Case Study

To be honest, I did not know how to characterize the situation of PFC Bradley Manning. I have not made much of the Wikileaks problem other than a possible jobs reference. PFC Manning is the reported source. I do not agree with his method or the principles behind Wikileaks, except that there are problems with the job of journalism. But that does not excuse the treatment of a prisoner as characterized in the above link from Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and it certainly does not seem to make him any more clear in his objectives. It seems that rather than be a principled leaker, Manning chose not to be the filter, which puts his principles and his defense and assessment for prosecution in a difficult enough position, without further mistreatment. So if this is a case study, it may be one for justice or not for our principles.

Follow-up

And post insert.[Update]

Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform

Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.

A calling of Blues and Jazz?

Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.

P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.

[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]

[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels

[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]

*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?

Supreme Court Jest Ice?

Where is the ice going? Well here is where it is coming from:

The New Yorker*: Rational Irrationality.

Well, not exactly: Obamacare Supreme Court Case is a Bad Joke.

Actually I will be intentionally preemptive**.

Is it some form of martial arts political calculus?

Maybe I have too much hope for Obama or too much faith in The New Yorker.

Bottom line, I have yet to read the article, but wanted to jump*** on the band wagon.(NOT!)

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I do intend to read more on this later.

* not that I have read it yet, but I like the heading.

** Jujitsu before reading.

*** case study[!] Reid sarcastic[!] Me...not read[!]

(also see "federal": not to mention Romney on Russia and Leno.)

[Seattle Times ]

[3-29-12 ALEC: Stand your Ground, Supreme Court Activism/ both sans comment.]

[Follow-up:

Seattle Excerpts, interesting hodge-podge of exchanges. If the constitution is not a living document, what is federalism? Killing two ironies in one comment?

Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler: Well ...

Times "seemingly split over ideology"/

But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.

Activism: "Justices Split".

Intentionally: Read Healthcare Jujitsu, Political Jujitsu, what's the difference? The party and the people. It would seem to me that Obama is the master, even without single payer as a goal. It might be called "free market" jujitsu where that is what could be flipped by even an option. The "free market" economic fantasy is under threat of being flipped as the fraud it is, under even the offer of competition. Maybe there is the jest ice.

Tangent of the day.^

[See original lede: Bingo on Faith, in paragraph two. Almost Bingo cubed !^^]

^ now that is an irony

^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^

^^^ or penta coastal or cost us [!]

[Fixing News: as opposed to breaking, I must update the Fixing . But what kind of market is it when if you don't participate you die? Ask Raw Money. On the other hand, he is correct: "We can't play the game like that." Let alone are banking and insurance really commerce? I they aren't, maybe they aren't people, maybe they are Leviathan? i.e. governments bailiwick or not!][Ed on Hannity: the journalist calling the journalist read, or the con calling the convict con(pot meet kettle/camel meet domino) ]

[3-30-12 Justices Meet...

Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But I will depun a bit on the self-fulfilling profits. ]

The Best of Intentions...

Are No Joke!
Not to pick on April Fools, but I had no intention of marking yesterday (the first.)

[Comments On Yesterday's Case Study.] [**]
[Please note that my third link (there) was inserted after the call for "All on deck"... And know(I mean, NO!) I did not start it. Maybe the Bee Gees started it... But I will reiterate a word of caution on the "punc" link, while endorsing the "irony" message. "He ain't heavy..." and in closing note that the "truthout" under "Headlines" questions the Newsweek cover claim which is worth a read, which I am still amidst.]

[I am trying to unribble[*] this. I am still amidst reading the Newsweek article embedded in the first link, and look forward to the Nation project, but reiterate caution on "Master of Puppets" head banging, but soundly endorse The Hollies, "He ain't heavy..." Also the Bee Gees was a last minute insert.]

[*] in this case unwind some meaning or links

** maybe the law of unintended consequences kept me from adding comments for the time being, on my previous post.
[On the other hand. Here is to popping*** culture.]

*** Jon Stewart takes a whack at CNN and other AprilFools, which I cannot be certain the date of and needs an "expletive deleted warning".

Case Study

Headlines under question(marks)!
Some filter so other don't have to?
Please read, as I haven't yet.

CAUTION: Sarcasm warning! Or as "some people" might say "nuance"? Or was that missed metaphors* or hypocrisy or as I noted "equivalence"** as a challenge in this revolving rhetorical not revolutionary world?

* more likely sloppy punctuation, or logic and grammar?
SUBSET OF CAUTION: I make no equivalence, Google found these Trivium, and the punc is likely too heavy metal or irony?

** just posted "saved in draft"

[There are deeper and lighter case studies, but they are under investigation if not pending prosecution.]

[No Teaser but Prophetic? But dig that Newsweek "V" of triumvirates, the deck of emergence is at least missing the "mark"(?) as in Rand(y) Childish Partiers. I used to be overly sceptical(and ahead of the curve) in the area of Mainstream Media, especially more so in print(I won't mention the big 3) but their first initials are N,T & U or is it nuts? But they are just playing to the market yet the fair-E tale is always in the making. All on deck, even if you have a couple(decks) or are missing a few cards, they just might be only the jokers.]

