
** or Broccoli[!]
[Another T: Tangent or Tax issue see ** there ]
[BTW: It's MAD, I mean "math", but it is this simple. From T-boned to L-boned(an accidental vehicle metaphor) the Lincoln Labor / Capital reference is pertinent in a "fair and balanced" tax structure -- i.e. treat capital gains as income.]
[Not to make light of food or metaphors, but there may be something to the Cain and able of 9-9-9. The number may not be important or that it is the flip-flop of 6-6-6. but that there is nothing wrong with a flat tax, if there are flat, and sufficient but limited deductions and exemptions, as well as a sufficient safety net. Note no mention of capital gains which I read as considered income.]
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
...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.
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.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Follow-up
And post insert.[Update]
Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform
Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.
A calling of Blues and Jazz?
Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.
P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.
[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]
[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels
[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]
*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?
Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform
Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.
A calling of Blues and Jazz?
Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.
P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.
[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]
[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels
[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]
*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Truth Tellers
Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.
That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.
Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.
*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)
**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]
That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.
Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.
*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)
**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]
Thursday, August 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES PAGE TWO AUGUST 2013
8-1-13:"up date"(sc)(b.s.)(1)Connecting
the Dots(sc), Culture
War (2)(a), Way,
Too Point Oh?(sc), Noble,
No Bell, Nobel(sc), Congress-
- to boldly go..., Everything
is on the Table!.
8-5-13: (b.s.) a.Pun it?, b.Trilemmas and Cultural Calculus, c.Enough Smirking!, d.Dark Matter, Anti-Matter, e. Careful Consideration , f. , g. , h. Con Fluence... , i.Knot Even , j., k.Carpe Diem!, l.Certain Sources..., m. , N .by Stiob?!?, o., P.Middle C? , Q. / [T-Row Price?]
8-9-13 (37) "dealing with" (MSNBC "All IN" & Thomas Roberts) (P.S. re:Bromance)
8-20-13 Boatload of FP needed. 4. a C Sick? , b , c , d , e , f , G , h , i Square This! j , k , 5. a, b, c by Stiob?!? - 6. a, b() Nailed It! T-point Oh! , c CU T-party, d , e , f, g , h Square This! , ... q Tea Party Down Grade
8-21-13 Miranda Lefts? 1. a. b. c. d. / 2. A. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.
8-22-13: FC / changey thing to reads.
8-26-13 Lemon Ship may be the best name for the dynamic metaphor as I sort out how it has evolved. Does it stem from partisan ship? But it does refer to concentrates and dilutions.
8-27-13 Knot so Out of the Blue?
8-28-13: A Black and White Chat, that is the ticket.(FP3)
8-5-13: (b.s.) a.Pun it?, b.Trilemmas and Cultural Calculus, c.Enough Smirking!, d.Dark Matter, Anti-Matter, e. Careful Consideration , f. , g. , h. Con Fluence... , i.Knot Even , j., k.Carpe Diem!, l.Certain Sources..., m. , N .by Stiob?!?, o., P.Middle C? , Q. / [T-Row Price?]
8-9-13 (37) "dealing with" (MSNBC "All IN" & Thomas Roberts) (P.S. re:Bromance)
8-20-13 Boatload of FP needed. 4. a C Sick? , b , c , d , e , f , G , h , i Square This! j , k , 5. a, b, c by Stiob?!? - 6. a, b() Nailed It! T-point Oh! , c CU T-party, d , e , f, g , h Square This! , ... q Tea Party Down Grade
8-21-13 Miranda Lefts? 1. a. b. c. d. / 2. A. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.
8-22-13: FC / changey thing to reads.
8-26-13 Lemon Ship may be the best name for the dynamic metaphor as I sort out how it has evolved. Does it stem from partisan ship? But it does refer to concentrates and dilutions.
8-27-13 Knot so Out of the Blue?
8-28-13: A Black and White Chat, that is the ticket.(FP3)
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.
Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?
Why OWS is bigger...
[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]
[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]
[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.
Bright Bart and Big Government?
Why OWS is bigger...
Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.Whine and G's?
On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).Really?
What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.Not your grandfather's "traditional".
This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coastReally?
Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.
