If you participate!
[Whether you are Blue, Red or Green or other part of the spectrum. Purple or Violet? OK I won't go there, on and on with the spectrum of possibilities that is. UPDATED: 7:42 PM This section and a bit of editing below.]
[3-15-07: Rachel Maddow guest: Tony Morello Axis of Justice .org]
This is a holding spot for a local progressive link, which will focus on how you can participate and how I will adjust the focus here. It should be obvious that this is mostly about politics, and mostly my context if not content. The following may evolve but for now, here is a spectrum of groups I have placed in some sense of order:
Northwest Progressive Institute:All Politics is LOCAL
Just Foreign Policy
Progressive States .org
Center for American Progress
FIREDOGLAKE / BLUE AMERICA: Umbrella
The sense is mine and I have hinted above, but the key perspectives or priorities are Local, Justice, States, National and the Goal. Now, the image that America is some semblance of a Democracy and a Republic, not just the parties, and the need for grass roots and an umbrella to protect us from the trickle down and improve what we power up.
LOCAL CONTEXT:[2:59 PM]
Senator Oemig's Bill
I'm Not a Lawyer but...
Ehren Watada's Case
LOCAL MEDIA: [3:01 PM]
Progressive Talk: AM1090
Local NPR: KUOW
Seattle Area Radio
LOCAL EVENTS: [3:05 PM]
CRABFEED
Don't forget to navigate labels. Explained a bit here.
LOCAL EXAMPLE: [4:03 PM] "gives reasons" Navigate comment as well below.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query all politics. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query all politics. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Un-Exceptionalism
Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?
Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.
This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]
No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?
The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.
My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.
In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.
BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]
[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]
Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.
This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]
No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?
The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.
My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.
In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.
BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]
[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
HELP NAVIGATION
[update 2-5-09 LABELS Under Construction ]
[5-15-08: (nfry)= not fully read yet * and I have not followed through with * yet.]
This page is for those who may be new (or just old) to the world of blogging or in particular my train of dialog. Politics is about help navigation of our course. This page invites you to join that world and this. Have fun, following the links, and trains of thought, otherwise known as threads. TO THE RIGHT (I have not navigated the instructions enough to see if I can move it all to the left) is a column under the heading not beating around the bush? which was suppose to mean links to other sites, but now includes links like this. HELP NAVIGATION, then LOCAL POLITICS? which has a question mark added as that is not all it is about. Not to mention that it is definitely not original. (OK, there were two tangents, otherwise considered footnotes)
SEARCH BLOG: Top left corner of every blogspot page see SEARCH BLOG to insert a word or phrase to find all posts which contain it on this blog.
[Ctrl F] to search individual post pages use your CONTROL [Ctrl key] [type "F" key] to pop up a word search on your own computer, it should probably usually work.
LABELS: like Local that categorize post subjects(content is not completely labeled, but it will be a work in progress) note: italics sometimes used to hint at double entendre or sometimes emphasis in bold. Quotation marks may reference something that is just out there unattributed or used by me somewhere else, unless noted or linked.
Links: an option below the bottom line of every post that may be there if I choose to insert a link[*]. [12-17-07 Example: In this case the link provided at the bottom is also embedded at the GoLeft.TV and I take this opportunity to note the inconvenience if you do not have high speed internet to view the video, either way you get there. ALSO there, In particular if you scroll over you will see google search and if you click will get you the list of links to one of the runners-ups. ]
[12-14-07: See THE GAME to take the trip and follow the loop.
[ Bottom Line:
There and Here and around Now.
EMBEDDED QCON Quicke Comment on News ]
[Hint: another little clue to playing the game is that by scrolling over a link with your cursor (that is the little thing your mouse moves) you can see it on your bottom line before going there.]
12-17-07: our course [link added] Earlier: Local Politics? is now Local Content.
12-18-07: Note Right Column Content
Media Filter: Media Matters etc.
The Word: A Dictionary
The Law: The Constitution
The News: GoLeft.TV
Thought Crimes Act: Stop the Preemption
Find Senate Bill: example S. 1959
Find House Resolution: example H. 1955
[*] [4-9-08: henceforth referenced as "bonus link"]
[5-15-08: (nfry)= not fully read yet * and I have not followed through with * yet.]
This page is for those who may be new (or just old) to the world of blogging or in particular my train of dialog. Politics is about help navigation of our course. This page invites you to join that world and this. Have fun, following the links, and trains of thought, otherwise known as threads. TO THE RIGHT (I have not navigated the instructions enough to see if I can move it all to the left) is a column under the heading not beating around the bush? which was suppose to mean links to other sites, but now includes links like this. HELP NAVIGATION, then LOCAL POLITICS? which has a question mark added as that is not all it is about. Not to mention that it is definitely not original. (OK, there were two tangents, otherwise considered footnotes)
SEARCH BLOG: Top left corner of every blogspot page see SEARCH BLOG to insert a word or phrase to find all posts which contain it on this blog.
