Who gets it?
The line in question is in the last link or post:
"subset of sovereignty or tangle"
But I wonder if Michael Hudson really gets it? Post G-20?
We all know it is about who gets it(materially), but some realize there is a question of values(spiritually) but where we mix things up regards the democracy and economics and a devaluing of politics, and the powers that be.(the people and their relationships) In this regard, I mix the allegory of the egg(Humpty) versus the wall(Dumpty) and working on lowering both rather than breaking or knocking both down. Keeping in mind, the pragmatic and incremental, and the cooperative and the competitive dynamics of the whole process. Given that there is more of a bubble problem than the wall problem when it comes to numbers and the creative derivative situation, it seems that a leak is in order, and that might be in the form of tax reform. AKA: Entitlement reform. (not really AKA, more like biofeedback* wise)
*simply a very complex dynamics
[To sum it up, there is a very interesting exchange on Face the Nation where a new congressman (Rep.-Elect Mike Kelly) presents an interesting "reality": "running" the country in the black (sounds like the country is in business **) vis a vis a gory alley.(a flip-flopped allegory) In an aside it is truly more than about left and right, Democrat and Republican, for it seems the Democrats have been acknowledged to be split in their approach including Obama in terms of being accused of being for or against business(it is not that simple) but the representatives in this exchange are "running" from their party in regards to responsibility,(Michelle Bachmann & Kelly) as they may not have voted along the lines of what their party has, in fact, neither did the Democrats in regard to the compromise on the Bush tax cut extensions. In this case being on the same side, does not make both right or wrong, but only both being there for different reasons.]
** link added 1-24-11
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query dynamics. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query dynamics. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Loose Lips and Sinking Metaphors
Footnotes PAGE Under Construction:
1-25-12
1-26-12 [spin off of above...]
On the horizon, from G.H.W. Bush's "read my lips" to Bruce Bartlett's point: "1990 is the last time you had a leading Republican figure or President who cared about the deficit..." It is ironic he points out that the US is under the lowest tax burden in history compared to GDP.
More on Pit Bullies, in con text. Not that the gap in context is part of the con text, but the in con text(links) provide tripartite context**. In less embedded prose, bully for the Clemons piece, the Austrian pitting of Obama/Brewer, in relation to the Bush years, Iran con, and economics texting. While the final con text is the Standard and Pours[!] of the Neo-perspectivism on flip-flop and nuance. One try angle, another try angle. Not to call an odd man out, nor 4wo***man, but under the con I(above)ran a Just Foreign Policy sample, that takes a look at the dynamics of diplomacy. *
* not to be fair and balanced, nor brush off or in women,
the last three links reference; Hillary Clinton, Joan Walsh and Susan Rice.
** there by allowing 3 links to follow the pit bullies dynamics (2+3=5)
(I plead the 5th in regard to irony[!])
< previous post >
Monday, June 01, 2009
"just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"
Sotomayor on the letter of the law.
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective
The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]
[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective
The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]
[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]
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.]
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
New Approaches?
New Intelligence Estimate New York Times
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *
Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.
Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.
* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07
FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:
Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *
Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.
Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.
* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07
FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:
While many disciplines and departments are involved there are three primary fields that make up the dynamics of individuals in society, and those are the Physical, Psychological, and Philosophical, and the fourth is represented by the dynamics which is about the people and their goals and that is Politics. These are the areas that need work in society before we can hope to prevent let alone predict people who will take thoughts and feelings into actions. But some of the circumstances that one guest listed as contributors to radicalization are the lack of issues being addressed by society, issues that could be said to cause violent radicalization. Issues which are just the ones that Republicans refuse to address, and Democrats just barely stand up for. Those being basic needs and government accountability.
Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Be All and End All?
NOT[!] *
Nor,
Neither.
Not to trammel up the consequences,
but "Peace is hard work"
and so are economics and progress.
Not to catch up on the gaming metaphor either.
(See Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism")
Not to mention actual tables.
[ T. O. W.]
Politics ---> Economics, Government, Religion (Values)
Philosophy -
Psychology -
Physics ---> Math, Meaning, Forces(Ge Oh Me Try)***
Leaving aside the dynamics of philosophy and psychology, the internal and external dynamics of thoughts and feelings should be noted.
Also note difference between theories and models,
not to mention** formulay.
* note irony puncutation [!] in regard to the INET dicussion of models in the context of "Moneyball" and the Bard.(next two links) But more importantly in the context of the Platonic system, which I call the Tetrahedron of Will(TOW).
