Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)

More than "Country First".

Hearing from some that the Palin selection was brilliant. I thought it is the difference between a brilliant chess move and one in checkers. Of course I am the one here talking game moves, but here it is the LA times talking "political calculations"... NOT! Or rather that the McCain theme of "Country First" was not about "political calculations." That is the game.

But back to me calling it a game. It is always a case of who starts it, and who counters, but I have already hit on that "of course". Now this is more than just a bit of quipery. Life is really more than just a game and sometimes it is not much less than politics. Obama has made the just calculation, while some have said McCain made the impulsive selection. But there I go again. Who started the use of "some"? Ouch, that was a double entendre that hit on course. Of course it is the political choice. But to some, politics is not much less than war.

Recent Efforts.

FORCED STAND UP!
Strategy of MoveOn

[12-08-05]Eighty per cent of Iraqi's want us out, 45 % believe that harming troops is warranted. If the troops are not there to be targets, they (insurgents or what ever you call them) will only have Iraqis or others to kill, which will certainly undermine the strategy that we are only reacting to and only increase the responsibility of Iraqis to stand up and make their own choices.


NO DISCOURSE MEANS WRONG COURSE!
TELL JOE

[12-08-05] I can only imagine that you are actually calling for us to speak out and so you will see the light of true patriots and then have the courage to do your job. It is your right to support what you see fit, but to call for following blindly in any time is a great disservice to the country and it's people especially to those who are supposed to be fighting overseas for democracy.

[Headings were not included with in the above comments sent with the petitions.]


TODAY'S RHETORICAL QUESTION: Will Lieberman play the role of a third party spoiler or be a party splitter?

Of course that would be the Republicans that should be spoiled or split. Not that I am suggesting this, for we would still have to worry about being spoiled or split. But my point of discourse above would mean that it is preferrable to "staying the course"/the wrong course.

Is there anything worse than a rhetorical question?
Answering it?

[Please note: hopefully compared to my usual comments this is seen as derived from some current wild speculation and taken a little further, not in hopes that it will come to pass.]

Spare the Rodney!

"I get no respect"
That is what the troops can say.
But who also gets no respect?

To put it plainly, lawyers and politicians have been the butt of jokes for quite some time, but it should be noted that "we the people" are the real bottom line.

What does this have to do with the issue of supporting troops? Talk is cheap, lives are dear. Law and politics should have the highest priority because of this connection. And that was not even where I started out on this course. My intention was to show that when all is said and done it matters who is in charge. So even behind what some say, what they do will be different. Context is always important, who says what is also important, but who is leading and who can follow it is the key.

It is too much to ask that those that disagree just shut up, but that seems what some are doing, without having the guts to even stay the course of saying it.

The point I can't put too plainly is that whatever is said, the context of who said it is important but that even different players taking the same course could do a better job, but it could be more important avoiding them.
[update beating around the job]

Straight Talk Express?

McCain touts his courage. Well does that translate to leadership? What about his campaign? Is he really leading it? Does he have the courage to stand up (side by side) or not on his own course? Can he face the facts?

Not to mention how can we expect him or whomever is directing the campaign to deal with our enemies, metaphorical button pushers or not, when they can't even tell the direction of an aphorism?

Pretty soon McCain is going to be comparing his scrutiny by the media on this issue to his interrogations as a POW. To put this issue to bed, heads should role. Fire the campaign manager who crafted his ad and his reply.

On Hardball a defender of McCain basically explained the afront. The best she could do was frame it as Obama stepping on Sarah Palin's punchline, when a McCain aide actually wrote a book on it. She even explained that Obama meant McCain was on old fish. Well if that is the case, it is really nice that McCain hid behind Palin in his defense, I mean attack ad. The only come back for this kid (McCain, is he has a wholesale housecleaning and finally changes his crew, not to mention course.)

Of course there may be no need to fire anyone, since he may have doubled down and be risking it all financially.

Choice v. Referendum

The choice is between looking back or going back.  Between Obama's turnaround and Raw Money's turnaround.   The economy has turned around and Obama can claim his second term.  The economy may turnaround* either way, but it does depend on actions and even inactions, not just words.  Ravi Batra predicts a double dip before the November election but also a recovery next administration.  So talk may be cheap, but it does depend on who you listen to***, and who we follow.

* Ravi Batra(2:06) on Thom Hartmann (also see 2:00 news of 3 hr show)

6-18-12 Mitt Romney health care comments ?
Not to make it a referendum on(awkward segue/lost line**) Obamacares v. Romneycare.
Choice is Greek to too many.

