Oh, what a web...

we weave when first we misattribute. "sic"*

But here(see footnotes) is the tangle thanks to Thom Hartmann.**

*not to mention misquote or evolve
** more tangle (thanks to embedded hyperlinks)

[footnotes: Michael Hudson, Six Minutes, Democracy Now]

[More run off or tangle courtesy of "google"(and Ctrl Find)and Thom Hartmann caller.]

[Speaking timing*** and that was another thread, but spins off of Cato and Henry George, or is it Tucker "George Will" Carlson.]

*** apologies for deep or rather unexpressed and anachronistic footnotes and 4A.

[subset of sovereignty or tangle]

Genre Clash

or Mutation?

FOK'rs (Friends of Keith'rs) were noted on the...STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW, along with a rumor from above. Un...like the fabled "unexpressed thought".*





* not to make fun of dog killers, only the forum of Tucker's in second video
[and I did not mean to rhyme]
[and for "some people", genre refers to the medium(& mutation) of the mess age.]
[for others...]
[ and back to the future...express]***

*** this is an overpass to the "turn" spike [With the parsing of the great genre in Keith, the rise of the Young Turks, Matthews is the Oddball in my book. Too cute by half, but not these haves.

[Afternoon update, from my Oddball book, aka Edutainment and speculation, from Ed Schultz the President Obama's 5 year "in non-security, discretionary spending" budget freeze: actually the speculation is mine that many things can be on the table as security and many others are not as discretionary. But it may be a Peter, Paul and Robin' hood scenario. AKA a spin on our past presidents. But seriously or rather flippantly, the book is also about false equivalents. Rachel is no Jon Stewart, Olbermann is no Glenn Beck, Matthews is no "fair and balanced", and Ed Schultz is no Rush, though he does get flush at times. It is about the dialogue, even if it is grand sitting at times.]
[And an earlier crack at the table...aka footnotes of pre-ignition.**]

** and this is an achronistic asterisk i.e. just have to make sure that there are three, and to note that the Mutation link and all that follows was based on only seeing the first few minutes of The Daily Show. [Achronistic is timely in a third way as the third asterisk is placed earlier and regards another post. Not this one though. (At least in toto and one sitting.)]
[Parting asterisks of "past presidents" I like Teddy. Oh Bear Man?]

[1-28-11 Update]

A picture's worth 1000 words?

[Italics: Edited next day.]What are actions?
These are rhetorical question(s). Ones which are only the beginning of the dialogue, not that I will extend or finish it. But in relation to the issue of rhetoric and politics and the meaning of words, it might be kept in mind, that if it is so,[**] then what does a symbol or icon say that the politician can't for whatever reason say? And in many cases the participants and our freedoms, in relation to the dialogue and the media only confound this rhetoric or meaning as to the various positions of responsibility or fields of endeavor(arts if you will) they cover.

[AND...How many words is a link worth? Let alone a leap*? I say this in regards to the hopeful turning point, in regards to this walk-back. Not that I have anything to walk back, but in context to consideration of a possible change in regards to the aforementioned arts.]

* let alone a name: Tucker? But actually my intent was to note: "the value of the unexpressed thought" under "mixing it up."[see second video: Mediaite]
[Main context? Irony of what counts.]

[And I don't mean to find reason in everything, but the words and intent embedded (and parsed and paraphrased)here are for all our consideration.]

[**] the pictures worth
[1-12-11 In relation to edited above: President Obama has been accused of using violent language in regards to, in a knife fight bringing a gun. It was a metaphor. We are not in knife fights. It is even a poor metaphor. But when that causes their opponent to use stronger language, that tie in issues, misplace facts and use imagages. Then they are responsible for even worse metaphor. That does not mean it will be easy to change things. Using the original to make matters worse, is oddly justified, but only by way of extending the metaphor and being claimed victim of it and feeling their freedoms threatened. Some people apparently can't handle extending metaphors, and they are not even always meant to be extended. But again it seems that by extending them, they intend to break the original metaphor, for the battle of our ideas.]