[Ctrl F] to search individual post pages use your CONTROL [Ctrl key] [type "F" key] to pop up a word search on your own computer, it should probably usually work.
LABELS: like Local that categorize post subjects(content is not completely labeled, but it will be a work in progress) note: italics sometimes used to hint at double entendre or sometimes emphasis in bold. Quotation marks may reference something that is just out there unattributed or used by me somewhere else, unless noted or linked.
Links: an option below the bottom line of every post that may be there if I choose to insert a link[*]. [12-17-07 Example: In this case the link provided at the bottom is also embedded at the GoLeft.TV and I take this opportunity to note the inconvenience if you do not have high speed internet to view the video, either way you get there. ALSO there, In particular if you scroll over you will see google search and if you click will get you the list of links to one of the runners-ups. ]
[12-14-07: See THE GAME to take the trip and follow the loop.
[ Bottom Line:
There and Here and around Now.
EMBEDDED QCON Quicke Comment on News ]
[Hint: another little clue to playing the game is that by scrolling over a link with your cursor (that is the little thing your mouse moves) you can see it on your bottom line before going there.]
12-17-07: our course [link added] Earlier: Local Politics? is now Local Content.
12-18-07: Note Right Column Content
Media Filter: Media Matters etc.
The Word: A Dictionary
The Law: The Constitution
The News: GoLeft.TV
Thought Crimes Act: Stop the Preemption
Find Senate Bill: example S. 1959
Find House Resolution: example H. 1955
[*] [4-9-08: henceforth referenced as "bonus link"]
Friday, September 14, 2012
Politics is local?
Ground Game ? *
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html
http://open.salon.com/blog/ted_frier/2012/09/12/losing_gop_in_denial_over_own_failures
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/
http://theweek.com/article/index/233148/the-death-of-an-american-in-libya
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/cairo_embassys_statement_what_went_wrong/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/48959856/#48959768 ***
Not the usual MO.**
[ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/13/house-race-koster-opts-for-the-full-romney/ ]
*Scroll over is sufficient until [fn] and post /under-construction(also redux labels) R done.
** "well" not exactly [!]
*** dropped link [!]
[Unfinished read, refinished read.(perspectivism) Politics over war. Obama has made progress in foreign policy, but Republicans want to take it back. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Iran(an evolution) are the examples of diplomacy(d) over preemption. It all sprung from the 2000 election debacle, resistance to Clinton policy and the failure on September 11th with the supposed post-9-11 world. But it is spelled out in the perspective that we cannot expect to teach democracy or politics over there, without practicing it over here(^). I will refrain from further tangents or links on this post, but I will note that the two reads just mentioned also reflect a bit of a balancing act that is not nearly as cut and dry as it might be written. One of the key differences in the big picture that makes the previous administration a stand out failure in American History is the combination of the voodoo(b) economics(arithmatic/fuzzy math+fuzzy English) with the neo-con perspective of American Exceptionalism (which is not) exemplified by choosing a war without paying for it. The success that is so difficult is because politics is local except for them^(f). This is demonstrated by the current Radical Republican opposition(c) to the Arab Spring,^^^ which removed dictators and is allowing(a) for democracy that might not turn out to be to our liking. Bush said war is hard work, but just because you want to fight, does not mean that progress and peace(with diplomacy and politics) are not harder work, and more profitable. That is part of true exceptionalism.
^refrain from a bumber snicker]
9-15-12
(a) FOX wrong about Libya says McCain.
(b) Foreign policy is Bane of Politics: bankruptcy bailout business not an option in either.
(c) Loose lips? Republican Threat to National Security
(d) not! but whiney!
(^) ibid re^frain [see (d)]
9-17-12 (e) not embedded i.e. that's right, there is no (e)
Seriously [!] folks ?
[^^ Apologies for sarcasm, but there is a diversity of reliability in the perspectives/sources provided.]
[NOW^^^ w/Alex Wagner w/Martin Basher on America Abroad.^^ But natural track of changing the strategy for Romney of change or status quo. i.e. hijacking change and boogieman status quo. Cam-Pain not working, Obama not running.]
[There is an (f) ]
^^ viscous cycle of anachronism
^^^ then Martin Bashir (NeoMitt)(Mittastrophe of asterisked?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html
http://open.salon.com/blog/ted_frier/2012/09/12/losing_gop_in_denial_over_own_failures
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/
http://theweek.com/article/index/233148/the-death-of-an-american-in-libya
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/cairo_embassys_statement_what_went_wrong/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/48959856/#48959768 ***
Not the usual MO.**
[ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/13/house-race-koster-opts-for-the-full-romney/ ]
*Scroll over is sufficient until [fn] and post /under-construction(also redux labels) R done.
