Looking Back

The Liberal Uses of Power
Editorial: The American Prospect

I stumbled across the hard copy of The American Prospect magazine above, and decided to look back at my comments around that time.

Moving Forward ?
From the same issue, to be read or reread:
Theocracy Now Juan Cole
Against the Neocons An interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.
China No. 1Clyde Prestowitz

[ Meanwhile: further back* or forth? ]

[BTW: I contacted a congressional office today (in reference to these matters) and referred to this blog as the liaison between progressive and realism. It is also the liaison between academic and common sense. There is an interesting play on the word "academic"; quantitatively and in what matters.** A statistical relationship also plays with "common sense" and all this gets played out in the progress or reality we are responsible for. (Or the lack thereof and viscious cycle.)]

*the part that the U.S. played in the invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia must be investigated

** "academic" has an interesting flip-flop depending on its use in any field

"if I were dictator"

Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."

As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."

Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?

Is there another kind of politics or reality?

I'll have to check and get back to you.

[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]

What's good for the goose? Goose the gander!

American Perspectives?

It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.

Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",

followed by:

“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.

This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].

The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.

For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.

* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?

Conservative Foray (4A)

The right wing rhetoric suffers
from four faults or defaults:
Anecdotal
Apocryphal
Anachronistic
Academic[*]

In particular:
Lew Rockwell
Anne Wortham
Betsy McGaughey
Floy Lilley **

I did not select these, they were being spread by a victim of the victim hoods.

[* This 4A was held in draft, and pondered till I arrived at the right Initialism. Speaking of design and initialism the origin was:
often A$$ Backward Oops!! - Pardon my Cheney , I meant acronym-ism.]

**[Hopefully I have these in descending order.]
[(CTTC)Cutting through the Cr@p:
I would love for economists to cut through some of this.]
[Academic is a word like politician and lawyer that have developed a poor reputation, not to mention rhetoric and Swift Boaters. Or Bottom Line? ]

[(CTTC2.0)I have two bold links above that I would like economists to examine, in particular in light of the bad rap Keynesian economics keeps taking. In that regard, on a lighter and less silly or harsh note; Greenspan seems to be learning, or has he, and in regards to the Floy piece and the bottom line;
is there not some synergy that needs to be worked out? Meaning current efforts cannot be compared to past efforts directly, while problems that are missed will be the devil in the detail. The Carbon Market may be a solution, but not if the Market period is the problem. In other words, I have not looked too deeply into the hot air side (climate matters) of the equation, but feel that the thin air problem (financial matters)is deeper. To re-embed in aphorism, there is bang for your buck and there is the value of your bang. And there is likely more that matters.

Bane(Or) Change

[11-17-11 Update Labels]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.

There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.

Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.

*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]

** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]

Para~graph Three!

Endo-terror~cism?

aka Academics ?

The point?  The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.

Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
:::  aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
:::   ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) ,  f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically)  ]
(what the fudge?  f-j,p?)
:::   Endo-suffix?

The project  ?   The dance? 
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle?  Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in  English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist” view, now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
 
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3)  The Be All and End All?

Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6?  At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.  
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.

P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9   "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.

Blame to go around?

Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!

Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*

Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.

That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.

And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."

[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]

* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]

NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.

** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]

Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.

===========================================================

Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".

They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.

It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.

The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.

I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".

Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson

Moving on:

I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.

I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.

Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.


That Train Keeps On Rolling.

Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.

Roger Larson


(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)

* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.

[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]

Ian Bremmer

Format TBA
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJ80wMRhwU&t=637s

washingtonnote.com/ian_bremer_mikh/



https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2513647175
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5781634930001/?#sp=show-clips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaZznwvDil0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq1fT9R7vnc

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-immigration-push-a-window-into-his-follow-through/ar-AAz5Zv2?ocid=spartanntp

https://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=us+vs+them+ian+bremmer&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=77653060188821&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_288ek5w6tf_b

Running Joke

Guilt by association, innocent my label.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.

Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]

* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.

