Lemon or Orange?

Or Green*? Why vote?
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.

*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without Green or any other color being a factor in making us see red.**
[Please note the bold "Green or any other" was struck by the editor, apparently not obvious enough that Nader was the Green party, (and green)the almighty buck and envy. And these days if you need a Tea Party pallet, just smear the colors and brown with hints of purple works nicely.]

** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]

The New Wave

Having survived the tide of the caucuses I turn to the next matters.
For now I simply post two links, only the latter has been fully read.
X*Y ... *
and John McCain's qualifications to be President?
here are some I hope to follow up on:
Let the Swiftboating Begin.
and Deadly Invitation
They look forward to the next opponent
and the magic * of the media.

Meanwhile to keep that top burner: I will note that my precinct with 86 voters elected 6 Obama and 3 Clinton delegates. And I may provide further comment in that regard.

* note: there are two *'s beyond the one in the X*Y context and note the watery links as well. They say "a rising tide lifts all boats" unless there is a hole in it or others trickle down in yours, but "hope floats" someone said I think and the tide still runs from the man with hope and the woman from hope or back again. I just tide that in with what I hope to get back to here. (spelling hopefully intentional, but I'll check later, I ran it by spell check [Y] )

[2-18-08: QCON: The term "Swiftboating" does not do justice to the task, given its history. It would seem to imply a campaign of disinformation, rather than some clarity. Maybe Clearwater would work, in retribution for Whitewater, Blackwater, and Swiftboating. Maybe Ironycladding would work? And one more for me to read. If McCain's a Moderate, I'm the Easter Bunny*. seems that some doth protest too much. Yet he is the best they can come up with. Oh, unless the original was a flip-flop? Meaning I have to reread the earlier to see if a skilled editor is implying that the swiftboating will be coming from the right. Duh! i.e. sacrificial goat. Bingo. No ageism intended. Meaning who better to swiftboat than a veteran of swiftboating. But I think that the editor was not as swift as I imply, and the writer implies what I wish to flip-flop.**
* No holiday connection, but this article (I did read) is a twofer on the McCain and the Media front. ** Howbout: FlipFlopperKrafting.]

[3-24-08: Wave LABEL added ]

Go Purple!

Red and Blue America
Must Go Purple!
What about green?

Here is a useful (although marginally) group of charts for super delegates and the overall picture of hope for Democrats. The "original intent" for this post was to direct you to an Obama purple ad that had the red and blue states going purple, speaking of McAd. But here is another a bit more technical.

Speaking of colors and humor not getting in the way. Here is my original:(letter to the editor, May 26th 2002)

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

(This demonstrates how a careful read and one word can jinx or preempt a meaning or change. And again "it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other." and not torture meaning like the editor did to my piece by changing green to color, "not that there is anything wrong with that", but it does narrow the course and change the meaning.)

New York Times

Safire Search Context,
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]

In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.

It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.

After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.

[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]

Clog Alert!

Not to Ribble, but regarding two points here:
The tenor of Bane Or. 
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)

A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.

Further parse N later ...  [^]

^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ?  w h ?

[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat"  RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn?  i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*

^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f  / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *

Preface to FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012

Jolly Roger?  October Motif?
R,R,R! Or Simon Says?  (Right off the bat...)(*fn) 

September(**fn) Archive.
closing 10-1-12 Forward to FOOTNOTES: continue here: FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012  ]


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

[[]]
10-1-12
IN FACT SCRATCH THIS AS PREFACE OF SORTS.
[EDITOR"S NOTE: SEE FOOTNOTES OCTOBER 2012 Continued there. ]
10-1-12
[[]]

[]
[10-1-12 preemptive post to month of October.]
(*fn) =footnote on (FOOTNOTES OCTOBER...)
[bat= pun on Halloween and my going right off track with the footnotes protocol]
Not to trickle-down. (Scroll over for Ribble?)
B'log Search(b.s.): jolly + roger ( a, b )
October: Walking the Plank[!]
Motif: (b.s.) PEG'd ( a , b )
(**fn) Still some in draft for September.
(Ribble= ribbing/riddle  Hint: a bit of a pin the foot on the pirate.)
[] braketed close of asterisks to Forward.


