This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL

New Clear

Much ado about nature? 

Chicken, Egg or New Clear? A new meaning for the acronym MAD! Aside from the feeling one gets when reading such things, it could be Mutually Assured Deterioration. It seems like the N'th time's the charm. Maybe there is a call for this type of clarity so we can be reminded of our own type of regime change, and how change period is a slippery slope up, not the theory that dominoes suggest by being exceptions to the rulers.

Re:clear
Nature~ the course of changing laws.

Old Clear?
Un-Clear !
3-31-15 Update!
4-1-15 Update.

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

FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012

See Preface or Forward.
NOT TO MITT-FLOP: but I will process the footnotes scrolling down in time as opposed to September's format.


10-1-12 Preemptive Footnote:  PEG'd flag?  Pre-Post-or-us?

10-1-12 Simon says 2 point or...?  <= Crtl F "work in progress"
twitchy:
Politico: Mitt Romney: King of comedy
A.
g.  World Order is the Hardest Work. (GO TO Ctrl F above and there)
Z.

10-2-12 Simon says 2 point or...?   [update: "Thanks to my Bane or Tan Gents...]
(links bubbl'in up)
the tale: Off the Cuff
Keys:  (b.s. font, Charts )
the C: (b.s. nail, see "the tale")
Hoods: The %th EleFont
pinning: (b.s. bill yards) Rhetorical Been Laden[*] In-Chief
chicken-hawks: (b.s. egg head) Contempt for Courage
[after math: Andrea Mitchell?]

Swift Reading!

"Is Growth the Be-All and End-All?

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

The economy is neither.
(Grammatically I am uncertain if a comma is needed or where, or if none is more to the points.)
Meaning it depends on perspective, not to mention choice of words, and sometimes two are not enough and one too many.

Where am I going? Exactly. Well not to be redundant, but...

Where have we been? Ourstory.
THAT IS TOO THE POINT.
Exactly and NOT.

* * *
Tangent or more to the point later and backing up to the present, I used to label such work QCON (Quick Comment On the News) , the N could stand in for nuts, or where it leads or where they come from, but I segue now, to the point. Good Piece! Despite my preemptive take on it, meaning, I have not finished or even read too much of it, but am sticking my preemptive neck out. But here is the catch or rather another perspective that I have applied the same methodology as well as possibly the subjects. That is somehow seeing between the leaps that others make or seeing that they have leaped to or fro a starting point, as well as what got us here.(Ourstory) [grammatical note: yes "fro" as in... well suffice to say I did edit check the sentence a time or too, and let it stand.]
But one point, whether the chicken or egg:
Hmmm? (dot, dot, dot) or rather

Well... based on a mistaken impression found in search of "be all and end all" the following came up. In furtherance of my methodology it could be labeled "Course Filter".
Course as in navigable and holey. Or wholly and holy.

But again I tangent to a possibly better place, whether by intention or error this may be the point. Given that I was not sure of this path but the point I used to get here was in my mind presumptive or nonetheless a found by a search.

This may take a reread and result in no recourse but at least it is not swift boating or hit and run. ID the future or id the future or the exception proves my rule. The search is ours.

Egg/Road/Sky*

or crossing the chicken...^

 

The Tikkun(MayJune'09)

knot Rubicon.

* a triad
^ a try ad ?


W. (a)Pre-post-or-us? , (b)  "OFF A CLIFF" , (c) Humpty Dumpty... , (d) Tear Down That Wall! , (e.)High8US , (f)  Bottom Line? , (g)  Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again) , (h) On the wall verses on the table. , (i) On the wall verses on the table. (j)Humpty Dumpty (k) Hold your head up Paul Krugman!  (l) A Plea to Congress  (m) Between the charges   [USC:dumpty]
X. (a) Humpty Dumpty... , (b) "they trust themselves" , (c)  The Clash  (d)  The Most Dangerous Game ,
=====
Y. (i) Odyssey Dawn , (ii)  Crossing the Rubicon (iii) CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!
Z.  Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.

