Actually I am looking for a new job.
Rabbilive.com interviewed Helen Thomas.
Now she has been forced to retire in an ironic atmosphere. Of course she is a journalist and she should have been more careful with her words, or not even held an opinion or at least not mentioned it or done an interview.** Ironically it is hard to extend that consistency to the likes of the Right where journalism and opinion are so connected there would be a whole lot of job openings if it were to be applied across the board. It would also be hard for her to be turned down by some speakers boards*. But then we are back to the irony.
(or Try Un Ism)
* of course given market forces it would still be a risk
** even this may be to harsh an analysis: one would think that she said that Jews should get out of Israel. That is a flat out error by CNN.***
[There is no defending the conclusion that has been reached by those that have listened to Helen Thomas, yet that is a double-edged sword. The conclusion is unjustified that all Jews should get out of Israel, it is also not necessarily what she implied. The challenge is to find a true transcript of her answers to the questions and then not ask "what if's" that are equally off base, especially behind her back.]
*** ["Thomas was then asked where the Jews in Israel should go? Thomas responded, "They should go home," which the White House reporter identified as "Poland, Germany ... and America and everywhere else."] The bold is not confirmed by the original on Rabbilive.com]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query consistency. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query consistency. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, June 07, 2010
Monday, July 11, 2011
N-oddly Enough...
[7-17-11 updating in progress]
I intend to expound upon the derivative-lined analogy(see Hint there).
To begin with, I had expounded upon the Murdoch troubles and 'N NPR report on my way into the NWRoots Conference. The NPR report had noted that Murdoch had influence, but it was not necessarily what made the difference in** elections in the light of his selecting a winner, not making a winner, and that it was more about money(power) than ideology(which needs more light or shading). Warren Buffet reflects some of this area that I 4shadow or shame. And Maher's remarks almost bring to color the ironic balance of logic.
Hint: 'N = not (also "an"*)
Math: 'N X N = 4 = GPS [!]= ...
Or is it Not^3=Oh[!]
* & is '4 a sine or cosine?
[footnote: Segue /'N Horsey 'Nadir]
[7-17-11 'Nconsistency ofor whichcraft[sp!].]
** correction "in" added 12-16-11 found in Pun on Tangent/Sine/Cosine
I intend to expound upon the derivative-lined analogy(see Hint there).
To begin with, I had expounded upon the Murdoch troubles and 'N NPR report on my way into the NWRoots Conference. The NPR report had noted that Murdoch had influence, but it was not necessarily what made the difference in** elections in the light of his selecting a winner, not making a winner, and that it was more about money(power) than ideology(which needs more light or shading). Warren Buffet reflects some of this area that I 4shadow or shame. And Maher's remarks almost bring to color the ironic balance of logic.
Hint: 'N = not (also "an"*)
Math: 'N X N = 4 = GPS [!]= ...
Or is it Not^3=Oh[!]
* & is '4 a sine or cosine?
[footnote: Segue /'N Horsey 'Nadir]
[7-17-11 'Nconsistency ofor whichcraft[sp!].]
** correction "in" added 12-16-11 found in Pun on Tangent/Sine/Cosine
Thursday, April 07, 2005
THE TAO OF DUB-YA
THE CAUSE AND EFFECT OF GEORGE DUB-YA BUSH:
“I trust the people not the government”
“I am a uniter not a divider.”
I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.
Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.
It is very simple.
He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,
so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.
And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,
in not trusting government.
Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.
If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.
He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.
The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.
“I trust the people not the government”
“I am a uniter not a divider.”
I have been making sense out of what the media has failed to ask since October of 2000.
Now I will address both these statements which are true, yet nobody wonders what he means.
It is very simple.
He trusts the people, so he will make sure the government will not be trusted,
so that it never becomes of, by and for the people.
And everything will be easier when he unites people behind him,
in not trusting government.
Actually this may be the opposite of The Tao, which we could call “foolish” consistency.
If he does get the government of, by and for the people, it will still not be trusted, as it will be anarchy or dictatorship of the majority, rather than a balance envisioned in the constitution and the three branches of government.
He has already made a fourth branch of government in the media, while the actual people may be on the internet.
The evidence is most profound in the lockbox which is only a file cabinet that holds the full trust of the U.S. government, which Bush will only trust for political gain. He recently saw it with his own eyes, only to ridicule the trust we should be putting in it.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Ephedra Ban Instituted
It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?
[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]
The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?
The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.
But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.
Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?
This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.
Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?
[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]
The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?
The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.
But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.
Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?
This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.
Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)