In the begining...

was the math.  It was not good or evil.  But as his story has it, it was the word good, minus an oh.  But my ge oh me try, pertains to more recent Dawnings and Odysseys ... and our stories.    Not to mention whose father's a mother, and the ChrisT of Chris(noT) and Christ of her and Try-Unism not mention ChrisTmass.

Alter'nate

(12-19-11 cont.)
(Efin language caution.)
i.e. Way overboard.**

The Tetra Heed Run and voo doo* [!]

* original wording: "and back again"
** ef fort or ef-troop
(If you are sensitive to fowl depictions, not to kill two birds...)
BTW C-Scroll [!]

Footnotes:
Iron
Knee
Con
Text
Try-Unism

Not to undermine whatever academics*** there R here,
but a spin of a thought of the boogie man found me this, and relevant cycles referred to in the punctuation of irony/sarcasm which is [!].

*** that's academic [?] [See Comments for serious footnotes.]

Context:
Mission Accomplished
"Reel Ledership" (sic)
Bottom line
The Tetra Heed Run (sic)
(sic) is for spelling sake.(no[!]t)
The last link is a bit weak on the economic reference to the "free market": as if it exists.  Not that the tangents are not relevant, or what can be spun by mis-leding words, BTW.

P.S.  as I sent this out, I titled an E-mail Narrative-ity.
[And I might note that I am not using "strict" framing ala Lakoff, but walking a plank of nurture.
No president is the Messiah, maybe the Mess I uh, but Obama is the un-messWe-in.]

P.P.S. No Idol Thoughts.
[Link added 12-20-11]

< previous post >

We are at the table.

"All politics is local." Thanks for the "Tip." Ms. Speaker.

Actually I was reminded of the source for this quote this evening and I bridge the irony of Ms-Representation in reflecting on the interpretations which R so academic.

[update: 10-5-09 Tool Shed posted, also references earlier updates [10:16 & 11:44 PM] at On War / Politics [under con...]

Framing Narratives

Don't even Think of an Elephant!

The Last Word

Game Change

The Rachel Maddow Show

The gist of this riff?

The impact of whine and geez!

Walk** Like an Egyptian!*

[3-14-12 asterisks added ]

[ "I feel like I can say anything[!]..." NOT!***]

*It is ironic that Betty Knox went on to be a war correspondent.

** U.S. Autumn

*** an example of spin: former quote actually in latter link.

(Excuse me for the cross threads, no pun on mean [!])

(warning under "anything" (maybe)requires Facebook membership)

[Not to pun on Dead C Scrolls, but I hope there are no cross ups(2) in my links.]

[Oops, see comments, and cartoon.]

[Re: Market Forces]

[Re: Comments ! ]

[Re: never mind N-FRY.]

Under "never mind" I have now read the latter and the former maybe later. The "mind" is a very academic place. The "never" a more pragmatic problem under the umbrella of our creators. Whether I ever get to read the "git mo" piece may be irrelevant. The point germinates from our "Try Angle" and the dilemma of transparency and the dangers of ab-solutions. (pun on absolutes) [I don't think absolute freedom of information is possible, let alone pragmatic. But the emphasis it on "absolute", as well as a careful reading of our architectural documents, which I believe lay the organic groundwork for progress, as opposed to Jeramiahs(^). Critics of the president must realize that he is responsible whether Congress frames the right tools or the Global Village (let alone Supreme Court) goes along. Yet I am still digesting James Fallows take here, where ultimately it is our choice to choose forward or Re-verse. C- Elephant (3)]

(^) 3-16-12 spell check Jeremiah

(Original: synonym for pessimists, not to pun on prophetic hope.)

Forward (Ironically)

Original Heading: (FP!) Footnotes Page #? January 2014

1-15-14: Epicyclic Popperism, (b.s.*)Wittgenstein
(b.s.) Cultural Threads are Fine., ( b.s. pS.) A Tale of Two Manicheans.

Is politics the philosophy of action? 
Everyone has a philosophy, not everyone has a politics. And where does this come from?
[["Life is the content in context **."]]
[["** Is this line the Hitch or Hedge hiker?"]]