** "well" not exactly [!]
*** dropped link [!]
[Unfinished read, refinished read.(perspectivism) Politics over war. Obama has made progress in foreign policy, but Republicans want to take it back. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Iran(an evolution) are the examples of diplomacy(d) over preemption. It all sprung from the 2000 election debacle, resistance to Clinton policy and the failure on September 11th with the supposed post-9-11 world. But it is spelled out in the perspective that we cannot expect to teach democracy or politics over there, without practicing it over here(^). I will refrain from further tangents or links on this post, but I will note that the two reads just mentioned also reflect a bit of a balancing act that is not nearly as cut and dry as it might be written. One of the key differences in the big picture that makes the previous administration a stand out failure in American History is the combination of the voodoo(b) economics(arithmatic/fuzzy math+fuzzy English) with the neo-con perspective of American Exceptionalism (which is not) exemplified by choosing a war without paying for it. The success that is so difficult is because politics is local except for them^(f). This is demonstrated by the current Radical Republican opposition(c) to the Arab Spring,^^^ which removed dictators and is allowing(a) for democracy that might not turn out to be to our liking. Bush said war is hard work, but just because you want to fight, does not mean that progress and peace(with diplomacy and politics) are not harder work, and more profitable. That is part of true exceptionalism.
^refrain from a bumber snicker]
9-15-12
(a) FOX wrong about Libya says McCain.
(b) Foreign policy is Bane of Politics: bankruptcy bailout business not an option in either.
(c) Loose lips? Republican Threat to National Security
(d) not! but whiney!
(^) ibid re^frain [see (d)]
9-17-12 (e) not embedded i.e. that's right, there is no (e)
Seriously [!] folks ?
[^^ Apologies for sarcasm, but there is a diversity of reliability in the perspectives/sources provided.]
[NOW^^^ w/Alex Wagner w/Martin Basher on America Abroad.^^ But natural track of changing the strategy for Romney of change or status quo. i.e. hijacking change and boogieman status quo. Cam-Pain not working, Obama not running.]
[There is an (f) ]
^^ viscous cycle of anachronism
^^^ then Martin Bashir (NeoMitt)(Mittastrophe of asterisked?)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
LeftyBlog?
I'm not on LeftyBlog because...
Maybe I don't like tests.
Or maybe only global tests of reality.
[FOR LOCAL CONTENT CLICK HERE : OR SEE LABEL LOCAL]
But a challenge?
This may be a work in progress.
[[BLOG LIST]]
[[LEFTYBLOG]]
[[WASHBLOG]]
[[Northwest Progressive Institute Blog]]
[[AMERICAinSOLIDARITY]]
If I label all my local material under the Local label, will that help? If I link and loop LeftyBlog to my post that helps the reader navigate, will that help?
Well this is not my usual rant, rave or ramble. Well yes it is, because I never know where I will go or end. But the challenge may be addressed by more questions answered by more questions?(see previous sentence)
Originally a look at the needs of LeftyBlog found this:
Then "all politics is local" and "politics is everything". Not to mention just not right.
OK, now I will go back and see if I can follow any of this.
LATER.
* I am tracking better, as I almost left off this quote by taking my tangent
[in the mean time, I put LEFTeBLOG at the top of my RIGHT list, where a typo fortuitously crept in]
[TheLiaisonReport - Between the mean and the out there.]
[Bottom Line: LOCAL CONTENT {UNDER CONSTRUCTION - more later}]
[[WE GOT ED!]]
[[Portland and Air America have Thom Hartmann]]
Maybe I don't like tests.
Or maybe only global tests of reality.
[FOR LOCAL CONTENT CLICK HERE : OR SEE LABEL LOCAL]
But a challenge?
This may be a work in progress.
[[BLOG LIST]]
[[LEFTYBLOG]]
[[WASHBLOG]]
[[Northwest Progressive Institute Blog]]
[[AMERICAinSOLIDARITY]]
If I label all my local material under the Local label, will that help? If I link and loop LeftyBlog to my post that helps the reader navigate, will that help?
Well this is not my usual rant, rave or ramble. Well yes it is, because I never know where I will go or end. But the challenge may be addressed by more questions answered by more questions?(see previous sentence)
Originally a look at the needs of LeftyBlog found this:
Remember, LeftyBlogs.com is for local progressive political blogs with original content. Some questions:I did not mean to read it literally, I just did not include the questions in my cut and paste,(see un#d bullet point 4)of (a challenge) above , and then was so bold as to add bold to "connect the dots", where I will begin with the last first.[leap*] There I go again. (two tangents: not to read )
Then "all politics is local" and "politics is everything". Not to mention just not right.