** only partial rethread, with awkwardness regarding the choice/referendum irony, not related to the eventual links here.

*** 6-19-12  Not FOX! Not Really!
A horse is a horse of course of course unless you're a Plato or Romney of course.

6-20-12 Re: De-funding?
"Sad day" for dribble [!]
What's the dribble? Not to be ironic. It's politics on the table, in regard to contempt of process.

6-21-12  The dribble ?
Politics Nation "Fast and Furious" [N BA: not to ribble]
Awkward Segue: **2
Bread and circuses*2 to a whole new level. Duoh!
Now there's the rub.

*2 Unless you're Mr. Ed!
**2 This line was insert after getting to the rub, not to mention the bread line or leveled links.  

FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR

2-12-13 See*FP3*: ^
(b.s.) "stay+course" Who Are They Calling Elitist?, It's Obama's Turn, Spare the Rodney!, PHASE II: We need some movement! , FP?  Stay the Comity of Course , Are We "IN" Yet?, Stay the Comity* What's going on? , I'm not a lawyer but..., Out of Line? "Hogwash", *knot*, ...what about the damage to your Presidency?,  The other ground game..., Tony Baloney, Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , Off the Cuff?, GO OBAMA!*(note2) Weeeee! or Fb?

(b.s.) "navigate"  Fine Tuning. OW2*3, Borrowed Comment!, All Politics is Local? , Try Angle,C-weeeee*, I Told You So.yeah(sc)right, Two Clever by One Third? , ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years, Unity '08 (pOW), Local Content , LeftyBlog? , Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm, **

Note: problematic to LABEL at this time.[[?]] [^^] 
* (sc) [F&progress?]or *knot*
** note on progress in regard to this blog 'n case studies re:CAD) (fn)

(fn) TBA? CAD (Culturally Aided Design), CAD (2 out of 3 be bad), CAD (To be or not 3d), State of Politics, "you people..."? 

^ see more than one level of problematic aster risking and design.  Which should be revisited from the top line down, with focus on Labels, all annotations marks, PAGES and *FN* heading, and TBA laters.

[^^] 2-13-13 [Do I have to return to *legend*
[!] = pun, satire, etc.  [[?]] could mean later question mark inserted. Of course most puns are a matter of timing and sometime anachronistic.  
BUT BACK TO TODAY'S (FP4) Here: Not that I intended to hit(A.) on (B.) the anachronism.
(b.s.) "articulated+bus"= A. NO JOKE , B. UPDATE ONLY? KNOT[!]  [**] {L}

It's Obama's Turn

[Keep the Change(scroll down)]

Of course.
Stay the course.
The private* sector is fine
verse US economic turn around.
[Hardball Metaphor.  Making the case.***]

* E. G. Private Equity Government
(The nuts and bolts?  If Romney cannot understand that the economy has turned around, then what will happen when he turns it around.)
[Ouch ! ]
[Politics Nation ? ]
[Whip Republicans with Reagan and Clinton!]
Thom Hartmann?
Word of tomorrow?  Pernicious.**
[Coffee Table This! The Fifth Element.]

6-10-12 Keep the Change!
Yes this is a bumper sticker for Obama!  Though the links may be a bumper sticker for Clinton or nuance.  Not that I have fully read them yet, I will try to stay the course, not to mention other threads.

6-11-12
Inconvenient Try-Angle !
NOW w/ Corny Copy Ah. "Mind the Gaffe(added 6-13)": "food fight"



Verse us Tony TruthyahKnow.

** anachronism approved:  "Perspective" was Norman Goldman's word of the day(Thursday). "Scale" was my suggestion(for Friday), and "pernicious" was my word for Monday.

6-12-12
Curb Your Enthusiasm !
[Duct Tape?  Goose Pate!]
[(Middle - Name / N SC ?)]
[ Bubble Up]

6-13-12
Jeb Bush: Walk Back ?
(Hardball)
*** link(s) added
McCain sabotage.
NOW "Picking up the Tab".

6-14-12
Keep the Change!
"Different Visions" NOW!
Past is prologue or (unpassed)Middle - Name.(Scroll-up)

Happy Birthday to us!
The Dickens We Say!
Better to look back than go back!
Preemptive Comment this AM:  Obama battles for Fiscal Reality!
Geitner is speaking on Andrea Mitchell Reports.
Andrea Mitchell pulls Geitner's leg on Romney, but he doesn't bite.

