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.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query association. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query association. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Association vs. Responsibility
Free speech: How much is there, if people who want to get their perspective out, have to sacrifice their principles by association with a host to get on the air while those who control the airwaves use free speech to be less responsible for the sake of their principle of the bottom line?
On The Most, a good exchange just occurred that reinforces my earlier joke.
Actually, I guess that "reality" is too harsh, responsibility is what I was stretching for. Also in regards to my definition of "whores" in the earlier post, principles should be called into question. I wonder if generosity or charity by someone who is raking it in is really any way to determine if someone is a "good person"? It is probably something even Imus may be calling into question.
Another comment: What is the attraction of Don Imus, the personality? I am not a regular viewer of any cable shows, but MSNBC seems to have had a better impression than the other cable networks. But I have not been impressed with his casual mumbling approach whose attraction may be that anyone could seem to do his job. His added attraction may be the adolescent attitude that many may wish to have in their 60's.
No Hold's Maher-ed is a very interesting clip. While I agree with some of Maher's comments, I disagree with certain premises. He ackowledges a valid double standard in terms of which race is using which words, but in terms of jobs there is also a valid double standard. I think that Maher and Scarborough should switch jobs. Then the likes* of Scarborough and Imus could use their "free speech" and be guests and face a host who is more up front and humorous about their perspectives.
* the likes: I hope is more sensitive than Scarborough's "people like you" to Joan Walsh. This clip "reflects" that he is on the wrong side of the desk...
On The Most, a good exchange just occurred that reinforces my earlier joke.
I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.
Actually, I guess that "reality" is too harsh, responsibility is what I was stretching for. Also in regards to my definition of "whores" in the earlier post, principles should be called into question. I wonder if generosity or charity by someone who is raking it in is really any way to determine if someone is a "good person"? It is probably something even Imus may be calling into question.
Another comment: What is the attraction of Don Imus, the personality? I am not a regular viewer of any cable shows, but MSNBC seems to have had a better impression than the other cable networks. But I have not been impressed with his casual mumbling approach whose attraction may be that anyone could seem to do his job. His added attraction may be the adolescent attitude that many may wish to have in their 60's.
No Hold's Maher-ed is a very interesting clip. While I agree with some of Maher's comments, I disagree with certain premises. He ackowledges a valid double standard in terms of which race is using which words, but in terms of jobs there is also a valid double standard. I think that Maher and Scarborough should switch jobs. Then the likes* of Scarborough and Imus could use their "free speech" and be guests and face a host who is more up front and humorous about their perspectives.
* the likes: I hope is more sensitive than Scarborough's "people like you" to Joan Walsh. This clip "reflects" that he is on the wrong side of the desk...
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Now Dat's...
what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.
Here it is:
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)
NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.
Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]
NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.
Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.
BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.
*strains: on another thread elsewhere
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.
Here it is:
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)
NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.
Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]
NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.
Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.
BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.
*strains: on another thread elsewhere
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted
Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)[*]
NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.
Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]
[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.
NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.
Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]
[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Broken News.
Imus is history on MSNBC?
That reminds me of a joke I came up with about those that fail to learn from history, repeating it. President Bush should have repeated English and math as well. OK!
Is humor the topic? Well Imus claimed his context as close to an excuse after being relatively up front in his apology.
I almost feel sorry for Imus, seeing what he has going down the drain. But that is the difference in perspectives. There is free speech and personal conduct, but that does not mean it has a right or need to be distributed and at a profit no less. And there is a difference between having an opinion and using it to describe individuals compared to describing one's perspective on history and raising questions that could and should be addressed.
Maybe advertisers will consider more carefully their own opinion on what controversial means. It seems that advertisers may be slightly disingenuous or just woke up to the idea that there may a problem profiting from controversy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.
That reminds me of a joke I came up with about those that fail to learn from history, repeating it. President Bush should have repeated English and math as well. OK!
Is humor the topic? Well Imus claimed his context as close to an excuse after being relatively up front in his apology.