OK, now I will go back and see if I can follow any of this.
LATER.
* I am tracking better, as I almost left off this quote by taking my tangent
[in the mean time, I put LEFTeBLOG at the top of my RIGHT list, where a typo fortuitously crept in]
[TheLiaisonReport - Between the mean and the out there.]
[Bottom Line: LOCAL CONTENT {UNDER CONSTRUCTION - more later}]
[[WE GOT ED!]]
[[Portland and Air America have Thom Hartmann]]
Friday, February 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR
2-12-13 See*FP3*: ^
(b.s.) "stay+course" Who Are They Calling Elitist?, It's Obama's Turn, Spare the Rodney!, PHASE II: We need some movement! , FP? Stay the Comity of Course , Are We "IN" Yet?, Stay the Comity* What's going on? , I'm not a lawyer but..., Out of Line? "Hogwash", *knot*, ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, The other ground game..., Tony Baloney, Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , Off the Cuff?, GO OBAMA!*(note2) Weeeee! or Fb?
(b.s.) "navigate" Fine Tuning. OW2*3, Borrowed Comment!, All Politics is Local? , Try Angle,C-weeeee*, I Told You So.yeah(sc)right, Two Clever by One Third? , ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years, Unity '08 (pOW), Local Content , LeftyBlog? , Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm, **
Note: problematic to LABEL at this time.[[?]] [^^]
* (sc) [F&progress?]or *knot*
** note on progress in regard to this blog 'n case studies re:CAD) (fn)
(fn) TBA? CAD (Culturally Aided Design), CAD (2 out of 3 be bad), CAD (To be or not 3d), State of Politics, "you people..."?
^ see more than one level of problematic aster risking and design. Which should be revisited from the top line down, with focus on Labels, all annotations marks, PAGES and *FN* heading, and TBA laters.
[^^] 2-13-13 [Do I have to return to *legend*
[!] = pun, satire, etc. [[?]] could mean later question mark inserted. Of course most puns are a matter of timing and sometime anachronistic.
BUT BACK TO TODAY'S (FP4) Here: Not that I intended to hit(A.) on (B.) the anachronism.
(b.s.) "articulated+bus"= A. NO JOKE , B. UPDATE ONLY? KNOT[!] [**] {L}
(b.s.) "stay+course" Who Are They Calling Elitist?, It's Obama's Turn, Spare the Rodney!, PHASE II: We need some movement! , FP? Stay the Comity of Course , Are We "IN" Yet?, Stay the Comity* What's going on? , I'm not a lawyer but..., Out of Line? "Hogwash", *knot*, ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, The other ground game..., Tony Baloney, Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , Off the Cuff?, GO OBAMA!*(note2) Weeeee! or Fb?
(b.s.) "navigate" Fine Tuning. OW2*3, Borrowed Comment!, All Politics is Local? , Try Angle,C-weeeee*, I Told You So.yeah(sc)right, Two Clever by One Third? , ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years, Unity '08 (pOW), Local Content , LeftyBlog? , Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm, **
Note: problematic to LABEL at this time.[[?]] [^^]
* (sc) [F&progress?]or *knot*
** note on progress in regard to this blog 'n case studies re:CAD) (fn)
(fn) TBA? CAD (Culturally Aided Design), CAD (2 out of 3 be bad), CAD (To be or not 3d), State of Politics, "you people..."?
^ see more than one level of problematic aster risking and design. Which should be revisited from the top line down, with focus on Labels, all annotations marks, PAGES and *FN* heading, and TBA laters.
[^^] 2-13-13 [Do I have to return to *legend*
[!] = pun, satire, etc. [[?]] could mean later question mark inserted. Of course most puns are a matter of timing and sometime anachronistic.
BUT BACK TO TODAY'S (FP4) Here: Not that I intended to hit(A.) on (B.) the anachronism.
(b.s.) "articulated+bus"= A. NO JOKE , B. UPDATE ONLY? KNOT[!] [**] {L}
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.
“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!
One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.
Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.
In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.
[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]
One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.
Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?
The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.
In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.
[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]
Monday, July 28, 2008
POLITICS
NOT A DIRTY WORD!
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.
But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]
[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.
But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]
[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
QCON: Politics?
Yes! QCON: [Quick Comment On the News] or Question Con, or Question Context, Question Content.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Contempt for Courage
President Obama is taking Congress(**B) and* Romney on head-on.
Republicans are all about the politics of opposition. Democrats are all about the politics of getting things done.(*B) But there are limits, and they are in the constitution and the three branches of government. Now that is not a very satisfying thing. Congress makes the laws, and the president must follow them, and they will not change until they are broken. Republicans will take the country down while the president has all the tools at his disposal to make sure they don't succeed. Of course it is under the guise of a disagreement, but is a disguise that the people must see through.