*(blog search)
** Epicyclical Poet Tree It may turn out, that I am demonstrating and practicing P'.(although like a lot of material I have yet to finish reading, that may be P^.)

P^ ~ found under "hiker" Knot 2B Phun Knee^, nor Phields ofor Phootballs. Nor to be a PhD.
^ Ctrl F: chef

P' ~ found under con' of "content"= The Vital Usefulness of Popperism
P^ = Philosophy Now: "Philosophy, it seems, currently has three main avenues, which, though clogged, it tries to flow through. One is academic philosophy, which is, one gathers, largely mired in esoteric analysis or self-referential in-house debates. Another might collectively be called ‘street philosophy’. It wants to be some modern version of ancient Greek marketplace philosophy, but the correspondence doesn’t stick. The third realm is ‘hidden philosophy’, held non-publicly by individuals whose intellect and values funnel out into practice and postures seen and unseen, burbling out in things like voting, how a person feels he or she has been educated, and what the zeitgeist in the public square is like."
Knot 2 mention ADD. POP Art. Schopenhauer, Young, Dantos, Dent.<>

<> GPS  Coin-age of the day. Over Helming. (USC), Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. (sea)

Hiker pun on Chris-to-pher hoods, Hitchens and Hedges.
Oar actually hitch / hedge / Hood?

[Note: Facetious Time Stamp 2014]

NOTE: (sc) original heading = date of post  / UPD8: Save for study.

Academic Freedom

Not the best heading**, let alone lede.

But not to be preemptive, I am being rough*drafty.

BTW: I don't know if I should have a disclaimer as I have "liked" Noam Chomsky on Facebook.*** Now should I wonder if he needs a disclaimer from this being on a youtube page he is featured on.

But I will note that I have only viewed about 30 seconds but find the heading provocative. And I will pull some words from a thread I contributed to recently: We can not pick the personalities of the sources(or the sources) that might influence our thinking. That does not mean that educated people can't have bad ideas, or that less educated people may not have better ideas. Nor that some people don't have a mix of good and bad ideas and that others may not be suited for choosing from them.

In the mean time(pun), that thread extended.

* I hope to find a more colorful and humorous link in my BS(blog search)

** see "extended" reference: not a bad heading (round and round)

*** not to pin the tale on this dawn key ode (Ouch those frackin' wind mills)

[Bottomline, not to ode on economics or hummin' resources. BTW2.0: I have two "disclaimers" considered above, one in relation to Facebook and Chomsky in regard to the "pulled" words (in grey high lite) and the other in regard to the "this" on YouTube, which I only previewed a bit. I do not claim it a fluke as that is probably the nature of the technology in another A word regarding math and search engines. Dont' trouble yourself to the fluke as it is just another "A" word.]

Let me finish?

Well let's play Hardball.
Which reminds me of a family dialogue,
who started it?

Speaking of projection,
not to mention academic
or turning a page.
Subtitle: Convicting with others' convictions.
Or Aye of Newt, understanding with others' misunderstanding.
[Links: Hardball/dialogue - Chris Matthews, projection/or Aye - Keith Olbermann, to mention - Rachel Maddow.]

The Thorn and the Lyin'

Androcles or Ambrose?
But no Saint Donald*.
Trump claims** noble agenda.

Next? The President's Academic Records or Ayn Rand's.



*or J'Rome via Vulgate

** media and mess age(under wave)

[Back Log]
[And not too unribble ...hmmm.]
[By Jingo, QED? Or Here?]

Technical Difficulties

Anomalies or Synchronicities? By definition they are hard to explain. But there was first the missing link that I referenced here and then the Eli Pariser "bubble" context. Then there is the Wrap(5***) problem* and follow up **.

* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]

Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).

Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.

Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:

Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Government
Also see prior ** not fully read yet but gives context right off the bat***
Lance Taylor: Maynard's Revenge
Reforming the Macroeconomic Framework: Sushil Wadhwani
IMF Calls for New Economic Thinking: Or Does It?

Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.

*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)

[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]