Romney wants to get it done.  He doesn't want to look back, he wants to Re-Right!  If we look back we will see his Re-Write. 
Overhang of Obamacare? 
It's coming back?
[Not to mention "No New Taxes"!  Old taxes will do fine.]
Segue: Presidents Speech to be inserted later.
[Thom Hartmann Couples Counseling/Next President will take credit for "breaking up" better economy.] Talk is cheap?

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?

Earlier Rant or Ramble (and back)

Better to flip-flop than to completely flip or flop.

Judge and re-judge thyself,
lest thee be Re-judged and De-judged.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(The links were added as after thoughts, or post script. I now find a core theme for these seemingly out of the blue thoughts. Bold inserted hypocrisy -(?) and thanks to GoLeft.TV below.)

Compelled* or expelled ** for flip-flop, my point is that it turns on politics.

*to go on... stated plainly flip-flop is explained by nuances and if nuance is not applied will be hypocrisy or just flip-flop. Long story short: Nuance is just flip-flop, while flip-flop can be just hypocrisy. But justice is not just _ _ _ _ ! (fill-in or leave blank)

But underlying this duality, is that politics is not a dirty word! No more than is power or money, but it is about having a choice and better than choosing between tyranny and anarchy. Using it or loosing it may have bearing, but will not indicate ones bearings.

A careful look at Barack Obama's bearing, as well as his choice of words and their meaning will highlight what will be found in the dictionary under bearing(s) [especially the 8th]. There is no reference to age or marbles or balls except as in page, carriage, heritage and language, unless one digs into heraldry and a likely escutcheon but as a pilot McCain should know better and not be so touchy and defensive. Or is it just offensive?

** Mocumentary and stranger yet later and more, and surfing the net.

[5-14-08: In trying to shore up a weak link (one of the above did not connect) I found a stronger link to what started this offensive narrative(McCain claiming Hamas endorses Obaba). Stated more correctly McCain endorses Bin Laden in his argument for his bearing down on Iraq. Of course this is just a trick of words, but the emphasis is on the trick and the focus should be on the meaning, and the tack. (A midcourse correction saved me from a tactical(no technical)error with tact) Specifically of course it is about our course and the choice between A. Obama's tact and B. McCain's tack and how we deal with attacks or a tact.]

[ 5-14-08: Since this originally seemed out of the blue, here is one out of the red (nfry) to be "fair and balanced". ]

(?) 5-14-08: even I can't recall the reason for the "bold insertion" reference unless I'm lost in italics but hypocrisy is noted in the out of the red above. And now I add a spin for the ages titled E Pluribus Nixon and a note on "positive polarization" and find irony in having a bearing without a (w)hole or a shaft to spin on.

Our Patriotic "Duty"

One may wonder if I have prescience, but it is more likely what may need to become more common sense. Common sense is really only a sense of what is more common. It may take a more radical sense to detect what is real. If that is hard to follow, at least it makes sense to me why it is.

Anyway, the connection from point to point is the word "loyalty" and to who or what.

Keith Olbermann has done it again! Bush owes us an apology.
[find in link: Ctrl F "duty"]

Of course an apology is only part of the solution, the rest is a change of course. Let us hope that he is not completely around the bend.

LASTLY AND TO START WITH: Why the heck are we exporting "democracy" when too many are pounding the table about it here and others worrying about whose ground they are standing upon when they are expressing it?


P.S. Of course the link in the previous post is expired. My apologies, and for how many, I do not know. But that only means that this point has moved forward, in case I do not make it back to add links to the past references. At least these are tied closely.

Cost of Course

From no less than David S. Broder, no lefty
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic."

As Reagan would say: "There you go again." Well I use this to refer to my post which I just lost as time expired.
[NOTE: After doing all this work, a second time, I then notice that the lost post is up. LESSONS OF WAR. Sorry for the redundancy, and it is unedited, but I will leave it up as I must go off in another reality or discipline.] [a navigation aid: use CTRL F in these links to save "hard work".]

My point: Reality is about many disciplines, not just discipline. Hmmm, I've never been to the point before, maybe there is something to beginning from scratch.

In this case economics over just the economy. Work not just hard work.

Well this does not mean that I won't have tangents, in fact that is what linking the fields implies.

My second or original point, is that economics has more to do with history than winning. Actually I may be getting farther from the course I took in the lost post. But two examples are Vietnam and Afghanistan. We lost one and are losing the other. We are doing business with one and the other beat the Soviet Union, and we are still losing.