A look back** is called for because that is where not keeping the change will take us. Has there not been enough change? Well just asking the question reminds me of the last administrations Secretary of Defense and his questioning and answering*** himself. I really don't want to go there.
But the recent Fed mention of the loss of wealth in the last 20 years, parallels the dine and dash that has been a Republican solution that has not been removed from the table. Democrats have fought wars and built the middle-class, while Republicans have cut checks and unbalanced the nation.
Is the President doing as much as some would like? As it becomes more clear that Republicans will not, now is the time that he must.
[Hardball "Two Americas" Walsh / Feerey - Romney is not on the ballot? The Act Act.]
* 6-16-12 link moved back one word(bold added)(Also [Hardball] links)
("Romney" to "and")
** Ctrl F "bite"
*** Ctrl F "Rumsfeld"
(*B) Go jump in the Lakoff(i.e. Ctrl F Lakoff)(oops)
(**B) two links added @"taking Congress"& @Romney reinsert new link
(***B) NFRY & vice verse us (or chicken or egg*c)
[UP w/ Chris Hayes(***B) Stand Your Ground and De-Policing.]
Hint: v.c.(not very crispy)
*c literally
Republicans are all about the politics of opposition. Democrats are all about the politics of getting things done.(*B) But there are limits, and they are in the constitution and the three branches of government. Now that is not a very satisfying thing. Congress makes the laws, and the president must follow them, and they will not change until they are broken. Republicans will take the country down while the president has all the tools at his disposal to make sure they don't succeed. Of course it is under the guise of a disagreement, but is a disguise that the people must see through.
A look back** is called for because that is where not keeping the change will take us. Has there not been enough change? Well just asking the question reminds me of the last administrations Secretary of Defense and his questioning and answering*** himself. I really don't want to go there.
But the recent Fed mention of the loss of wealth in the last 20 years, parallels the dine and dash that has been a Republican solution that has not been removed from the table. Democrats have fought wars and built the middle-class, while Republicans have cut checks and unbalanced the nation.
Is the President doing as much as some would like? As it becomes more clear that Republicans will not, now is the time that he must.
[Hardball "Two Americas" Walsh / Feerey - Romney is not on the ballot? The Act Act.]
* 6-16-12 link moved back one word(bold added)(Also [Hardball] links)
("Romney" to "and")
** Ctrl F "bite"
*** Ctrl F "Rumsfeld"
(*B) Go jump in the Lakoff(i.e. Ctrl F Lakoff)(oops)
(**B) two links added @"taking Congress"& @Romney reinsert new link
(***B) NFRY & vice verse us (or chicken or egg*c)
[UP w/ Chris Hayes(***B) Stand Your Ground and De-Policing.]
Hint: v.c.(not very crispy)
*c literally
Sunday, October 04, 2009
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...]
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...]
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Bully...
Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Pinnacle?
[The following is just a few short pieces that spin off from some other material.]
[From an email:]
From January 4th, 2007
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[OR BACK FROM THE PRECIPICE:] (posted and re-titled 1-11-07)
BY THE WAY: (Not Buy the Way)
Politics, Physicalities, Philosophies and Psychologies seem to fit my tetrahedron of how things work, but being unbalanced or in denial of their part in the whole may be why we are where we are and keep getting where we've been. This is my just honed perspective of a model and I must remember that that is all it is, but that it needs work. (The following reflect parts of the puzzle, and spin off from my post today.)
Hiding Behind the Straw Argument
Resolved?
[Now another spin-off from: For America's Sake.]
A Platonic(Model) Narrative
Or Being the Narrative?
Politics, Physics, Philosophy and Psychology may be the four points but politics may be the pinnacle. The pinnacle could be considered by some to be a W as well, and certainly by the current president. But the reality is that We are all susceptible to behavior, thinking and feelings that We each are the pinnacle and the Power. But W can also stand for the Wonders, the Words and the Works, not to mention the We that is too often denied. For many W is only about the Win, but it can’t be without the We, or it is just about the One. It may just prove the legitimacy of this model, that one cannot be without the rest.
[From an email:]
From January 4th, 2007
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[OR BACK FROM THE PRECIPICE:] (posted and re-titled 1-11-07)
BY THE WAY: (Not Buy the Way)
Politics, Physicalities, Philosophies and Psychologies seem to fit my tetrahedron of how things work, but being unbalanced or in denial of their part in the whole may be why we are where we are and keep getting where we've been. This is my just honed perspective of a model and I must remember that that is all it is, but that it needs work. (The following reflect parts of the puzzle, and spin off from my post today.)
Hiding Behind the Straw Argument
Resolved?
[Now another spin-off from: For America's Sake.]