** Or KOW TOW
*** not just to pun but physics is the base and politics the pinnacle in this GPS of whose will and what will happen.
[Update: 7-10-13 hilites added also labels(INET/The Last Word)
Nor,
Neither.
Not to trammel up the consequences,
but "Peace is hard work"
and so are economics and progress.
Not to catch up on the gaming metaphor either.
(See Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism")
Not to mention actual tables.
[ T. O. W.]
Politics ---> Economics, Government, Religion (Values)
Philosophy -
Psychology -
Physics ---> Math, Meaning, Forces(Ge Oh Me Try)***
Leaving aside the dynamics of philosophy and psychology, the internal and external dynamics of thoughts and feelings should be noted.
Also note difference between theories and models,
not to mention** formulay.
* note irony puncutation [!] in regard to the INET dicussion of models in the context of "Moneyball" and the Bard.(next two links) But more importantly in the context of the Platonic system, which I call the Tetrahedron of Will(TOW).
** Or KOW TOW
*** not just to pun but physics is the base and politics the pinnacle in this GPS of whose will and what will happen.
[Update: 7-10-13 hilites added also labels(INET/The Last Word)
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Over Helming.
[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]
Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.
* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]
Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.
* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Economics...
is no more the vehicle of our values than religion or politics. But politics is the more fair and balanced of the three as long as none of the three dominate the message, four they will. The s'um is great than the duoh!
[Subtext or Con Text?]
A thought divided against itself.
[Field theory or spare the Rodney? ...speaking of Homer]
[Vector valuing dynamics]
[Subtext or Con Text?]
A thought divided against itself.
[Field theory or spare the Rodney? ...speaking of Homer]
[Vector valuing dynamics]
Sunday, January 08, 2012
A Shot in the Arm?
A collegue recently commented on the difficulty or the desire to be objective. This nails perspectivism on the head, or is it the cross? From neo-perspectivism through neo-nuanced and neo-platonic we do have a dynamic*** of global balance. More sorting later*. Thus spoke Niche?
* 1-9-12 correction (not two Chinas: two perspectives.)
BTW: Thus spoke Adam Smith.
D'Ribble[!] Which came first the crossroad or the chicken?**
Henwood/More? More's the Pity?
[On the other arm, a nemesis may have stubbed a tow(sic) on the plank the nail sticks out of.]
[Speaking of Ice, Thom Hartmann is in Iceland and provides some of the neo-perspectivism.]
** 1-10-12 link added (plural)
*** also maybe plural(see Hartmann/neo-relativism?) dynamics?
[edit notes: Ctrl F "the cart"]
[Also Ctrl F "Descartes" and the four horsemen?]
[Note: I have been lax in my boldness of links as an aid to navigation or sense of the thread. In that regard I finally bolded two.< now 3(!) > Also my asterisks and [brackets] are time relative or sensitive. i.e. to flow of the read. Now I will also note the relative flow of neo-platonic, neo-perspectivism, neo-liberal, neo-con, neo-nuanced and neo-relativism, not to end with six, name names or Ctrl F. BTW: Excuse me if I don't go to the trouble of flip-flopping the tetrahedron, that is the point.(Ctrl F "the people" and "the constitution".)]
[Speaking of a4 or timing, my 4a brought me another F, if not CF.(Note grammar, numbers, shapes, timing, etc.) F is TBA. Not to mention ? Nor Kidding. In closing (?)(!) Or too close to the 4close or Bane?]
[Third Bane's a charm? i.e. convention, congress, cain ? ]
[Speaking of Bane and Try Angles or Flip Romney and flopping it.
BTW: Under the Flip link there is an accounting or statistical trick that is not unknown to the debate. I won't play upon it, but it involves the "average tax cut" versus "the middle-income American." It is mathematical hyperbole as well as reasonable, where reality is even more confusing. It is more accurate to say that the richest are paying a lesser per cent of their gross (actual tax rate) than any other income category after the standard deductions and other taxes are accounted for.]
> previous post <
* 1-9-12 correction (not two Chinas: two perspectives.)
BTW: Thus spoke Adam Smith.
D'Ribble[!] Which came first the crossroad or the chicken?**
Henwood/More? More's the Pity?
[On the other arm, a nemesis may have stubbed a tow(sic) on the plank the nail sticks out of.]