[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]
[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]
[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Choice
Forward or Back.
Speaking of back, I know that Dorothy was not the one with the Tea Party, but Alice had the preemptive dream not to be stuck on a party theme.
Meanwhile Ed Schultz made some interesting progress, and Norman Goldman covers the same issue or Harry Reed calling out Obama. Well... not exactly. My preemptive analysis is that maybe it is good cop, bad cop routine, with several caveats. They aren't cops, they aren't just good or bad, and they aren't even the same branch of government. When it come to courage and pragmatism there is a difference between legislating and administering, and how their leadership is navigated, not to mention running the national or states governments, and their party navigations. A caller soon after with Ed, suggested that this was orchestrated, well... maybe. Who let the dogs out. Woof, woof. They are not dogs* either, but they are giving license to each other and are tugging on our leashes.
*Actually there are blue dogs, yellow dogs and maybe green or purple dogs.
[On the other hand, who knows? ...but comparing other countries debt concerns does not reflect their relative investment in infrastructure, social and jobs policies.]
Speaking of back, I know that Dorothy was not the one with the Tea Party, but Alice had the preemptive dream not to be stuck on a party theme.
Meanwhile Ed Schultz made some interesting progress, and Norman Goldman covers the same issue or Harry Reed calling out Obama. Well... not exactly. My preemptive analysis is that maybe it is good cop, bad cop routine, with several caveats. They aren't cops, they aren't just good or bad, and they aren't even the same branch of government. When it come to courage and pragmatism there is a difference between legislating and administering, and how their leadership is navigated, not to mention running the national or states governments, and their party navigations. A caller soon after with Ed, suggested that this was orchestrated, well... maybe. Who let the dogs out. Woof, woof. They are not dogs* either, but they are giving license to each other and are tugging on our leashes.
*Actually there are blue dogs, yellow dogs and maybe green or purple dogs.
[On the other hand, who knows? ...but comparing other countries debt concerns does not reflect their relative investment in infrastructure, social and jobs policies.]
Friday, July 29, 2005
ONE PARTY: HOLD THE LOCKSTEP!
Maybe things would not be so bad in a dictatorship. However, Plato thought about it and passed. The main problem being finding a good dictator or one benevolent to all. But maybe we should experiment with one party rule. The Republicans have done the latest research in this field and now that we know what does not work, except for those that want to trade charges about who is holding whose breath, we can breath a sigh of resignation and just have Democratic rule.
This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.
One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.
[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson
The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?
This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.
One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.
[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson
The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
QCON: TruthOut
Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]
Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.
While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.
Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).
The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.
Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]
Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!
As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.
It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.
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.]
Friday, September 05, 2008
Change (vs.) the Issues
Yes, I was not dreaming. John McCain did accept the nomination for President of the United States. Is he real yet? And yes. I did find that he did say: "I wasn't my own man anymore; I was my country's." So despite the story that this happened while he was a prisoner of war, as late as the last year, several reports to the contrary are out there. So it must be legitimate to ask what kind of change is he talking about?
In his speech he claimed: "I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us." So he actually changed after his internment, and it seems he fought his party, that needed change. Has he won yet? So he is a party man, who fights for a party. Has it changed or has he changed again? Remember he was his countries man at one point, but you know?* I think I'm going to get lost.
OK, maybe I am not the only one. Maybe McCain can tell us how we are lost, maybe: "We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington." For a pilot, I would think he should know which way history is, but I am not even sure what "do business" might mean. So, I turn back to look for change in his speech, and being a bit of a gambler, but not as much of a Maverick as McCain. I would lay a solid bet on McCain's one line: "Change is coming". But I would not bet, he knows how to get there. In fact, I believe he has shown "That's not change we can believe in."
* [I wonder if he even knows he is leading his party yet. But it should show in any change that may be appearing any day now. And as far as lost goes, I really almost detect some nuance in his words, but then I literally feel the flip-flop.]
In his speech he claimed: "I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us." So he actually changed after his internment, and it seems he fought his party, that needed change. Has he won yet? So he is a party man, who fights for a party. Has it changed or has he changed again? Remember he was his countries man at one point, but you know?* I think I'm going to get lost.