A Platonic(Model) Narrative
Or Being the Narrative?
Politics, Physics, Philosophy and Psychology may be the four points but politics may be the pinnacle. The pinnacle could be considered by some to be a W as well, and certainly by the current president. But the reality is that We are all susceptible to behavior, thinking and feelings that We each are the pinnacle and the Power. But W can also stand for the Wonders, the Words and the Works, not to mention the We that is too often denied. For many W is only about the Win, but it can’t be without the We, or it is just about the One. It may just prove the legitimacy of this model, that one cannot be without the rest.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Exercise Lie or Confusion [Original of letter edited and printed in KC Journal. 2-11-03]
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English
Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.
Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English
Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.
Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.
Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.
Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.
Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Footnote(Page 2) February 2013
2-4-13 "the birds": Back
to "The One Thing?" (sc), Waiting
for [Calm Cast] (sc), DECEMBER
2012 FOOTNOTES (fn) PAGE, Where
everyone needs to read... (sc), In
the begining..., Two
Birds (sc), The
one thing? (sc), The
Pacific? , FOOTNOTES
FEBRUARY 2013, Obtuseness? (sc), Quoth
the...[_ _ _ _ _], We
Need Ed, Waking
up to a New Year., HiTetra!
.
Published without comment 2-7-13.
2-11-13 *bracketeds* = pun, [!] or (sic). / / [*] lateM-bed ? ['n-Oh-particular order!]
(sic)= b.s. "ofor"" / / [*]= Plato's Theory of Forms, late= Choice v. Referendum, M= Under the Table?, bed= Health Care Summit (sc), ?= cart B4 horse?
2-12-13 Carpe Diem! SOTU NBC Politics * tetra heed run of sorts? Photos, images etc.
2-13-13 (FP1):
grand = (b.s.)"TOW": A.The Be All and End All? (sc){L}, B.A Shot in the Arm?, C.But for Obama.(sc), D. Obama Economy Town Hall (sc) , E.D or R (sc) F.Faux Campaign (sc) ,G.FAUX NEWS! (sc) , H.What the Beck? (sc), I.Betray US Report (sc) , J.October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain" (period)
{TO BE CONTINUED}(sc) un-hyperlinked need follow-up.
{AND all (b.s.) will not need all their "alphabet"}
picture = (b.s.)"ge+oh+me+try":
how = (b.s.) "trigger+no+metrics":
things = Lincoln on labor prior to capital.
2-19-13 (FP1)... and field theories of matter. (Con temporary: @The Cycle "Beat the Press"!)
2-23-13: Accidents? $tar Buck$
[Bottomline: Do I have John Irving on a shelf(or in a box)?]
2-28-13 You Scroll or Click(sc) normally reserved for (b.s.) [Follow up on, or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road?] i.e. only the by is not a heading. It is the source of the photo. Speaking of by and buy.
Published without comment 2-7-13.
2-11-13 *bracketeds* = pun, [!] or (sic). / / [*] lateM-bed ? ['n-Oh-particular order!]
(sic)= b.s. "ofor"" / / [*]= Plato's Theory of Forms, late= Choice v. Referendum, M= Under the Table?, bed= Health Care Summit (sc), ?= cart B4 horse?
2-12-13 Carpe Diem! SOTU NBC Politics * tetra heed run of sorts? Photos, images etc.
2-13-13 (FP1):
grand = (b.s.)"TOW": A.The Be All and End All? (sc){L}, B.A Shot in the Arm?, C.But for Obama.(sc), D. Obama Economy Town Hall (sc) , E.D or R (sc) F.Faux Campaign (sc) ,G.FAUX NEWS! (sc) , H.What the Beck? (sc), I.Betray US Report (sc) , J.October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain" (period)
{TO BE CONTINUED}(sc) un-hyperlinked need follow-up.
{AND all (b.s.) will not need all their "alphabet"}
picture = (b.s.)"ge+oh+me+try":
how = (b.s.) "trigger+no+metrics":
things = Lincoln on labor prior to capital.
2-19-13 (FP1)... and field theories of matter. (Con temporary: @The Cycle "Beat the Press"!)
2-23-13: Accidents? $tar Buck$
[Bottomline: Do I have John Irving on a shelf(or in a box)?]
2-28-13 You Scroll or Click(sc) normally reserved for (b.s.) [Follow up on, or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road?] i.e. only the by is not a heading. It is the source of the photo. Speaking of by and buy.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Obama the Uniter!
It is about the politics. I am not finished searching for a reference* I recently heard George W. Bush make, but it was in retrospect about his handling of politics and how he did not worry about it**. Apparently it was someone elses job. But what is the politics(?) is my point.^ Bush claimed himself the uniter. Obama is the uniter of politics. As in there is the partisan divide, and there is nothing wrong with making that clear, but there is the political process which Romney is also not all about, let alone making it clear.
