I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.
The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.
My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.
Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]
* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query faux words. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query faux words. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
FRANKNESS: SERVING US ALL? Right.
Contribution to a new level of discourse or d’Nile. (Sent to local paper, 6-29-04, Unedited, aside from the appropriate changes in connection with the additions in italics.)
Maureen Dowd sure hit the nail on the head in "Is Cheney losing it?" and I would like to tack on a few of my own. Aside from wondering if Cheney ever really had it, as the media should know he was not one for mincing words during the campaign. The candidate Bush even concurred with his ticket-mate’s aphorism for a member of the press. That is the irony that un-minced words should get out of this administration.
After all, the president did call for Hollywood to come up with some scenarios and solutions after 9-11. He just didn’t know, read or remember the works of the creative thinkers in his administration from the neo-con philosophers to the Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld who said "facts change". And for the obtuse I am not equating defense with entertainment, but only in regards to his dissemination of information duties. Then there are the history "rewriters" which they eschew but now employ memo rewriters before it is determined who read or followed them or how they fit in the chain of command. From the Cheney Energy Panel or rather the "X-Files" motto that "the truth is out there" to the "Twilight Zone’s" episode "To Serve Man", Cheney has now contributed to the language of unity, not to mention great debates.
And thanks to Maureen Dowd we should remember a useful "F" word (or few words)and when disturbed cry "FOX NEWS". Then we can finally let the French off the hook. Now those who are embarrassed after a personal faux pas or outburst can just say, "Pardon my Cheney". However, for those who are proud of their verbal and debating skills, it is just about time someone let the facts slip.
I don’t know if that means we found the leak in the ship of fools or the paddle that got us up the creek. But we can probably agree it is not all down hill from here. We just may not agree on the continual trickle or flood of denial.
[4-1-08: Is Cheney Losing It? link added ]
Maureen Dowd sure hit the nail on the head in "Is Cheney losing it?" and I would like to tack on a few of my own. Aside from wondering if Cheney ever really had it, as the media should know he was not one for mincing words during the campaign. The candidate Bush even concurred with his ticket-mate’s aphorism for a member of the press. That is the irony that un-minced words should get out of this administration.
After all, the president did call for Hollywood to come up with some scenarios and solutions after 9-11. He just didn’t know, read or remember the works of the creative thinkers in his administration from the neo-con philosophers to the Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld who said "facts change". And for the obtuse I am not equating defense with entertainment, but only in regards to his dissemination of information duties. Then there are the history "rewriters" which they eschew but now employ memo rewriters before it is determined who read or followed them or how they fit in the chain of command. From the Cheney Energy Panel or rather the "X-Files" motto that "the truth is out there" to the "Twilight Zone’s" episode "To Serve Man", Cheney has now contributed to the language of unity, not to mention great debates.
And thanks to Maureen Dowd we should remember a useful "F" word (or few words)and when disturbed cry "FOX NEWS". Then we can finally let the French off the hook. Now those who are embarrassed after a personal faux pas or outburst can just say, "Pardon my Cheney". However, for those who are proud of their verbal and debating skills, it is just about time someone let the facts slip.
I don’t know if that means we found the leak in the ship of fools or the paddle that got us up the creek. But we can probably agree it is not all down hill from here. We just may not agree on the continual trickle or flood of denial.
[4-1-08: Is Cheney Losing It? link added ]
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Laughter is the Best Medicine?
This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.
*on disagreement with involvment in Libya
[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]
[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]
** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.
*on disagreement with involvment in Libya
[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]
[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]
** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Faux Campaign
versus Real concerns.
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
*** asterisk applies to last post
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]
[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]
[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]
*** asterisk applies to last post
Thursday, October 02, 2014
Ctrl F "anachronistic"
blog search (b.s.) anachronistic*
(search: 4th dunn)
(b.s.) a. Anachronistic Reasoning?, b. Faux Campaign, c. FAUX NEWS!, (e.), f. Clause Wits (3.0)?, (g)host Busters, h. Roar Shack, i. A Tail of Caution, ( j. ), k. ether note, l. F'n P[!] m. War'n Buffet Rule , n. By Polar , o. From 17A to 37B, p. Killing Fields of Dreams, q. Future Bubble? , (r.).