I almost feel sorry for Imus, seeing what he has going down the drain. But that is the difference in perspectives. There is free speech and personal conduct, but that does not mean it has a right or need to be distributed and at a profit no less. And there is a difference between having an opinion and using it to describe individuals compared to describing one's perspective on history and raising questions that could and should be addressed.
Maybe advertisers will consider more carefully their own opinion on what controversial means. It seems that advertisers may be slightly disingenuous or just woke up to the idea that there may a problem profiting from controversy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Club of Association
Or Dis Member* meant, and not just another excuse to MoveOn,
but the last two links in the *** segment,the club of association) refer to some efforts at dealing in a more pragmatic and incremental way. It is still a rhetorical and organizational Heckuva Kitchen counter. Speaking of Moxy.
It is sometimes an awkward counter.
* again violence to the language and rhetoric only, yet definitely Marxist if you check my meaning or scroll over
[Correction and 2nd link added]
[More on the alphabet soup of the Network Theory: ABC, Anti-Billy Club... maybe that poses legal problems, especially for a network. Before I continue with my thinking an in liu of not giving it away, maybe I will develop this legally off line. Till that happens there is no harm in continuing to list the...(careful now) R and D under Research and Development. R's will be the likes of Bills or Wills on the Right(Research) and D's will be the likes of Bills and Wills of the Left. Now just like Republicans may be linked to the Tea Party for better or worse(and that is for whom to say/), the Development side will be more inclusive and may not be as sensitive about labels.]
but the last two links in the *** segment,the club of association) refer to some efforts at dealing in a more pragmatic and incremental way. It is still a rhetorical and organizational Heckuva Kitchen counter. Speaking of Moxy.
It is sometimes an awkward counter.
* again violence to the language and rhetoric only, yet definitely Marxist if you check my meaning or scroll over
[Correction and 2nd link added]
[More on the alphabet soup of the Network Theory: ABC, Anti-Billy Club... maybe that poses legal problems, especially for a network. Before I continue with my thinking an in liu of not giving it away, maybe I will develop this legally off line. Till that happens there is no harm in continuing to list the...(careful now) R and D under Research and Development. R's will be the likes of Bills or Wills on the Right(Research) and D's will be the likes of Bills and Wills of the Left. Now just like Republicans may be linked to the Tea Party for better or worse(and that is for whom to say/), the Development side will be more inclusive and may not be as sensitive about labels.]
Friday, May 07, 2010
Hierarchy of Hypocrisy
Hating to generalize I note my potential logical fallacy in the following. Nevertheless, between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment, there seems a hierarchy for some. From Right to Bear Arms to Citizenship Rights where does the 1st amendment fit in? (*)
A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)
Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.
My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.
(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist
[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]
A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)
Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.
My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.
(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist
[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
One of my readers
if there is more than one, is concerned about my communications.
Note Under Construction label. I agree, it is problematic at times and heavy in links to say the least.
Fair and Balanced News? is a link directing to The Daily Show.
That is called Ledership you can choose to follow.(The FOX NEWS motto versus Comedy Central as a news source.)
Debt is a Red Herring, is a statement and a link and spins from here:
The rest is context and more sources, which may merit more spin and unembedding here: segment,the club of association)
If you don't get it you maybe out foxed.
Nonetheless i will further comment on some of the above links.
Club: The Norman Goldman 4-Point Plan to Rescue America
Association Lawrence O'Donnell, Dennis Kucinich interview about Tea Party coordination.
More: Randi Rhodes interviews Ron Paul
Spin: It is hard to believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be outed by prank, as puppet of Tea Party Sugar Daddy David Koch.
And back to O'Reilly interview of Beck, it completes a circle. The democracy that means the so-called communists and fundamentalists Beck says will be at the table in Egypt will be practiced in some repects in America and there will be uprising against the crony capitalism of Governor (Mubarak)Walker.
[2-24-11 See Comment and added footnotes in the form of the last two links embedded.]