FLASHNOTE: 10-5-12  http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/presidential-debate-top-7-romney-comments-youd-swear-he-could-never-have-said-but-did/news/2012/10/03/50276NOT!  OCTOBER NO SUPRISE!
Nor: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

First Debate: Zinger Score 2 to -1:  (comcast log)"take" etc.
Tough reviews for Jim Lehrer as debate moderator.
Romney barrels out of first debate on offense.
FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps.
Obama: Jobs report shows economy is on right track.>?
What the?  Ouch* < ! 

Replacement Refs or Not... 
I can't keep up with the debate ball of wax, or FOX-coop and egg heading. 
Post Ouch^*:
"spiracy":The Vice President Rolls
"math+godliness": My Respects to Those who Celebrate.
Might be maybe?

10-7-12 <*> "debate" http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/McCain-Romney-wins-first-debate-but-/2287378762/FoxNews/newest/ <*> 

Lost Leader of the Write.

William Safire, R.I.P.

In honor of the departed and a loyal opposition, I lead with the write source and then what's left. He will be missed more than words can say. More than some can catch up on. Nonetheless it was about the culture of words.

Previous mistributes: My letter to the editor of the now defunct, King County Journal, his replacement Will I ams, and a reprise.*]

May he truly Rest in Peace.

*missing reference

Looking back.

[The Arizona Tragedy]
The last link, Awkword! includes three links which I have yet to really comment on: the previous awkward link, Morning Joe on Sarah Palin's "reprehensible" video and President Obama's Arizona memorial speech.

There is much more work to do for this to be a "teachable moment", but there is no denying that making it a teachable moment is a political act, at least by those that are working to make it a teachable moment. Of course there will be deniers of both. (Editor's note: I walked this back a bit but still feel it is left a bit circular in logic. Why do I imagine DNA and RNA?)

FOOTNOTES PAGE THREE OCTOBER 2013

O W [!](4)

10-15-13 FOOTNOTES PAGE THREE

Cliches and Touches? (2.)
Not to mention acronyms. (3)
Footnotes Pages ?  (1.)



1. a. Re:Trolling , b. Die Mention/alism
2. a. Government Hostage, b.  (b.s.) moss
3.  Huff   Po (10-15-13) F & B?

Fourth Time a Charm?  AM? (Chris Todd-Andrea Mitchell/Esquire)
Bane or Frame?  Cruz Ctrl or Independent Editor.
4. Original Heading.
[Get'er done? Oops/MoveOn!]

10-16-13 Headwinds and Hitches
10-25-13 Just In.

Will the Press fail again?

On Iraq? Editor and Publisher
On Iran?
On Impeachment?

Well this is a train that may have left the station.
Will they ever learn?

See "Straw Elephant"
Top link, thanks to Rachel Maddow.

Breitbart Lives!

Not exactly the Starting Point, but Soledad O'Brien "clashes" with Big Journalism** Editor-in-Chief over "critical race theory" and a with-held video.

It almost seems that CNN* is a wannabe FOX or MSNBC.

It is more than swift iron knee that FOX has any concern for material being with-held.

* not to single out or be overly critical of CNN or Soledad O'Brien, but they do seem to be competing for "fair and balanced" between the other two "news" networks. FOX is the veritable "you started it" network. The media was too liberal so they had to have a "fair and balanced" take on their reality. Making room for MSNBC as a counter force. CNN has the real challenge trying not to be either, but still news or journalism in a market environment.

**[aka Raw Money Dot Com or Culture War in context and con text !]

[More perspective or not ? OOPS!]

[It's Alive !]

[in balance here is more]

[3-9-12 Tocqueville lives?*** And so does Calvin and Hobbes?

*** promo(not found) for "Up" balances de Tocqueville's intent.

[BTW: if corporations are people, should they also have...reproductive rights? Please note that I self-edited the last(see cartoon) health reference. (i.e. founding mother of all probes or ultra-sounds?)]

[3-14-12: The Ed Show, The Last Word. Who needs Spin? ]

A Wonderful Conversation!

You take the high road,
and I'll take the low road.
We take the pre-road,
and now for the post-road.

And we'll all be in blank
before we can say...

Who, What, When, Where and Why,
by How. (3-20)

OK... enough Rant or Ramble.