OK, maybe I am not the only one. Maybe McCain can tell us how we are lost, maybe: "We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington." For a pilot, I would think he should know which way history is, but I am not even sure what "do business" might mean. So, I turn back to look for change in his speech, and being a bit of a gambler, but not as much of a Maverick as McCain. I would lay a solid bet on McCain's one line: "Change is coming". But I would not bet, he knows how to get there. In fact, I believe he has shown "That's not change we can believe in."
* [I wonder if he even knows he is leading his party yet. But it should show in any change that may be appearing any day now. And as far as lost goes, I really almost detect some nuance in his words, but then I literally feel the flip-flop.]
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Now Dat's...
what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.
Here it is:
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)
NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.
Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]
NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.
Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.
BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.
*strains: on another thread elsewhere
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.
Here it is:
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)
NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.
Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]
NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.
Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.
BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.
*strains: on another thread elsewhere
Monday, September 19, 2011
Nailed it[!]
Jon Stewart roasts Wolf Blitzer's Network.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]
Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?
Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)
[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]
[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]
* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.
CAUTION: Cable News Network R. rated [?]
Or mabye Un-Rated is the proper rating for Comedy Central. As I was lost in pun, I transposed the networks. I had to Wiki CNN to sort its acronym. Is it still C for cable, or conservative?
Speaking of mixed messages or ratings, the T-party could have a whole new spin. Now I may have transposed my spin. Don't ask how that works. (except noting links: but that is another Tangent)
[BTW: if anyone can help me flip-flop a character[?], till that time [!] must suffice for sarcasm punctuation. BINGO! Not yet.]
[Speaking of nailing it. The president right now*, is probably eliciting some expletives. And I don't mean Geez U.S. (My apologies for the rhetorical/satirical escalation: it's a culture war**!)]
* inserted later
** now then regarding CW: also "class warfare card" almost simultaneously but... in regards to "Federal Income taxes" or "nothing", the rich are paying exactly the same as the poor on their first few dollars, as I am fairly certain that the rich are allowed the same deductions and exemptions in determining tax brackets. If they are not then that is a matter that could be adjusted.
Friday, February 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES FEBRUARY 2013
2-1-13 Trilemmas
and Cultural Calculus :
Fishkin's http://www.philosophy-of-education.org/uploads/papers2011/Bamfield.pdf, Trilemma http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/410-pol/pojman-outline.htm, 4M Try Lemmings,
in tent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma, Mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Trilemmas_in_economics,
... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/business/economy/11view.html?_r=0,
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Trilemmas_in_economics, ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox,
easy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma, at http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_chapter_01.htm,
least http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?s=16f6647f676b31bf8e738901daabc68a&threadid=1927,
loosely http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=tetrahedron+of+will,
drafting http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=math+is+next+,
un- http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=math+is+next,
M http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1,
bedding http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=godliness,
tan http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1#!/JohnHenryLG/posts/484801448229006?comment_id=5254201&offset=0&total_comments=13,
gent http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1#!/suzette.sommer.9/posts/4281975535675?comment_id=57783597&offset=0&total_comments=29 *,
shall http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/07/david-and-goliath.html,
2-4-13 *source or 4moolah 4 the platonic 4M.
2-4-13 Quoth the...
Brackets and the Debt Clock under the "birds"(sc)
not : (b.s pen+dull+em) a Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em (sc), b Failure is always (sc), c Go Left Young Man! , d Slippery Slope (sc).
else: (b.s. poe) Fair and Balanced... (sc)
2-5-13 Flack...Oh
and blame : War on Tea Party?
gaming. (b.s. share+n+angle) Mitt's BO*Son, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger", Try Lemmings, Bring It On!, Cautious Black Friday!!!!, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!, "FACT: References To Al Qaeda Were Removed To Protect National Security ...", War of the Skirts, The Hope'd4 Campaign, Who Let the Dogs Out?, Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S. .
2-11-13 Owe(b.s)= Post-Pyth, Post-Pyth, Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? (d'oh=sc),Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? / OW=?(under al gore rhythm of pyth)4 later search or earlier brackets ! (Ctrl F "hood")
2-12-13 update, *FP4*, *FP3*, LEGEND PAGE, Format Change , Updates
2-12-13 Carpe Diem! Seize the Day? Latin 4...