[Speaking of Ice, Thom Hartmann is in Iceland and provides some of the neo-perspectivism.]
** 1-10-12 link added (plural)
*** also maybe plural(see Hartmann/neo-relativism?) dynamics?
[edit notes: Ctrl F "the cart"]
[Also Ctrl F "Descartes" and the four horsemen?]
[Speaking of a4 or timing, my 4a brought me another F, if not CF.(Note grammar, numbers, shapes, timing, etc.) F is TBA. Not to mention ? Nor Kidding. In closing (?)(!) Or too close to the 4close or Bane?]
[Third Bane's a charm? i.e. convention, congress, cain ? ]
[Speaking of Bane and Try Angles or Flip Romney and flopping it.
BTW: Under the Flip link there is an accounting or statistical trick that is not unknown to the debate. I won't play upon it, but it involves the "average tax cut" versus "the middle-income American." It is mathematical hyperbole as well as reasonable, where reality is even more confusing. It is more accurate to say that the richest are paying a lesser per cent of their gross (actual tax rate) than any other income category after the standard deductions and other taxes are accounted for.]
> previous post <
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Friday, October 21, 2011
Lib...Ya[!] is not Free!
There is enough loopiness in Lib...Ya! and
The Politics of the Table, posts.
but HERE is no October Surprise.
See heading: The Lib...Ya[!] pun is free, but freedom is not only not free, it is not a farce.
"no illusions" quoting the president.
Or Iron Knee?
[Local Tangent?]
[Metrics of Coherence: Martin Bashir]
[Metrics of Comprehensiveness:(Dylan Ratigan) Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down, Thumbs off the scale, Thumbs all around. Not to mock a squad, or cheer lede, but sometimes there is a mess in the message. By this I am pinning a tale on the media, not to mention occu-pied pipers. No Don Qui intended.]
[BTW: these last two bracketeds* are pre-and post vision things**. i.e. the coherence was post Martin Bashir, the comprehensiveness(original comprehension) was pre-emptive of viewing Dylan Ratigan, a transition comment of sorts***, but the perspective was coming from sorted strengths and dynamics, as in areas of politics, economics and foreign policy, not to wholistically thumb up or down individuals or fields.]
* re: Martin and Dylan
** segue
*** for proper chronology I closed the bracket and will insert here the intended Bashir and Ratigan, leaving the rest as is.
[10-22-11: inserting links in asterisk(3) and also insert the two Bashir and one Ratigan within the bracketeds, plus interesting segue- difficult transition]
The Politics of the Table, posts.
but HERE is no October Surprise.
See heading: The Lib...Ya[!] pun is free, but freedom is not only not free, it is not a farce.
"no illusions" quoting the president.
Or Iron Knee?
[Local Tangent?]
[Metrics of Coherence: Martin Bashir]
[Metrics of Comprehensiveness:(Dylan Ratigan) Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down, Thumbs off the scale, Thumbs all around. Not to mock a squad, or cheer lede, but sometimes there is a mess in the message. By this I am pinning a tale on the media, not to mention occu-pied pipers. No Don Qui intended.]
[BTW: these last two bracketeds* are pre-and post vision things**. i.e. the coherence was post Martin Bashir, the comprehensiveness(original comprehension) was pre-emptive of viewing Dylan Ratigan, a transition comment of sorts***, but the perspective was coming from sorted strengths and dynamics, as in areas of politics, economics and foreign policy, not to wholistically thumb up or down individuals or fields.]
* re: Martin and Dylan
** segue
*** for proper chronology I closed the bracket and will insert here the intended Bashir and Ratigan, leaving the rest as is.
[10-22-11: inserting links in asterisk(3) and also insert the two Bashir and one Ratigan within the bracketeds, plus interesting segue- difficult transition]
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Meta World
Peace Out!
The Lost Obama.
[under construction: there is more to the DBA.]
No, this is not a parting shot. But it is a crack or google at DBA.
I really should not make light of crack pots.
"by crack/key" [!]
Hint: Have your scroll on or click on.
[New MO(or no mo']
[Mo bama Slash Oh-ba-ma]
[Index A and B in progress, Oh Ba Ma ? Irons in the fire, without ironies. Not so fast.
My point of this taxing tangent is the GeOhMeTry* of escalation or not sum game.]
A hint is sometimes in the scroll, over.
[Posted today: This is A, B, C and D. Under D and team[!] there is Will Time.]
[The Process?]