In the begining

was the word
The word* was Exceptionalism.
So it goes.[**]
But that depends on what your definition of "it" is. I am just saying, it all depends on what your definition of "exceptionalism" is.
We are the greatest! But it depends on what your definition of "greatest" is. And so it stops for some or goes round and round.

Reality aside...a definitive follow up.
Speaking of mixing it up. "Why can't the president acknowledge the value of an unexpressed thought? Thank You Tucker Carlson on FOX!
P.S. Vikings over Vick!

[*] Tumulty
[**] see the irony of origins in the French connection.
[Re: Niching a will to labels or change?]

Update: "Off The Cliff"

Maybe we are on a ledge now.
But a few things are clearer including fundamentals, except where what Obama said is anything like what McCain said.
[BONUS UPDATE[*]: Organizing For America And More]

In that vein (of the lead update) I append this economic perspective:

And throw out this idea to be reality checked:
a cap in the derivative process.

It seems that the real problem in the financial crisis was the packaging of investments (derivatives) that made them an increasing gamble and risk and further blew up the bubble. This may have already been addressed with new regulation and management, I am not sure. (It still seems a potential for ponzi or pyramid scheme, which furthers government interdependence. But with a clearer understanding of the Cap and Trade for Carbon emissions, maybe this could work for other issues and would have an impacted in guiding our values back to people rather than profits and away from a reliance on blowing things.

While this may be an example of too creative thinking, and too similar to the way I began this dialogue, I hope someone can grasp any threads which they might pull or weave for us. On the other hand a particular part of the Reich piece points to my need for better understanding of an impact. In the area of education reform and Obamanomics: "It cuts subsidies to banks participating in the student-loan program, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did, and it provides some funds for early childhood education." But I guess this just demonstrates the bottom up and balanced approach that in the context of the college tax credits and pell grant increases are necessary. (therefore not "on the other hand")

For a short allegory (enticing heading aside) on how we are all in this together, I just updated:(see ledge now: under construction) (3-18-09)
Since I have possibly dispelled my own concern regarding the one possible glitch in Obamanomics, I leave with another to dispel or verify. How is it that there can be a concern for imagined trickle-down opportunity being dashed by taxes, when business expenses are not really on the table? Food for thought? Or the recycler?

P.S. For a more deeply embedded compendium of sorts, where I picked on Chris Matthews (In an aside) and picked up on Jon Stewart(FNBC). And as far a fundamentals of McCain and Obama it is in the media that the difference lies as much as earmarks when it comes to comparing apples and oranges or pork and ham where we have a rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.

[And this addendum: Go Stephanie Miller! Thanks for being on CNN to balance Tucker'd out. And it is more than just funny, but that I have only stumbled on this now, and it is deeper and more on message than just video or Unsatire as the world evolves.]

[*] CORRECTION: These are not bonus links. At least the first is right on target at the fundamental difference: focus, fix and the press.

[Update 3-20-09: I never really did read Off The Cliff but used it as an allegorical leap, but here is a good point which it may have taken me some time to get to in the link I had.]

Who started it?

Bill Bennett asks why would the Democrats attack Bush on his strength,[update 10-31-11 *] his war on terrorism?

Release of the NIE was bad for everybody, he claims. That is the point. Intelligence is on the Democrats side, and they want it locked up.

Matt Lauer did a surprisingly good job countering most points that Bennett made including pointing out that Bush has been on the offensive, and Bennett served his cake and ate it too, by excusing that as becuase it is Bush's strength.

Well, if it is their strength, just who is Bennett waving the white flag to (maybe a semafore, when he persists that "he brought it up" meaning Clinton started it? Is he talking to those he claims didn't blaim Clinton, didn't blame Bush or did blame the CIA? And who is he sending the message to, when he brings the war on terrorism back to Iraq, but he hopes that "chasing after Clinton on the world stage... is over"?

We must keep the truth out there, on the media stage. They will continue to misread it. Who will keep it up?

Who will be fearless? [Segue in closing] Special thanks to Stephanie Miller for waking me up (and my snooze alarm) and for having Arianna Huffington on, not that the latter is what got me started, but we are finally on the same page and in a growing choir.

In contrast or no thanks to Tucker Carlson or Matt Drudge.

[* also labels and link added]