[Late find of Lawrence O'Donnell v. Beck: tangent out ]
Note Under Construction label. I agree, it is problematic at times and heavy in links to say the least.
Fair and Balanced News? is a link directing to The Daily Show.
That is called Ledership you can choose to follow.(The FOX NEWS motto versus Comedy Central as a news source.)
Debt is a Red Herring, is a statement and a link and spins from here:
Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:
1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy
The rest is context and more sources, which may merit more spin and unembedding here: segment,the club of association)
If you don't get it you maybe out foxed.
Nonetheless i will further comment on some of the above links.
Club: The Norman Goldman 4-Point Plan to Rescue America
Association Lawrence O'Donnell, Dennis Kucinich interview about Tea Party coordination.
More: Randi Rhodes interviews Ron Paul
Spin: It is hard to believe Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker could be outed by prank, as puppet of Tea Party Sugar Daddy David Koch.
And back to O'Reilly interview of Beck, it completes a circle. The democracy that means the so-called communists and fundamentalists Beck says will be at the table in Egypt will be practiced in some repects in America and there will be uprising against the crony capitalism of Governor (Mubarak)Walker.
[2-24-11 See Comment and added footnotes in the form of the last two links embedded.]
[Late find of Lawrence O'Donnell v. Beck: tangent out ]
Thursday, February 10, 2011
BLANK NETWORK
Dot Tool* to be named later. This is just a list of the Wills and Bills.
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]
The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical
This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.
While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.
* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)
RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley
DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare
Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann
Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz
[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]
[Not Necessarily the News Guru, but divagation or not maybe linked.]
The Anti-Billy Club
The Club of Association
King of Rhetoric?
A Generous dia-Gnosis.
Report from Sabbatical
Sabbatical
This is not necessarily a Newshounds blog, Colbert Report or Daily Show.
I don't read or view things so you don't have to, sometimes you do, and sometimes just scrolling over may provide enough. It is divagation and stochastic at its best, or sometimes worst. But it is not just all about them or us. My Navigation label needs updating, and the Navigation II label is about our course, or a combination or demonstration of it.
While names are not the thing(and they are coming slowly today), there is value in comparing and contrasting, and sometimes associations matter. Leadership and representation matters, and in journalism there is the ledership which sometimes leads back to my point: our headings, navigation and having to follow for oneself. Part of the spirit of this has been diffused in all seriousness, by the focus on the list and the Bills and Wills, but it is more about the network and bringing things to the table. So while the banner or name for the effort is still pending, as well as more on the principles(The club of association) I will begin listing the inspirations for the columns or sides of the table.
* Blank Network (Anti-Billy Club: see links)
RESEARCH (So I am frackin' fudging a bit with the Will, the HasselB, and the Williams.)
Bill O'Reilly
George F. Will
Elizabeth HasselBECK
William Kristol
Walter Williams
William Safire
Willam F. Buckley
DEVELOPMENT
Bill Maher
Will Rogers
Bill Press
William Shakespeare
Similar Wills
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Steve King
Sarah Palin
Michele Bachmann
Honorary Anti-Billy Clubs
Noam Chomsky
Thom Hartmann
Rachel Maddow
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert
Lawrence O'Donnell
Norman Goldman
Ed Schultz
[Under-construction, italics are postumous honors. Apologies for the orders, they are at my whim or some consideration or other. It is not about heirarchy or honors, or just Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. And it may be asked, do some really want to be at the table? If they don't work well with others? That may play out as the list and the principles evolve.(Network Theory)]
[2-17-11 Update: Walk Like A Cheesehead. Wrap mine in tinfoil..PU! NOT! But close enough to government work.]
Friday, October 09, 2009
We got it!
We got the Nobel Prize!
Having been startled by the announcement, I thought oh no!
But that is only in terms of where the likes of "just a guy"* might take it.
ANACHRONISTIC SEGUE [***]
"Some are guilty by association and some are innocent by no association, with thinking." I had employed this phrase in reply to a buddy who is "just a guy"**, and victim of the Rand Illusion.