BTW: I wonder Y the only link that is not a~ (sc)anomaly is (iii)?  Not because I let YouSC. Not to mention the spin on W(m) 
Snap! Big JC on Ed! (*^.)**

** [New Page](.) [Carpe Diem!](d/e) [D or R][Mixed News: colors and letters]  / PC of Mini-Me ?
{note to test that anomaly of (b.s.)/(sc)}   

Speculative Physics

Math is next to Godliness? ^
Or sixth sense?

Not just^ another Sunday ! ?

(Not that Socrates is alive[!])

[eff'notes: As of this time there are four lines above. Links inserted line 3, then 4, then 2.  Not to force or farce the model, but there is an event horizon.]

[ seg weigh ? ... is tough to track down ... ? ]

1-27-14  Not that I had any* mocumentary intent. But there was the Pro Bowl with intent to do something different and I had run across a YouTube on a different singularity.  Note that** my "sixth sense" is reference to the six edges of a tetrahedron which has four points.^^  My point of departure or parsing is that we may have a chicken and egg, not to mention crossing the road and sky dilemma.  While the singularities of Chomski and Hawking are different, that does not mean that we dismiss clause wits [!][?] ***

 

* Caging Godzillas 
^ or amer mots? French for "bitter words"
** further tangents?  (math and intelligence)
^^ at this point I will note that I have still to read three:
It's About Blackmail, Not National Security
Get Ready for Rand Paul
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All
Related ?




*** Our Hierarchy of Needs

[OW ? ! ? ? ]
And the past four ?
Foot notes ?
Not that there is anything in HeyDigger[!] butt ... ? [!] ?

^quote is my creation (recent search and non-related googles).

Impeach!

Karl Rove was forced to resign.*
Alberto Gonzales was forced to move on.
But force is still in the Cbeney/Bush playbook.
[I forgot one: Rumsfeld]
More important than forcing Cheney or Bush out,
is that the policies be forced to change.
Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Can more failures be prevented without the removal of their contributors.
Can congress change the policies? Can congress prevent more mistakes?
Accountability could come later, but will the road be longer then?

Impeachment starts as an investigation. Is there not enough?
Have we had enough? Will congress allow more?
Will a movement be enough? Could any change be trusted?

* edit 6-12-14 Carl Read Karl

SCOTUS BLOG

Direct two the Source.

My preemptive take on the Affirmative Action and Voting Rights rulings(1st two links) is which comes first the chicken of the egg?  This is not taken from the links but other early interpretations.  The key threat* of this feeling has to do with the former being sent back to the lower court and the latter being sent back to congress. I know this is not much of a take, but it may be that over-reach in reactions will mellow out.  Without embedding** more sources, I think there is irony in the juxtaposition.  In the former asking the lower court to determine if alternatives(to affirmative action)will reach desired results (of diversity).  In the latter(much less is known at this point) imagine congress having a part addressing any change to a voting rights acts.

* The key thread spins on scientific principles of cause and effect.
**[Not that I will soon to be reading the links.]
[6-26-13: The Cycle- another formula ? ]

Another chicken and the egg controversy?

The end does not justify the means. Bush said something similar.
The end justifies the means. If the latter were followed, the former would be claimed.

If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end?
If the end does not justify the means, we still need to ask what justifies the end.

If the end justifies the means, asking questions threatens the truth.
If asking questions is threatened, how will we begin, let alone end?

Where does the buck start, let alone stop?

FINDING A SILVER BULLET IN A MUSHROOM CLOUD?

Having only seen a small portion and the conclusion of the Rice testimony it strikes me that they are still on thin ice. They look back at the need for a war footing. They achieved the need for a war footing.

There was a failure of intelligence and the structure of communications. The story begins there.

Taking responsibility would reduce the finger pointing. Finger pointing avoids responsibility. Denying either does both. They seem to only focus on avoiding while laying it, another chicken or the egg controversy.

Denying that a silver bullet could have prevented 9-11 avoids the fact that any actions taken on some information could have caused more than they could know to flip. Jumping to the assumption that there will be a mushroom cloud unless actions are taken, is a flop.

Something must change but without full debate it will not be for the better. That something must change does not mean that a better job could not have been done.

Maybe someone's thinking must change. Maybe it was already wrong.

To make substantial changes based on failure cannot guarantee seeing a silver bullet when you are lost in a mushroom cloud.