*what me worry? Applies to GWB, Reagan, Mitt and facts
** Rove was believe somehow involved, and probably Cheney
*** I might be getting warmR but I have not embedded this asterisk yet.
^ more what Mittastrophe?
*what me worry? Applies to GWB, Reagan, Mitt and facts
** Rove was believe somehow involved, and probably Cheney
*** I might be getting warmR but I have not embedded this asterisk yet.
^ more what Mittastrophe?
Thursday, November 01, 2012
C#PO(correction) C3PO
[FOOTNOTES (#3) NOVEMBER 2012]
Scroll down for most recent.
[Posted 11-8-12] F'n 3 point oh?
Footnotes on Tan Gents.
C 4* congress?
Conn Sciousness?
* 4 mat review ?
Not?
11-30-12 "the boat we are all in."
UNDERCONSTRUCTION or_RE_DE_: PROGRESS and CONGRESS
"all"= (b.s.)"golden + rule"
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/05/golden-rule-in-progress.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2004/09/running-on-what-rhetorical.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-me-worry.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2006/09/1st-thing-that-went-wrong.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/04/tetra-heed-ron.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-segue.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/01/martin-luther-king-jr-day.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/06/hi-ate-us.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/06/ideology.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/05/justice.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-level.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2010/06/just-to-clarify.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/05/taking-bear-by-horns.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2008/10/tetrahedron-ramble.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2006/11/mess-age-is-message.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2006/10/whatsoever-man-soweth.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2004/09/stuart-smally-anyone.html
(b.s.) works in* mysterious** ways.
* a, b, c, d, e
** a, d, c, x, e, y (alpha-ibid-zed and why!)
Note: only covered the "all" & "in", these are the links that works at this time, and may leave "boat"(cats + dogs) and "we" 4 later.***
*** actually that is all there R : The (b.s.) of "we" is "4" now and "works"!!!!!!
11-9-12 (fn) too much ? [!]
Labels Ouch "cap that" M-beds.(CONN Sciousness) Jung, Nietzsche, Maslow (Transition of Sorts)
11-10-12: UNqEd/reCap(l5) =/aka line five not LXV but that is pound too Roman. i.e. Ibid. of sorts.
Furhter editors note:
Fup='d "follow up"
There are presently 3 footnotes for November w/hope to keep it that way.
This 4mat was begun in September I think.
There are presently 11 links with 33 [CtrlF]"Ibid"'s@(b.s.)"Ibid" as follows,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/12/flow-of-conscience.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/08/inet.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/08/republicans-cuts-and-runs.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002/07/too-cubed-viii.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/09/politics-is-local.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/09/out-foxed.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/09/footnotes-september-2012.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/06/ideology.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/02/report-from-sabbatical.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/12/rubrics-cube-and-rhetorical.html
Scroll down for most recent.
[Posted 11-8-12] F'n 3 point oh?
Footnotes on Tan Gents.
C 4* congress?
Conn Sciousness?
* 4 mat review ?
Not?
11-30-12 "the boat we are all in."
UNDERCONSTRUCTION or_RE_DE_: PROGRESS and CONGRESS
"all"= (b.s.)"golden + rule"
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/05/golden-rule-in-progress.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2004/09/running-on-what-rhetorical.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-me-worry.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2006/09/1st-thing-that-went-wrong.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/04/tetra-heed-ron.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/04/inconvenient-segue.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/01/martin-luther-king-jr-day.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/06/hi-ate-us.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/06/ideology.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/05/justice.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-level.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2010/06/just-to-clarify.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/05/taking-bear-by-horns.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2008/10/tetrahedron-ramble.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2006/11/mess-age-is-message.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2006/10/whatsoever-man-soweth.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2004/09/stuart-smally-anyone.html
(b.s.) works in* mysterious** ways.
* a, b, c, d, e
** a, d, c, x, e, y (alpha-ibid-zed and why!)
Note: only covered the "all" & "in", these are the links that works at this time, and may leave "boat"(cats + dogs) and "we" 4 later.***
*** actually that is all there R : The (b.s.) of "we" is "4" now and "works"!!!!!!
11-9-12 (fn) too much ? [!]
Labels Ouch "cap that" M-beds.(CONN Sciousness) Jung, Nietzsche, Maslow (Transition of Sorts)
11-10-12: UNqEd/reCap(l5) =/aka line five not LXV but that is pound too Roman. i.e. Ibid. of sorts.
Furhter editors note:
Fup='d "follow up"
There are presently 3 footnotes for November w/hope to keep it that way.
This 4mat was begun in September I think.