*anomaly knot
(_) Rat Races Van Mices?, The LESS THAN pentagonal file:, Bury the lede?, Too Random...,
[ Picture Theory: 1. The Curve or Nuance Thing, 2. For Words!, (3.), 4. GOP Plan to Hurt Economy
Speaking of timing [!] Philosophy Now links may be free for limited time. Democracy is not.
On meaning. / War On/Or Terrorism ? , MoveOn , Decider Stays Course., FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK , ]
(search: 4th dunn)
(b.s.) a. Anachronistic Reasoning?, b. Faux Campaign, c. FAUX NEWS!, (e.), f. Clause Wits (3.0)?, (g)host Busters, h. Roar Shack, i. A Tail of Caution, ( j. ), k. ether note, l. F'n P[!] m. War'n Buffet Rule , n. By Polar , o. From 17A to 37B, p. Killing Fields of Dreams, q. Future Bubble? , (r.).
*anomaly knot
(_) Rat Races Van Mices?, The LESS THAN pentagonal file:, Bury the lede?, Too Random...,
[ Picture Theory: 1. The Curve or Nuance Thing, 2. For Words!, (3.), 4. GOP Plan to Hurt Economy
Speaking of timing [!] Philosophy Now links may be free for limited time. Democracy is not.
On meaning. / War On/Or Terrorism ? , MoveOn , Decider Stays Course., FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK , ]
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Daily Sarcasm (I mean, Intel)
McCain suspends politics,
McCain/Bush Gimmick
Comment: Sarcasm aside the markets were stable yesterday, and given the credibility of the president, his scare tactics may just calm the market. Or could it be, when things get tough, the tough get going. Obama and congress (Democrats anyway) have kept their cool and continued their work, while Republicans may be in faux retreat. Meaning the "Paulson Plunder", 3-1/2 pages, which are no longer on the table, has evolved into something more sensible unless it can not make it into new words on paper that actually have teeth.
It is noted that "It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy." While I was thinking something similar, but mostly that this was the so-called MBA president, who is finally learning something.
Stay tuned... but I think I will suspend something.
Meanwhile: more whining, and I wonder what McCain will say about Letterman and CBS.
Other's comments: gawker? And to contrast the journalism of the New York Times. I suspect this is really why Palin was picked to create a media conspiracy. Almost hinted at here, as "anti-media manipulation", well this week was the test of "real dignity and cool". This last being my unspinning of spinmeister or mistress* Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal on Friday. (Noonan: Reagan speech-writer and Special Assistant, and free market think tank trustee.
* Is madame maybe more accurate? But they are probably against being PC.
McCain/Bush Gimmick
Comment: Sarcasm aside the markets were stable yesterday, and given the credibility of the president, his scare tactics may just calm the market. Or could it be, when things get tough, the tough get going. Obama and congress (Democrats anyway) have kept their cool and continued their work, while Republicans may be in faux retreat. Meaning the "Paulson Plunder", 3-1/2 pages, which are no longer on the table, has evolved into something more sensible unless it can not make it into new words on paper that actually have teeth.
It is noted that "It was the first time in Mr. Bush’s presidency that he delivered a prime-time speech devoted exclusively to the economy." While I was thinking something similar, but mostly that this was the so-called MBA president, who is finally learning something.
Stay tuned... but I think I will suspend something.
Meanwhile: more whining, and I wonder what McCain will say about Letterman and CBS.
Other's comments: gawker? And to contrast the journalism of the New York Times. I suspect this is really why Palin was picked to create a media conspiracy. Almost hinted at here, as "anti-media manipulation", well this week was the test of "real dignity and cool". This last being my unspinning of spinmeister or mistress* Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal on Friday. (Noonan: Reagan speech-writer and Special Assistant, and free market think tank trustee.
* Is madame maybe more accurate? But they are probably against being PC.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
MUTUAL OR CONGENITAL?
Sent 9-2-04: [Speaking of timing, this has been sent to a local paper, but not likely to see print. I can see that it assumes that the reader is informed of too many things which I do not have room for in the limit of 250 words, which is what the paper suggests and I happened to have hit. But the previous post may be a useful on this measure. ]
One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.
But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.
More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.
One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.
But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.
More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)