But seriously, the Nobel committee recognizes the power of hope and more importantly, people being at the table, let alone who gets it in the end.
* Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly agree: Glenn Beck is "just a guy"
** ironically a veteran and anesthesiologist
[Teddy, Woodrow, Jimmy, and Barack : Just Guys! ]
***there is a bit of preemption in the links and context but on the other hand it does just flow as read.
[Just a digg, the Barack link was originally RealClearPolitics.com which did not present [Correction:no longer presents] Obama's comments but was live.]
[10-13-09 8 Most Outrageous Attacks on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize ]
[update: 10-21-09 Joan got it and anachronisitically I clarify the segue at *** where I had just listed the [Just Guys]just before Obama held his press conference.]
Having been startled by the announcement, I thought oh no!
But that is only in terms of where the likes of "just a guy"* might take it.
ANACHRONISTIC SEGUE [***]
"Some are guilty by association and some are innocent by no association, with thinking." I had employed this phrase in reply to a buddy who is "just a guy"**, and victim of the Rand Illusion.
But seriously, the Nobel committee recognizes the power of hope and more importantly, people being at the table, let alone who gets it in the end.
* Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly agree: Glenn Beck is "just a guy"
** ironically a veteran and anesthesiologist
[Teddy, Woodrow, Jimmy, and Barack : Just Guys! ]
***there is a bit of preemption in the links and context but on the other hand it does just flow as read.
[Just a digg, the Barack link was originally RealClearPolitics.com which did not present [Correction:no longer presents] Obama's comments but was live.]
[10-13-09 8 Most Outrageous Attacks on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize ]
[update: 10-21-09 Joan got it and anachronisitically I clarify the segue at *** where I had just listed the [Just Guys]just before Obama held his press conference.]
Monday, April 21, 2008
Red Labeling!
Maybe I need to point out the irony in A Wonderful Conversation.
Baiting Obama [*]demonstrates the tactic of fear mongering.
The Republicans who label themselves the Grand Old Party really are the Red Labelers by relying on Good Old Phobias of labels.
They utilize guilt by association, but run guilty of no association. It is really fear of any meaning. FDR in his first inaugural said:
I will point out that this was in the depth of the depression, and he points out:
Now it is said about FDR, that little was know of his plans. So do not take that as any swap at or comparison to the current candidates, Democratic at least. And of course Republican plans have been shown to mean little anyway. Bush in this blog, and McCain in his Flip-Flopper-Krafting, it is plain as the red on their faces. And the only thing green is the buck which is past and the envy behind their angry red labels.
[There is nothing humorous about the situation, except that humor does present an approach which should be investigated as a cover for anger. I presented a perspective that Swift Boaters have sunk the good name of a branch of the military-- Swift Boat Veterans-- (not so directly), in The New Wave, but Andy Borowitz (thanks to Thom Hartmann) takes it to the delta.]
[*] Henceforth the bold links will be the featured article I will be sure to read fully.
Baiting Obama [*]demonstrates the tactic of fear mongering.
The Republicans who label themselves the Grand Old Party really are the Red Labelers by relying on Good Old Phobias of labels.
They utilize guilt by association, but run guilty of no association. It is really fear of any meaning. FDR in his first inaugural said:
...first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
I will point out that this was in the depth of the depression, and he points out:
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things.
Now it is said about FDR, that little was know of his plans. So do not take that as any swap at or comparison to the current candidates, Democratic at least. And of course Republican plans have been shown to mean little anyway. Bush in this blog, and McCain in his Flip-Flopper-Krafting, it is plain as the red on their faces. And the only thing green is the buck which is past and the envy behind their angry red labels.
[There is nothing humorous about the situation, except that humor does present an approach which should be investigated as a cover for anger. I presented a perspective that Swift Boaters have sunk the good name of a branch of the military-- Swift Boat Veterans-- (not so directly), in The New Wave, but Andy Borowitz (thanks to Thom Hartmann) takes it to the delta.]
