Give 'em a break!

New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan

He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.

Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.

A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong

Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.

* Their work, not these pieces.

Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.

Retro-Gate

Iran-Contra, WMD, October No-Surprise.

Not to preemptively prophet[!]
Not to bring back the draft,
but here are some posts held in draft.

Update: Muffin Gate: Miff In Gate


Pulled from draft today!
[Oops, a bit redundant]
Great Ledership
It's Mad[!]

[!] = sarcasm / spelling as intended = [sp!]
Close enough for journal work?

[10-3-11 Just to be clear, I believe in nuance and the law, but as different fields. What I can't say is that I am clearly satire, but the field might be mis-ledership***. But not to coin a new field, here are some other* perspectives, not to say they are the same field. (two video, two scroll overs)

*after the break: Stewart on NRA / teaching** to the test? NOT!]
** speaking of headings*** or retro
*** footnote to clarify later:
moral economics(INET/Robert Reich)& even later
BTW: sub-heading(Just to be clear...) I did not mean to wind-up a G'Ribble, but you can't judge a target by its aim, fear-mongers need a boogie-man. Aims are directions not bulls-eyes.

Definition: G'Ribble- grand ribbing and riddle

[*4] Ratigan and Perugia: processes

Over our head.

"hortatory subjunctive" is the latest excuse. Again, I believe I saw this coming and had touched on a similar issue just recently.[A & B] The above link seems rather authoritative but a more definitive explanation is even less an excuse. But it may be in the ballpark but still an out if you look at the "deliberative subjunctive".[The definition just above "hortatory subjunctive".] The similar field I hit from may be strike one and two. OK, I am carrying a baseball field metaphor a little too far and I am not the only one swinging and missing.

But "Give 'em a break" [A] is in the area of a conditional reference in a similar manner that is not necessarily suggestive. "all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around"

But "failure is not an option" [B] is a declarative grammatical oxymoron. Still I am only doing this off the top of my head, and may just now have gotten a little closer to the field than simply a "true oxymoron" [as I had noted.]

Oh well, the point is that there seems building evidence that they [the adminstration] have couched every action and intention in confusion, even when they are at their clearest. This could be just a result of creative CTR,(covering their rear), but I am talking about their preemptive confusion and grammar.

Note that the two previous examples are not just about me or them, but some of us on the critical side [can] get lost in the rhetoric too, while sometimes their grammar is more reliable or at least carefully calculated. [The truth leaks.]

[Also the biblical preemptive excuse. "let us" does not seem to be recalled.]

[Bracketed material was added the following day, except for the preceding line.]

OUT OF THE BLUE? NOT!

I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but questions leaping out are another matter. What about Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak? The only one not talking is Judith Miller. She chose to protect her sources. For a journalist admirable, for a pawn of the administration, what? The missing link seems to be the two sources that Robert Novak used. One Karl Rove*, the other still unknown. Another journalist? Is confirming that one heard something from an unknown source a confirmation? Is forgetting the source a defense? Is protecting bad sources or administration leaks a journalists job? Is it job security or a defense against charges of treason?

I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?

Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.

Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.

Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.] 

* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl

Image of Original In Tent

Re: Sources

C W
Homer, Plato**, Hell'nistic, Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian *: Evolutionary Thinking***.

* less than random link/Google of the day?
not fully read yet,
never completely endorsed, unlike Labelists [Well...not exactly.]

** lede not

[The under lying(pun) under standing(literal) as well as substance, regards semantics. Now that is a pretty firm line for a fluid foundation.
See W(hint pun/ribble)
The history of the constitution falls into this spectrum. The Federalist Papers were an argument, for what does not matter, it won and lost, as the amendments suggest. The constitution was signed but not without compromise. And we were never on the same page again. This is my perspective without the usual qualifiers.]
*** How prophetic?

[Unoriginal In tent: related links without hints]
[On the other hand... looking for spectrum.]

[Given the field of the Republican Presidential race, no apologies are in order. Excuses maybe, blame yourself. BTW: not disappointed by Herman Cain, to drop out but carry the mess age to the table. But in honor of the Federalists, the non-party party, here is a third field or party or option. Caution!]

[NPR: Re-education]
[Update: Herman

Turning the page (On Humor)?

[For orginal post go here]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)

Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)

But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)

[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.

FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE July 2013

7-9-13 *(b.s. ) "game+theory" and "game+metaphor" and "danger+field" M-bed under "not to pun"[scroll over both *&(b.s.) here] NOW TO THE INSERTS or the (b.s.) under "Is there?"/ "Who dat?"

7-10-13 Two Points [in Tow]or prose or just scroll over "Two Points [!]" Jared Bernstein comment with flat perspectivism. (Re-C-Physiks) i.e. Tax Reform level field theory.

7-11-13  NOW(link)TBa: followed by (b.s.) as follows-
Of
course = "TOW+GPS" The Be All and End All? (s.c. ) ,
the
economy = "global + buffet" June(2013)FPO,
ruins = "Runes" What are the Frackin' Odds... (s.c.)  ,
through ="garden" A common thread ( b.s. ) Con Text (b.s. )  ,
it =  "Voltaire" HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY! (s.c. ) ,
[!] = "bubble+metaphor"  I'm sorry? , Caging Godzillas (b.s.), Pre-Pan FRY.,
          It's Obama's    Turn ,  GPS Cross Rhodes , From GOP to NOP (s.c. ), Pre-post-or-us? (s.c. )
Note: (s.c.) indicates hyperlink directs elsewhere to provide actual link as well 

7-12-13 : (Scroll over each in context of exclamation [marks.]) Hope to Read!  Honest Lede or Ship[!]