There are presently 11 links with 33 [CtrlF]"Ibid"'s@(b.s.)"Ibid" as follows,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/12/flow-of-conscience.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/08/inet.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/08/republicans-cuts-and-runs.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002/07/too-cubed-viii.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/09/politics-is-local.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/09/out-foxed.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2012/09/footnotes-september-2012.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/06/ideology.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/02/report-from-sabbatical.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/12/rubrics-cube-and-rhetorical.html
Friday, May 22, 2009
Side Tracks
Note to self at a forum last night.
There are right decisions not to vote for right legislation because the right exists.
This could be obtuse but it could be the nature of progress. It is at least how our government works.
I wish I could paraphrase my contribution to the dialogue, or even recapture the sentiment, but I will add that sometimes progress is a result of mistakes, and Boy George have we learned. And in context add that all politics is local, but it takes a... well at least four. Thanks Hillary.
And now an allusive leap:
I don't believe in if anymore by Roger Wittaker
If by Rudyard Kipling
(inadvertent proof of...) by David Sirota
Our plight?
[Back to local fireworks and our side of the pond, there as a bit of good cop, bad humor dynamics that is not all about spatial or heirarchical orientation but potentially an ingredient in our evolution. Note the * irony Graham at the 15:40 of *]
There are right decisions not to vote for right legislation because the right exists.
This could be obtuse but it could be the nature of progress. It is at least how our government works.
I wish I could paraphrase my contribution to the dialogue, or even recapture the sentiment, but I will add that sometimes progress is a result of mistakes, and Boy George have we learned. And in context add that all politics is local, but it takes a... well at least four. Thanks Hillary.
And now an allusive leap:
I don't believe in if anymore by Roger Wittaker
If by Rudyard Kipling
(inadvertent proof of...) by David Sirota
Our plight?
[Back to local fireworks and our side of the pond, there as a bit of good cop, bad humor dynamics that is not all about spatial or heirarchical orientation but potentially an ingredient in our evolution. Note the * irony Graham at the 15:40 of *]
Friday, June 29, 2012
Follow...up or Down.
Follow-Up or down?
The voodoo that some do do.
Including 9-11 and a horse of course, about the rule* of law?
DR-Deficit Reduction
NOW-"It's Complicated."
* not to pun on run down, but Thomas Roberts Rules,
[water gate ? B S: Uphold or Holdup?]
[ MSNBCTV is Thomas Roberts: live rule yesterday Jansing &Co Re:action swing flop De:volve Thomas Roberts ! ]
[Huff Times, AM**, Salon. NG v GN]
**Ruth Marcus: Obama Legacy? Re-do?
[ Politics Revisited / R M ? ! NewsNation M M. Jobs / Freedom ?]
[OK, the above line is as boggled as anything, but it is about the nature of the process and reality or the politics and die manics(to parse the dynamics or how of the beef) which is still spinning on The Cycle. The Supreme Court is not a dictionary. Justice Roberts reportedly did not say it was tax. But Republicans need to see things black and white or they can't uphold their politics of holdup.***]
[Fee Fi Foe FUMM? MB on Mitt the Mandatious(ChamberMade). Fear and uh...
MR
RM.. uh, Martin Bashir pre-CP. Mitt the Moderate? ]
*** Again, sorry for getting caught up in the pun and parsing of politics. It comes down to one word: running. Running the government or running for office. Another word: table. Oops. What is on the table? Do we want them running the table? Obama ran to put it all on the table and Republicans want to run the table.
The voodoo that some do do.
Including 9-11 and a horse of course, about the rule* of law?
DR-Deficit Reduction
NOW-"It's Complicated."
* not to pun on run down, but Thomas Roberts Rules,
[water gate ? B S: Uphold or Holdup?]
[ MSNBCTV is Thomas Roberts: live rule yesterday Jansing &Co Re:action swing flop De:volve Thomas Roberts ! ]
[Huff Times, AM**, Salon. NG v GN]
**Ruth Marcus: Obama Legacy? Re-do?
[ Politics Revisited / R M ? ! NewsNation M M. Jobs / Freedom ?]
[OK, the above line is as boggled as anything, but it is about the nature of the process and reality or the politics and die manics(to parse the dynamics or how of the beef) which is still spinning on The Cycle. The Supreme Court is not a dictionary. Justice Roberts reportedly did not say it was tax. But Republicans need to see things black and white or they can't uphold their politics of holdup.***]
[Fee Fi Foe FUMM? MB on Mitt the Mandatious(ChamberMade). Fear and uh...
MR
RM.. uh, Martin Bashir pre-CP. Mitt the Moderate? ]
*** Again, sorry for getting caught up in the pun and parsing of politics. It comes down to one word: running. Running the government or running for office. Another word: table. Oops. What is on the table? Do we want them running the table? Obama ran to put it all on the table and Republicans want to run the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)