2-13-13 D-Day *seams* = pun on *sowing* seems to thread in Lincoln and Darwin's birthday. Further, I should let you work it "into the grand picture of how things work".(FP2)
2-14-13 SOTU label/[**] & subheading edit after Tea Kettle Sports[!]
TKS[!]: Fry/Pan{L} pun on gaming politics.(OW) you(sc) Hint: NCAA/Olypics/CAPitalization[!]
(b.s.)"PBMP" A., B.What the Beck? (sc), C. Follow-up and Flip-Flop (sc) D. Follow-up and Flip-Flop E. Proof of Process? F. Looking Back, and Moving On. (sc) G. Geometry of Purpose (sc) N F L [!] (F P too?)
2-15-13 HAPPY V-DAY! Note the anachronism of con sciousness & science.
2-18-13 Technical Difficulties! "Where": A. Follow-up (sc) , B. What Obama can't say. (sc), C. What the Beck? (sc) / "inter": Score Won... / "tubes": A. As the Inner Tubes (sc) , B. Table of Contents (Senator)
** "Rush"(pun) / "ah!": A. WTF?, B. The Hope, C. Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right. (sc)
"foundations": A. Science Fiction Writers, B. Four More Years!, C. Slash Segue (sc), D. Notes from Al-Qaeda .
2-19-13 Splitting Rails... to
"Share": Technical Difficulties!
"'n": HAPPY V-DAY!
"Angles.": Garry Wills "(c)atholicism" The Cycle
"Not ": (b.s.)"yogurt" C. Pop Yogurt[!]
"just": Harvard class on Tarantino.
"President's": ladders of opportunity
"pastime": Three Shed Monte
2-23-13: OW? Unspinning Charlotte! 6., 5.(Wills), 4.Future Bubble?, 3.(b.s.), 2., 1. Gnaught ? [FP2]
2-26-13 under(stands?) or PEG legs?
Preface to FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012, Simon says... , The History of B.S.,
What the Beck? BS-Table?
2-28-12 ...SCrolls: Lap Top? No Tab Let's. Krauthammer / Walsh (Breaking Bread?)(FP3)
Fishkin's http://www.philosophy-of-education.org/uploads/papers2011/Bamfield.pdf, Trilemma http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/410-pol/pojman-outline.htm, 4M Try Lemmings,
in tent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma, Mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Trilemmas_in_economics,
... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/business/economy/11view.html?_r=0,
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma#Trilemmas_in_economics, ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_paradox,
easy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma, at http://www.thelogician.net/3b_buddhist_illogic/3b_chapter_01.htm,
least http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?s=16f6647f676b31bf8e738901daabc68a&threadid=1927,
loosely http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=tetrahedron+of+will,
drafting http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=math+is+next+,
un- http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=math+is+next,
M http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1,
bedding http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=godliness,
tan http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1#!/JohnHenryLG/posts/484801448229006?comment_id=5254201&offset=0&total_comments=13,
gent http://www.facebook.com/roger.larson.58/timeline/2013/1#!/suzette.sommer.9/posts/4281975535675?comment_id=57783597&offset=0&total_comments=29 *,
shall http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/07/david-and-goliath.html,
2-4-13 *source or 4moolah 4 the platonic 4M.
2-4-13 Quoth the...
Brackets and the Debt Clock under the "birds"(sc)
not : (b.s pen+dull+em) a Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em (sc), b Failure is always (sc), c Go Left Young Man! , d Slippery Slope (sc).
else: (b.s. poe) Fair and Balanced... (sc)
2-5-13 Flack...Oh
and blame : War on Tea Party?
gaming. (b.s. share+n+angle) Mitt's BO*Son, BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger", Try Lemmings, Bring It On!, Cautious Black Friday!!!!, Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!, "FACT: References To Al Qaeda Were Removed To Protect National Security ...", War of the Skirts, The Hope'd4 Campaign, Who Let the Dogs Out?, Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S. .