Then there is the "pottery store" or simple minded advice that still is in play and not fully understood.

This is where I have more experience that I even knew, forgetting that my first job was printing store signs. I also have wandered a few shops or two and feel that it was "You break it, you bought it." Doesn't that flow better both literally and economically. Despite the fact that it is not the Pottery Barn policy, it is ironic or not that Thomas Friedman is involved in this. Only a sloppy or slanted writer would confuse the credit to his words. As far as I can tell, the course often depends on reading signs. and getting their meaning straight. Owning something is a whole lot better sounding than whatever work it takes to get it.

I don't know if you get this sign but the post was a whole lot shorter and straighter than the one lost.

Maybe Woodward and Russert got it, but Powell probably used too many words for Bush. See Wikipedia
[8-19-10: labels and link added]

PHASE II: We need some movement!

Here is a look at the Middle East conflict through the filter of Bush,
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.

--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.

---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.

Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.

---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners

Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...

THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.

His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?

Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.

Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.

* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.

Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.

===========================================================

Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".

They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.

It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.

The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.

I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".

Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson

Moving on:

I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.

I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.

Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.


That Train Keeps On Rolling.

Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.

Roger Larson


(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)

* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.

[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]

A Tax is Attacks?

Of course off course.
And doing just fine? 

Course Filter!

[Or finer filter file]
A funny thing happened on the way to this breakdown.

I was going to adjust my processing or filing routine and here is where I will leave it for now. TWO LINKS OR NOT TO READ! (in fits and starts is how this should read maybe, but my concern was that "OH NO!" what is this email from some organization.

Well here goes the rest of the course.
[Two links from that email.]
http://www.americansforhealthcare.org/
http://www.americansforhealthcare.com/bhctprinciples.cfm

As I began this filter I was barely into the filtering myself but after putting it down or rather cut and pasting and transferring to a file I read the second and found out the who. It does not matter, or does it?

The principles are the start. And just because some are seemingly on the "other side", that does not mean that all and more do not need to participate. So if you are a Union Hater or a Wal-Mart Hater, drop the hate and lift your mind to the possibility, but you must be a part before you can turn down the filter.

Maybe in conclusion for now...
A dialogue broke out
While I was just on the way to file it.

Bottom Line Update

[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]

On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]

On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]

The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.

* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?

[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.

[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:

The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.

"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.

Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]

[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.

Stay the Comity

Of Course :
Click Here
Don't Click Here[**]
Foot[*] Note: Faux News
[*]GO HERE
[More Course Work.]
[**]just burying the lead (but really see [*])
[Or is it WMD, weapon of mis-direction.]

What is a slut?

Tracy Clark-Flory in Salon draws an interesting conclusion:

The trouble is that everyone has a different idea of where that line is. It's all very subjective, because how many partners is too many? How much cleavage is too much? When does flirting cross the line? As feminist activist Jaclyn Friedman explained in her SlutWalk Boston speech, "That's how the word 'slut' usually works. If you ask 10 people, you get 10 different definitions" -- and, of course, therein lies its power.

I won't define or defend the word or its use. But my original comment or lede had to do with Trumping the word, or flushing a show. There is no profundity in having to explain, not that either are funny but it is about breaking things.
[Saved in draft till 5-31-11]
[Over the weekend, I was ranting this ribble with a friend and really got riffing, or was it flushing. But I also pondered the genderless generic form of a "slut". Not until today did the word "monger" present itself to me. Somewhere before(of course), the word "scatology" may have entered the rhetoric. So I believe that the most useful appropriate word for the likes of most right wing talk peddlers, is scatmonger, as opposed to...well, I guess the left can have some scatmongers, but if it were understood how a septic tank works, it might be different.
[This is a deeply embedded and plumb'd ribble, with leaks in italics, and may be clarified or upgraded(updated) upon review.]

Mouse Course

http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=mouse+corner
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=mice
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=mices
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=maze
Bottoms Up or Bubble Pop?
The Maze of Mace
Chump Change or stet the course?
Neo-Romulan or Anti-Uncle?
June 2013 Footnotes Page
C3-PO?
To Be Arranged
Fair and Balanced...
Parallel (Or Not So Pair o' Lax) Channels
Health Care NOW
i.e. not to spell cOW or pi in the sky or o.u. but sometimes why...
Rat Races Van Mices?
Optimism
<
A Necessary Recovery Compromise  [...]
>
HELP NAVIGATION  [...]

OW

Under consider rata[?]