[*] Henceforth the bold links will be the featured article I will be sure to read fully.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Association is Not Free!
Unless given con text.
Original intent ? A Mitt-Flop on ** "free association"* or snooze in peace?
Put up or shut up?
Yeah, that's the ticket! NOT!
* anachonism of the ... N'th kind [!]
** ribble this
[Ouch! A tribute to Specter and McGovern?]
10-22-12: The point? Bold added above, not really the point. Put up, don't shut up! That is the point. So-called "un-decideds" may just be hesitate to settle on a pick for fear of ending up being responsible for being on the wrong side of history. Like Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up" but along with the potential that being undecided has for getting attention, there may be something to not being associated with a loser. So... Put up, don't shut up! VOTE! BTW: Obama may be the one, but is Romney the other one? The other point? There is less point in the effort to Restore Our Future(grammatically pointless), than to have Priorities USA !
Original intent ? A Mitt-Flop on ** "free association"* or snooze in peace?
Put up or shut up?
Yeah, that's the ticket! NOT!
* anachonism of the ... N'th kind [!]
** ribble this
[Ouch! A tribute to Specter and McGovern?]
10-22-12: The point? Bold added above, not really the point. Put up, don't shut up! That is the point. So-called "un-decideds" may just be hesitate to settle on a pick for fear of ending up being responsible for being on the wrong side of history. Like Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up" but along with the potential that being undecided has for getting attention, there may be something to not being associated with a loser. So... Put up, don't shut up! VOTE! BTW: Obama may be the one, but is Romney the other one? The other point? There is less point in the effort to Restore Our Future(grammatically pointless), than to have Priorities USA !
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Waking up to a New Year.
Americam Dreamer or Catsup Logging**.
Random Link Off My Desktop Top.*
*Not Exactly (it caught my eye)
** the order is now less lucid(or snoozing)
[speaking*** of two birds or mulberry rings.]
*** to be M-bedded or un
[p.s. you google so I don't have to (b.s. ), not to mention SCroll over, click or fun with labels]
Ribble?^ Marbles Clogs or American Exceptionalism.
(fn) Based on a Lucid Experiment (not really the source^^ but a punchline of sorts)
AC-DC?
^last insert
^^ but for "really","source" inserts
[Note parallel or geometric of some sort of sub-titles. It might also be noted that I had only saved the *link, not listened to it that I recall.]
--- --- BAM [!] --- ---
Hecuva derivative on two progressive New Year's reruns. Ed & Thom!(and freedom of association)
Random Link Off My Desktop Top.*
*Not Exactly (it caught my eye)
** the order is now less lucid(or snoozing)
[speaking*** of two birds or mulberry rings.]
*** to be M-bedded or un
[p.s. you google so I don't have to (b.s. ), not to mention SCroll over, click or fun with labels]
Ribble?^ Marbles Clogs or American Exceptionalism.
(fn) Based on a Lucid Experiment (not really the source^^ but a punchline of sorts)
AC-DC?
^last insert
^^ but for "really","source" inserts
[Note parallel or geometric of some sort of sub-titles. It might also be noted that I had only saved the *link, not listened to it that I recall.]
--- --- BAM [!] --- ---
Hecuva derivative on two progressive New Year's reruns. Ed & Thom!(and freedom of association)
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Frank Knight
Ben Stein noted this in an NCAA pregame commercial. Too bad I forgot what it was for, unless it was a public service message, and too bad the Washington Huskies lost in a squeaker that may have hung on a bad call by the refs. Now back to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Oops,
My Bad. Actually [*]...
they may be right, but not necessarily to the extent[**] they believe. Ten hours of sleep per night? But who knows?
[And in memory of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.]
[*] 3-21-11: links re-figured with bold and links here added, plus Oops realigned.
[**] note by association
Oops,
My Bad. Actually [*]...
they may be right, but not necessarily to the extent[**] they believe. Ten hours of sleep per night? But who knows?