* my pinnacle or bubble theory in regards to Politics, Religion, Economics, and Foreign Relations (more specifically, the values dynamics)
The Lost Obama.
[under construction: there is more to the DBA.]
No, this is not a parting shot. But it is a crack or google at DBA.
I really should not make light of crack pots.
"by crack/key" [!]
Hint: Have your scroll on or click on.
[New MO(or no mo']
[Mo bama Slash Oh-ba-ma]
[Index A and B in progress, Oh Ba Ma ? Irons in the fire, without ironies. Not so fast.
My point of this taxing tangent is the GeOhMeTry* of escalation or not sum game.]
A hint is sometimes in the scroll, over.
[Posted today: This is A, B, C and D. Under D and team[!] there is Will Time.]
[The Process?]
* my pinnacle or bubble theory in regards to Politics, Religion, Economics, and Foreign Relations (more specifically, the values dynamics)
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Nightmare Act
I didn't plan this.
The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.
[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]
The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.
[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]
Sunday, December 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES PAGE DECEMBER 2013
Begun 12-3-13
12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ?
rtd 12-3-13
Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality// trinity/body Headings
and^ Leadership*. (dynamics)
^ of/or 8: Snooze/Dream(4,6) *prof(it)C? (7,8) Bane or Right? [Not to blog both ends against the middle.]
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. / The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy Try Ad of Caution? (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics) OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD
12-23-13 (4) A. Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed g, What's good for the goose...
12-27-13
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?^] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9 // 10 / 11
^ insert a - h
12-29-13 - Original 5 links. A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?, 2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix ///
12-30 F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5. , G.notes^ -1. 2.Heuristic
Concurrence and 3.My
Respects to Those who Celebrate. (re-search*) ,
H.math^^ - 1. Too
Random... , 2., 3.Bury
the lede?, 4. ROW
MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] . *(under the case of not fully read yet, but back to math... why now 16? too cubed by two? Speculation that the 5th perspective is from apart too pun? The three-body problem regards intitial circumstances from within or without. R 1st 3 models different than recently added. The pow#r of i(V)?
12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ?
rtd 12-3-13
Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. / The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy Try Ad of Caution? (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics) OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD
12-23-13 (4) A. Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed g, What's good for the goose...
12-27-13
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?
12-29-13 - Original 5 links. A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?, 2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix ///
12-30 F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5. , G.notes
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Failure is always
an ingredient of progress. Perfection is always a failure. (Overwhelming superiority and the best and brightest of intentions* aside.)
* parsing and puns or Pen Dull'em [**]aside there are important dynamics involved
[**] 5-29-10 Err at'm to my original swing
* parsing and puns or Pen Dull'em [**]aside there are important dynamics involved
[**] 5-29-10 Err at'm to my original swing
Monday, February 25, 2013
Bricks and stones
no bones about it?
Too many threads.*Still in the process of reading the links embedded and woven aknew[!]***
*2-24-13
[a different Handy**]
[not to get a degree in Bacon but sometimes shelves are handy]
** found on one of my shelves.
*** Rhee-Marshall-Handy
In Charles Handy's The Age of Paradox,(**) there are two chapters I navigated to, but first I would say that every age is a paradox, as that is the nature of nature. Anyway, they are The Federal Idea p. 109) under Practicing the Preaching, which referenced back to the Sigmoid Curve(p. 49) under Finding the Balance. I would like to weave in the Paradox of Choice by Bob Schwartz to determine if management of information and business is what education should be based on.
Forbes Thought Of The Day
“Money never starts an idea; it is the idea that starts the money.”
— William J. Cameron
[See under degree / on, (b.s.)finds "tetra+heed+run" / "Platonic+plank" = Education/Business/Government loopiness. Not to suggest nonsense or SixSigma, but a Six Edged 4Mat of dynamics and what matters and is the point, balancing change and individual freedoms. (Platonic Platforming and Planks Constant?)]
Not to suggest a tipping of the tetrahedron, or BEG the work of N-title meants but which comes first? Business/Education/Government slash results or causes and affects of design?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
What Obama can't say.
Chris Matthews says Obama must do something to show he gets it. But what really needs to happen is that the people need to get it. Get it?[***]
[As the show(Hardball) progressed.]