CPS

Not to make light of science or speculation, but I don't mean Child Protective Services.
I mean Crypto Political Science.  OW !
This is a spin off* of a case study, spectrum** politics and a table of progress.

*place holder 4
**knot exactly(SC)***

#1 Discipline - Philosophy, The Bully..., The Pinnacle? , Update: Fight On! , The Hit and Run Gang, Catch-44 , ( G. ) Over Helming., The Tetrahedron Ramble*, Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking., The Be All and End All?, CAD (2 out of 3 be bad) !

***{8-8-13}

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. 

JUNE(2013) FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE

6-3-13: 9/9 [sub-leak?-WikiLeaks’ Paul Ryan exposure, (2/5) Case Study, Ryan/Romney run from Ryan plan.., Smirking Gun[!], (5 /5)Obama Leaks]  Bottom-Line? [Really!{?} Future Bubble?, Bricks and stones, Unspinning Charlotte! !]

6-5-13:  8/15 two versions, 10/15 not(a,b) 11/15 too (a - Irony versus Hypocrisy, b(ii), c, d, Regime Rhetoric Reply)

6-6-13:  Recent Ex-Changes of 7, 2 /7, Mitt's BO*Son, Try Angle, 5 of,  The Mis-Underestimator of, "people like you"/7.   
1 of 15, 2, 3 of15, 4of, 5, 6, 7, 8 of, 9 /, Contempt for Courage, Better Business Bureau, 12 of,  What the Beck? /, 14 of, 15-All in?

6-10-13 (b.s.) Under the Table?, The Maze of Mace( 2/7 ), Bring It On!, Lib...Ya[!] is not Free!( 4 ), Toning Down the Lines.( 5 ), Progress is Global( 6 ),  Phase II? 

6-21-13 Not Here Yet!

6-24-13 NOW is to be inserted later.  "first+casualty"(b. s.) / "on the table buffet" ( b. s. ) (sc)

6-25-13 Yes, mean time is one word[!] C-till or...(fn2)
6-26-13 Hecuva job and whose here to help you, re labels and spoiler alerts.
6-27-13 : Post Newtonian Economics ... hilite Knot [!]

FOOTNOTES (March 2013) Page Two

3-14-13 {?} A. Trivium B. Case Study (sc) C. Use of Labels , D. NO JOKE {really?}

3-20-13 Curve Balls? : Pythagorean: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#51197599 (Mitt at C-Pac)  or  Platonic  http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#51043481 (Jeb Bush on Nightly News)
*** (David) http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#50780562 

3-22-13: [Follow-up of sorts (FP2.]
(b.s.)Ge+Oh+Me+Try: In the begining... , b, C, D, E, F(f), G(g), H(h), I(i), J, K, L*(l), M(m), N(n), O(o), P(p).
(b.s.)Tetrahedron: The Tetrahedron Ramble* (sc), B, C, D, E, f-F, G, H, I, j, k, L, m, n.
*Ctrl F(leverage)&(b.s.) (FP3)

Confession: No pun intended.

 In regards to the Tetrahedron of Everything, I may need to give credit to Ken Wilber.  While I was not aware of it at the time, and I had recovered it base on earlier work of mine(i.e. a reading of Plato’s Republic), I may need to give him credit for it.  Even to the point of unconsciously stealing it lock, stock and barrel.  Alternatively it is a case of synchronicity* but it turns out, he had a late night radio program from 1973 to 1982 about such “new age” matters.  This coincides with a period I worked mostly graveyard shifts and had access to a radio.  I recovered this not only through Plato other fields of study.  Only thanks to a  question to Meta AI did I discover that he had the same disciplines on the vertices of the tetrahedron.  They are Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.  HOWEVER: while this has not been run through AI even for cleanup, in a quick search I could not find the sources for what AI had given me on another device.    

A more comprehensive search (who came up with the Tetrahedron of Everything Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.) does not find what I have on my other device either.  But it does remind me to credit Buckminster Fuller who I saw speak at our high school in the early 70’s. Then there is Milo Wolfe who I can not place on the timeline of this process.  More credit to be processed.

https://youtu.be/bc5V_YXvGC8   This has not been viewed yet, but shows four people I have studied.  Three of them in one class.  “Marx, Nietzsche, Freud” and Einstein an early publication.  Sometime in the early 70’s I read the book, Man and his Symbols by Joseph Campbell, with a forward by Carl Jung.

* Update: I have found that Wilbur had not mentioned it until his book in 1995. Which I did not read or have.

5-9-26  However Arthur Youg mentioned a Tetrahedron of Will in 1976>

Safire Proved Urban Legend Monger

and Scandalous Hypocrite
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]

There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.

He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.

After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.

* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.

** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.