[And in memory of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.]
[*] 3-21-11: links re-figured with bold and links here added, plus Oops realigned.
[**] note by association
Thursday, September 18, 2008
BAU
Business As Usual:
BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington)Biggest Rossi Funders
...should be prosecuted: Click top link for petition.
This should be addressed, if not by the AG, then by the political process and the media. Although the latter is as big a part of the process as the problem being business as usual- for Republicans.
BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington)Biggest Rossi Funders
...should be prosecuted: Click top link for petition.
This should be addressed, if not by the AG, then by the political process and the media. Although the latter is as big a part of the process as the problem being business as usual- for Republicans.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Tetrahedron?
Power On Demand?
From Martin Bashir to Dylan Radigan:
From Celebrity to Cheeseheads, from Mel to NFL.
Navigation reminder:
From 4mat to GeOhMeTry,
I is the word,
II is the association with politics and culture.
Bottom Link records last posting, time stamp will reflect original draft.
Then there is the Declaration and the Constitution and the Three Branches, and what 4? Of, by and for.
[THIS IS POSTED AS IS ON 3-15-11]
From Martin Bashir to Dylan Radigan:
From Celebrity to Cheeseheads, from Mel to NFL.
Navigation reminder:
From 4mat to GeOhMeTry,
I is the word,
II is the association with politics and culture.
Bottom Link records last posting, time stamp will reflect original draft.
Then there is the Declaration and the Constitution and the Three Branches, and what 4? Of, by and for.
[THIS IS POSTED AS IS ON 3-15-11]
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Turning the page (On Humor)?
[For orginal post go here]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.
Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)
But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)
So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.
And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.
*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.
Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)
But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)
So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.
And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.
*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.
Friday, April 13, 2007
4-11-07 Terrorists Strike Shock Jock and...
"young women" athletes.
Jason Witlock, on TODAY, attacks "opportunists" and "domestic terrorists" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for "causing them to receive threats on their lives." While he seems to be placing this in some rational context, he continues they "continue to go light fires around the country". Frank Luntz talks about "words that don't work" also on TODAY.
These clips taken off the Internet are not necessarily in context, but they do afford an opportunity to react. Taken separately they are part of the problem. Individual fires that need to be addressed. But the metaphor of war or fires are mixed metaphors, or are they (?) People are not trees, but fire fighters do light back fires to fight fires, and this is an interesting "firestorm"[Matt Lauer, 2nd clip] For the reaction that these "opportunists" are accused of "causing" are needed, not only to stop the spread of smoldering degradation, but to light the way to more confrontation. If the market is supposed to be what will address this, and supposed to be free, then how can shining light on that market be blamed for correcting it.
More light needs to be focused on the producers of these clips and their overall programming. For the smoke was blown by their presentation and likely lack of confrontation directly, at least as they are spread on the Internet. Matt certainly let this spread without even picking up a shovel, which is what fire fighters (the media) should do, rather than aid the arsonists or real opportunists, like the networks. The real light may be that the market obviously does not work in either focusing light or fighting fires, but more light or more reaction are not the terrorists.
My point is that if September 11th, 2001 changed things, maybe April 11th, 2007(the day MSNBC canned Imus) has changed things, and we will really fight in a new light. Unfortunately light is not new, and fire was a great invention{?), but smoke is only a signal that often is just blown away.
If this is just a media war, it should not evolve to just "star" wars, where personalities rise to the skies and continue to fire from satellites. That product of progress will really shine the light on the intentions(?) of the market and the culture of personalities(Imus) who might step up on the bottom line of all else. If he makes it elsewhere will he change his shtick? So far intentions are really lost in the smoke of slightly longer sound bites, that are just more little fires. Demonstrating that the so-called "opportunists" Witlock "blames" for setting fires are really doing the "hard work" that needs doing.