2-11-13 Owe(b.s)= Post-Pyth, Post-Pyth, Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? (d'oh=sc),Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ? / OW=?(under al gore rhythm of pyth)4 later search or earlier brackets ! (Ctrl F "hood")
2-12-13 update, *FP4*, *FP3*, LEGEND PAGE, Format Change , Updates
2-12-13 Carpe Diem! Seize the Day? Latin 4...
2-13-13 D-Day *seams* = pun on *sowing* seems to thread in Lincoln and Darwin's birthday. Further, I should let you work it "into the grand picture of how things work".(FP2)
2-14-13 SOTU label/[**] & subheading edit after Tea Kettle Sports[!]
TKS[!]: Fry/Pan{L} pun on gaming politics.(OW) you(sc) Hint: NCAA/Olypics/CAPitalization[!]
(b.s.)"PBMP" A., B.What the Beck? (sc), C. Follow-up and Flip-Flop (sc) D. Follow-up and Flip-Flop E. Proof of Process? F. Looking Back, and Moving On. (sc) G. Geometry of Purpose (sc) N F L [!] (F P too?)
2-15-13 HAPPY V-DAY! Note the anachronism of con sciousness & science.
2-18-13 Technical Difficulties! "Where": A. Follow-up (sc) , B. What Obama can't say. (sc), C. What the Beck? (sc) / "inter": Score Won... / "tubes": A. As the Inner Tubes (sc) , B. Table of Contents (Senator)
** "Rush"(pun) / "ah!": A. WTF?, B. The Hope, C. Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right. (sc)
"foundations": A. Science Fiction Writers, B. Four More Years!, C. Slash Segue (sc), D. Notes from Al-Qaeda .
2-19-13 Splitting Rails... to
"Share": Technical Difficulties!
"'n": HAPPY V-DAY!
"Angles.": Garry Wills "(c)atholicism" The Cycle
"Not ": (b.s.)"yogurt" C. Pop Yogurt[!]
"just": Harvard class on Tarantino.
"President's": ladders of opportunity
"pastime": Three Shed Monte
2-23-13: OW? Unspinning Charlotte! 6., 5.(Wills), 4.Future Bubble?, 3.(b.s.), 2., 1. Gnaught ? [FP2]
2-26-13 under(stands?) or PEG legs?
Preface to FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012, Simon says... , The History of B.S.,
What the Beck? BS-Table?
2-28-12 ...SCrolls: Lap Top? No Tab Let's. Krauthammer / Walsh (Breaking Bread?)(FP3)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Swiftboating of McCain?
As I pointed out the term needs adjustment.
And I "really" dislike the headline US News and World Report uses:
New York Times Drops Bomb On McCain and forgotten?
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY by The Drudge Report.
Not that I have fully read these, but this:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk is worth the read and fits in with the image management that needs exposure.
Hence the term Swiftboating should not be used as that was a campaign of misinformation, while FlipFlopperKrafting provides double exposure.
[O'Reilly "Lynching Party" is really a Fox Hunt. Media Matters is Hard Work]
[2-22-08 Flip-Flopper-Crafting? I still like the "K". But I will amend the comment to note that often headlines are sensational, yet The New York Times understated the issues "For McCain..."
And I "really" dislike the headline US News and World Report uses:
New York Times Drops Bomb On McCain and forgotten?
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY by The Drudge Report.
Not that I have fully read these, but this:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk is worth the read and fits in with the image management that needs exposure.
Hence the term Swiftboating should not be used as that was a campaign of misinformation, while FlipFlopperKrafting provides double exposure.
[O'Reilly "Lynching Party" is really a Fox Hunt. Media Matters is Hard Work]
[2-22-08 Flip-Flopper-Crafting? I still like the "K". But I will amend the comment to note that often headlines are sensational, yet The New York Times understated the issues "For McCain..."
“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter," said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.and a more direct headline "No Public Funds for McCain" from Politico has an interesting bottom line that is well summarized in the last few paragraphs.
But even if the commission were meeting, one must wonder if the panel -- an organization that decided the cost of field organizers doesn’t need to be added to the overall cost of winning a state primary -- would tell the Republican Party that its nominee can’t slip through a newly carved loophole and arm himself for battle against a significantly better funded and unrestricted Democratic nominee.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)