%TH Element (v)

[ post dated 7-11-12  page v]
[7-19-12 Anachronistic Caution * ! ]
Gee! Or Oops[!] It should have read 5TH Element.
That's the reference...the page(or beans) we are on. 
But per$ent works too!

Ouch!  LMN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N

You Tube
re:There, there.

The %th EleFont

Not to jump in the Lakoff, but my original heading was The %th Element*.  Which was a type-oh or capital gain on taking the 5th. Well, not that far.(But maybe we will see.) The 5th Element was meant as reference to Roman numeral "v" for the sake of my table ofor con tents. But it is still to be determined what page this is. 

So with this lede or misspell, it may be prophetic GeOhMeTry. i.e. Seg  Way to my original intents.
(Speaking of See Sea D? An Ed segue Center on Communicable Downers re:caller who thought the court is a dictionary.)

Speaking of Attacks Dogs and hold-ups...or holders?
[This was a heckuva sojourn.]

The original trigger:
Stephanie Miller ;-) Referencing Sarah Palin on the need to decimate the filter.  How who "chose their one" and "ushered him" into office.  Palin loses the God Particle.

Translation from the wings:  Sarah Palin wants to kill the medium.   

pc? speaking of wave NOT! Zed?
[but who knows]

* All of the above was here** before I finished there.  And well B4 Martin Bashir similarly rants.  Speaking of house of cards or Dawn Key Lake Offs!  Not to mention Vast Wind Mills.
** except first three(4) links (re:there)

Clause Wits

...war is politics by other means
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?

*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense

[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]

*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:

Clausewitz’s trinity comprises three specific elements. The identity of those elements is readily evident to anyone who actually reads the first paragraph of his description: It is "composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason...." (emphasis added). This set of elements is usually labeled "emotion/chance/reason"; sometimes "violence/chance & probability/rational calculation"; or, even more abstractly, "irrationality/nonrationality/rationality."

It would seem that this creates our reality as opposed to an original intent begetting results, let alone values. Oh, but I guess it does. But some just have a different ge oh me try.
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]

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.]

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?

Dimentionalism(sic)

[sic] is another tangent or dimensionalism [!]
Dimentions?
Two* Points.

*fore, six, eight

[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...


SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?

Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)

IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.

Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.

Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?

Historical Destruction

Palmyra under siege?

Does it take a monuments men[?]*

* to be parsed or footnoted later. 

Awkward segue:  Bush v. Clinton /
Obama light or strong? 
Bush III or Clinton II or ...
Change or Bane or...
Close enough for government work?
E rack and E Ron[!]
4mat / Existentialism.***   
([?] Temporal [!])** /
Monuments? (Politics is local?, Simon says...)
[(take) Between I rock and I ran..., Temporal ? ]
Pink Floyd (Us and Them)

**The Last Word?
Up-Date ?
*** T. P. / Counter Intelligence

Translation:  Iraq was a mistake, Afghanistan was unneccessary...
It was not an intelligence failure, it was a figment of leadership and failure and element of leadership. 
It was also a preemption of intelligence of an unprecedented nature. 
It was an existential crisis, that was ignored.  
The fork not taken? 
fork: CONnecting the . . .  dots?
not: Obama With Drama, Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.






 

Reality is the 4D.

[Rough Draft 6-3-14]

The politics of nature.
X, Y & Z R physics, psychology & philosophy.
Each an acronimble player[!]*

*to parse disciplines & unfuzz math/logic.

~~~
Edited 6-4-14 [!]

The fourth dimention is politics, in the pantheon of disciplines. 
A. Physics
B. Psychology
C. Philosophy
D. Politics

X, Y and Z, plus time are the four dimensions in 4 moolah shun.
Spoiler alert:  The fifth element ?**

** not exactly

ANTI-EYMAN INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL?

[Reply to King County Journal Editorial, 2-11-03]

It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result, your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.

There is also the problem of fuzzy math and English. Beyond the inability to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining the validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for this state and maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially (revenue cuts must equal spending cuts), not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements(also cost related). Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.

Exercise Lie or Confusion [Original of letter edited and printed in KC Journal. 2-11-03]
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English

Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.

Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]

It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.

It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.