The real story is that considering the past debates, ABC's was nothing new, except that it was broadcast on the airwaves, not just on cable.

So... I will conclude that it was a success,
given d'meaning of the medium.

Obama took the high road, and shone as best he could on the road, while Hillary took the old road, and may be shone the road.

Now for footnotes, on what got me on this road, of which I have only read from the search engines not the pieces.
Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues -
The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media -
Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Flag Pins and '60s Radicals

HERE IS A BIG HINT: You don't have to read all three. In fact if you just read the headings you have a bigger hint.
Thanks to Thom Hartmann, and Editor and Publisher, and again for me these are (nfry): not fully read yet

[speaking of pre-posts and the media shone up: or is it pre-post-er-o-us? or is it just...]

Preemptive Footnote

Not to B, preposterous.  [Editor's note: review links later.]

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

Bupkis or Zilch?

Thank You Randy Rhodes.
And Senator Leahy, and The Washington Post

TSP? Terrorist Surveillance Program or something else?
Thanks Think Progress
The Swamp. Just about says it all, without reading at all. Thanks Chicago Tribune

My original google of "bupkis": beans
Googled without Snow.

With Snow:
Thank you Editor and Publisher

Old Beans.
For Tony Snow, bupkis is nothing new.

NOW...
[I was originally concerned with the usage of bupkis as Randi had noted as being Yiddish for "goat droppings". Not exactly what she said but it is not nothing. I thought maybe I didn't know beans about it, but thought it meant zilch.
Here I have closed a loop,
but had not made my point yet.

ATTENTION POWER BROKERS AND BRAKERS!
Congress MUST clarify the difference between what Tony Snow is dropping and what the Administration means by providing funding of zilch for such propaganda.

Meaning? All funding for press related offices should be cut, until the administration addresses congress's questions.]

[The only way that may happen anyway is by the process of impeachment, and several from the right are well ahead of too many that should be left.
Thom Hartmann has had three guests in the last week or so that believe it is not only the proper tool of inquiry, but the judgement if facts merit.
See MP3s here:
Bruce Fein Getting Ahead
Paul Craig Roberts Another Righty!* Bob Barr ]

*Impeach Now

Post Inserted

Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)[*]

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.

Middle C?

Hit it!
Awkward Segue^ ?
Gracious Notes*?

(F'n) Bingo!**

Bottom Line ? [!]
or not ?

Not F'n...or vise verse us?










*unintended link redundancy potentially related to F'n(Tan Gent)Bingo/Bane or Fiscal Cliff

^



** C$(oops)C4? coom ba ya w/MSN Now ... Jansing?[Go Team Rendell v. Magic Pony?]
[Editor's note(as if): The last shot was my first shot on the scene from an Olympus D-550.  Like Romney's concession, and Boehnor's press conference, everything is Relative.^^  Not that it is a good shot, but compared to my others...this takes the cake...especially for timing... in relation to my retro trek(if you zoom).]
^^ mmmm Pizza [!] ? !
[not to mention AM(...grand bargain processing)]
MC nail-time.  Buh Dump Ump[!]...Ouch Retro. Scoop Dog...

11-22-12 [C-VC]

FLIP-FLOP

FEAR

Editor's note: [Link added below 4-19-05]

My Take:

[editor's note: 4-7-05 Schiavo link added below and here]
Those who depart from party dogma may deserve some credit, but it also may be political. Hopefully the kind of political that represents having some principles and actually standing up for them, though these may be divorced from the relevant facts, not that facts are partisan or dogmatic either. On the other hand it does not mean that they have stood up for a principle if they are just considering their own political skin.

My prediction is that there will be a backing off by the administration in the face of reality and politics. This is about the 2006 election, as well as “activist judges” whatever they are. My further prediction is that the difference will be told in whether it is a matter of their holding their powder for later. We must remain activist on principles and further the debate.

They will have other "talking points" that must not distract us from ours.

IRONY PRESIDENT

Just to repeat, if I said it already.  Bush is no Reagan.  Reagan was the Teflon President and Bush is the Irony President.  Meaning his own words are the best rhetoric against him.  What did not stick to Reagan could splash back at Bush. 

The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking.  See Link for original letter. 

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government

I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?