(apologies that these are only clips and I did not directly address much of either)
[4-17-07 slight punctuation changes and note 3(?):
intentions(?) of the market, invention(?) of fire- and there is more association than I thought of at the time I was just noting the ironies of mixed metaphors (?) ]
Jason Witlock, on TODAY, attacks "opportunists" and "domestic terrorists" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for "causing them to receive threats on their lives." While he seems to be placing this in some rational context, he continues they "continue to go light fires around the country". Frank Luntz talks about "words that don't work" also on TODAY.
These clips taken off the Internet are not necessarily in context, but they do afford an opportunity to react. Taken separately they are part of the problem. Individual fires that need to be addressed. But the metaphor of war or fires are mixed metaphors, or are they (?) People are not trees, but fire fighters do light back fires to fight fires, and this is an interesting "firestorm"[Matt Lauer, 2nd clip] For the reaction that these "opportunists" are accused of "causing" are needed, not only to stop the spread of smoldering degradation, but to light the way to more confrontation. If the market is supposed to be what will address this, and supposed to be free, then how can shining light on that market be blamed for correcting it.
More light needs to be focused on the producers of these clips and their overall programming. For the smoke was blown by their presentation and likely lack of confrontation directly, at least as they are spread on the Internet. Matt certainly let this spread without even picking up a shovel, which is what fire fighters (the media) should do, rather than aid the arsonists or real opportunists, like the networks. The real light may be that the market obviously does not work in either focusing light or fighting fires, but more light or more reaction are not the terrorists.
My point is that if September 11th, 2001 changed things, maybe April 11th, 2007(the day MSNBC canned Imus) has changed things, and we will really fight in a new light. Unfortunately light is not new, and fire was a great invention{?), but smoke is only a signal that often is just blown away.
If this is just a media war, it should not evolve to just "star" wars, where personalities rise to the skies and continue to fire from satellites. That product of progress will really shine the light on the intentions(?) of the market and the culture of personalities(Imus) who might step up on the bottom line of all else. If he makes it elsewhere will he change his shtick? So far intentions are really lost in the smoke of slightly longer sound bites, that are just more little fires. Demonstrating that the so-called "opportunists" Witlock "blames" for setting fires are really doing the "hard work" that needs doing.
(apologies that these are only clips and I did not directly address much of either)
[4-17-07 slight punctuation changes and note 3(?):
intentions(?) of the market, invention(?) of fire- and there is more association than I thought of at the time I was just noting the ironies of mixed metaphors (?) ]
Friday, September 07, 2007
Attention to the Right!
Note recent rearrangement of the
"not beating around he Bush? see these links"
and maybe a move to the left for it.
From The Daily Grist Consider...
And earlier associations: People for the American Way
ACLU Patriot Act
New association here: Grist
"not beating around he Bush? see these links"
and maybe a move to the left for it.
From The Daily Grist Consider...
And earlier associations: People for the American Way
ACLU Patriot Act
New association here: Grist
Monday, July 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR July 2013
7-9-13 *** (b.s.) "tuation" Case Study(s.c.), There is only one letter...(s.c.) "slash" pun (4f) In "F"n able? , Give an inch, Take a mile. (4f''n*) Take Back the American Dream(s.c.), WHERE DO YOU FALL...OWS!(s.c.) [Not exactly / free association !]
7-30-13 [FP3] Not to pun on quitter, but to finally read.
7-31-13 Actually to pun on Sounders !(a,b) 3. balanced + solutions (b, e, f, g, h, i) 4. P E G (b,c,d,e of G) 5. FulCrum (A*, b, C, D of E) 6. FC (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h,, i, j, l)
* anachronism of U.S.C.
7-30-13 [FP3] Not to pun on quitter, but to finally read.
7-31-13 Actually to pun on Sounders !(a,b) 3. balanced + solutions (b, e, f, g, h, i) 4. P E G (b,c,d,e of G) 5. FulCrum (A*, b, C, D of E) 6. FC (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h,, i, j, l)
* anachronism of U.S.C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)