[11-12-10 We aren't even sure the Debt Panel gets it. Often we aren't even sure what (or who) it is to get, but a recent comment by Thom Hartmann spurred me to comment as he closed his show with: "we need to start making things." While that is partially correct, is it not a bit too into the "consumption racket"*? Why not say we need to start valuing things? Would that not shine the irony on our market system? Maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe I am being too idealistic. But both these shine the light on the complexity of reality. My point ends and begins in The Republic, and (regards the irony of)** Platonic Justice.
* "air quotes" added (not that anyone calls it that)
** (comment added): maybe (dynamics of) would be better.]
[*** change: too much(Obama) or not enough?(jobs)]
[Bingo? see * here not there]
[Breaking yet to read. But I will preemptively summarize what I feel is the Obama approach, broad brush change, that started with his domestic agenda, through diplomacy and security issues, ending in global support for change. Wow, when I start a broad brush, I really swath. But in particular I mean global monetary policy, and I forgot to note the issue of trade policy, in this step up the paint ladder.]
[Note: 4-26-11 Bold and Link added to The Republic: "Yeah, That's the Ticket"]
[As the show(Hardball) progressed.]
[11-12-10 We aren't even sure the Debt Panel gets it. Often we aren't even sure what (or who) it is to get, but a recent comment by Thom Hartmann spurred me to comment as he closed his show with: "we need to start making things." While that is partially correct, is it not a bit too into the "consumption racket"*? Why not say we need to start valuing things? Would that not shine the irony on our market system? Maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe I am being too idealistic. But both these shine the light on the complexity of reality. My point ends and begins in The Republic, and (regards the irony of)** Platonic Justice.
* "air quotes" added (not that anyone calls it that)
** (comment added): maybe (dynamics of) would be better.]
[*** change: too much(Obama) or not enough?(jobs)]
[Bingo? see * here not there]
[Breaking yet to read. But I will preemptively summarize what I feel is the Obama approach, broad brush change, that started with his domestic agenda, through diplomacy and security issues, ending in global support for change. Wow, when I start a broad brush, I really swath. But in particular I mean global monetary policy, and I forgot to note the issue of trade policy, in this step up the paint ladder.]
[Note: 4-26-11 Bold and Link added to The Republic: "Yeah, That's the Ticket"]
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
The other ground game...
<*>
I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.
I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12
* Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality? OUCH. I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least. And while I might read more, I might not have more to say. It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics. BTW: Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.
OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.***
** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
*** To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.) Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious. Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing. Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*
I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.
I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12
* Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality? OUCH. I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least. And while I might read more, I might not have more to say. It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics. BTW: Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.
OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.***
** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
*** To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.) Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious. Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing. Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*
Friday, November 11, 2011
To all those who served...
a venerable Veteran's Day!
Every American should be grateful for your service in protecting America and its freedoms. Every one of those freedoms should be honored[*] and fought for by every American or it would be just another country.
[Update Labels]
[Goedel and Goethe, Stephanie Miller and Mike Molloy, Ying and Yang? The Platonic Cultural Model, Tyranny/Anarchy dynamics. It's more than Math or Geometry.]
[*] 11-12-11 Platitudes Re:/v. Platonics(SEGUE TWO): With Romney in mind, nonetheless. (More Over)
Every American should be grateful for your service in protecting America and its freedoms. Every one of those freedoms should be honored[*] and fought for by every American or it would be just another country.
[Update Labels]
[Goedel and Goethe, Stephanie Miller and Mike Molloy, Ying and Yang? The Platonic Cultural Model, Tyranny/Anarchy dynamics. It's more than Math or Geometry.]
[*] 11-12-11 Platitudes Re:/v. Platonics(SEGUE TWO): With Romney in mind, nonetheless. (More Over)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Six-edged Rhetoric.
Not just to continue a theme,(a likely coincidence)
but it involves the dynamics of progress,
and I don't mean the apparently belated addition(see scrollover v. lede).
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.
Note: Said Relief and labels/associations Slash Segue...
criss-cross aside of more Williams
William Harvey
William of Occom
[*] This is not the link but Norman Goldman did refer to LEX of the FT about relative tax rates(or revenues/GDP)(nor is this it, but... )
but it involves the dynamics of progress,
and I don't mean the apparently belated addition(see scrollover v. lede).
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.
Note: Said Relief and labels/associations Slash Segue...
criss-cross aside of more Williams
William Harvey
William of Occom
[*] This is not the link but Norman Goldman did refer to LEX of the FT about relative tax rates(or revenues/GDP)(nor is this it, but... )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)