7-14-13 Spoiler Alert A. The Anti-Angle./ "Powered By Intel"  B. Voodoo Revisited.(s.c. )/ Index 9-21-11 (s.c.)
7-15-13 the TMZ Too Much Zone ?

7-18-13  I. A. Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality., B. Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking., II.The Senate didn’t go nuclear. But, actually, it kind of did.   III. Obama's Last Campaign:  White House plan to sell Obamacare 

7-23-13: Ctrl F "metaphor" - ! -
7-30-13: (b.s) Manning(sc), Ctrl F "jobs"(sc), \ ( b.s. )"M", (b.s.)"-b-e-d-", (b.s.)"r"(sc). (F-P-2)
7-31-13 Follow Up (b.s.) (s.c.) "Face - the - Music" & "Line to Cross" (FP2)

Turning the Page (2.0)

Turning the page (On Humor)?
[The following is the clean version(original)[*] : meaning I intend to clutter the above link]
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battle field),
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front,
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes.

But communications* is a tricky field.
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry.

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue and
used it as a weapon himself? Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?- [*]OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[*] -left behind - reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[*] except for speech links

Morning JOE(LT) of Fair and Balanced

Congratulations Chris Matthews for holding the level playing field on health care*. Not to mention how careful polls are used.

* Robert Reich argues for the public plan in this second link, but Matthews more than tips the field away from "member(s) of the media" asking questions toward being "get done". Public concern does not mean opposition to addressing them with a public plan. More people (79%-84%) are concerned with the quality, cost, choice and the deficit than support a public plan, but that makes them concerned not overriding or "right wingers" of the 76% for a public plan. They also support President Obama more than 2 to 1 over Republicans on health care reform. In fact no specific plan is associated with either the public's concerns or the president's approval over health care reform.

Un-Exceptionalism

Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?

Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.

This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]

No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?

The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.

My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.

In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.

BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]

[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]

Dean:

A perspective on the request to the Democratic Party that others take it easy on him. (I paraphrase based on a CNN segment that got me started again.)

CNN question: A mistake or diversion.

CNN host: A diversion is always a mistake. ( I paraphrase almost exactly, but never the less will not attribute more specifically)

My perspective on the possible mistake that Dean asks for help on the playing field. Not.

Maybe only an intentional irony in that it is a diversion. For is not the main goal to beat Bush and is not the playing field whatever it takes. For in Bush, is not diversion a close partner to “Staying on message”?

Now I do not espouse “whatever it takes”, but communications is a tricky thing. War may be also “what ever it takes” but as to the principles in getting there, there should be a difference.

Swiftboating of McCain?

As I pointed out the term needs adjustment.
And I "really" dislike the headline US News and World Report uses:
New York Times Drops Bomb On McCain and forgotten?
MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY by The Drudge Report.
Not that I have fully read these, but this:
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk is worth the read and fits in with the image management that needs exposure.
Hence the term Swiftboating should not be used as that was a campaign of misinformation, while FlipFlopperKrafting provides double exposure.

[O'Reilly "Lynching Party" is really a Fox Hunt. Media Matters is Hard Work]

[2-22-08 Flip-Flopper-Crafting? I still like the "K". But I will amend the comment to note that often headlines are sensational, yet The New York Times understated the issues "For McCain..."

“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter," said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

and a more direct headline "No Public Funds for McCain" from Politico has an interesting bottom line that is well summarized in the last few paragraphs.

But even if the commission were meeting, one must wonder if the panel -- an organization that decided the cost of field organizers doesn’t need to be added to the overall cost of winning a state primary -- would tell the Republican Party that its nominee can’t slip through a newly carved loophole and arm himself for battle against a significantly better funded and unrestricted Democratic nominee.]

If you investigate...

they will go.

Recent impeachment polls indicate that XX%(30 to 40 something) of the people support impeachment. That is actually down from earlier polls indicating more specific support for impeachment on wiretapping and lies about Iraq. So called "liberal media" MSNBC poll (not scientific) shows a surprising 88%. My surprise is at the total response, and that people who use that source still are. But then I looked.

MY POINT: A well* framed question about the charges should indicate stronger support for impeachment, and if investigations are started voters will come and the guilty will go.

Point two: GO PELOSI TWO!- I support the idea of supporting [ correction suing] Bush over signing statements, but why has it not been done for the 700 or 800 earlier statements, and I cannot believe that standing is required to be established to hold him accountable, if it is the case that it is political, that is the reason for the above push.

If you build a field of facts, the people will come. That is politics as it should be and the media as it hasn't been. It can work that way on any cause and those most important are changing course and holding all the administration accountable.

* well = including charges that have been admitted to, phrased as "if/then", explaining that the process is an investigation.

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]

Digging Up and Digging In.

Or Digging Out...

As I paused to reflect on the appropriateness of the connections above, the third popped into place. But it is a grave matter, this journalism*.

The field of meta4; one, two, three, strikes yer out. The Metaphysical Meta-for.

[Further digs to read or Dickens of a future, past and present. ]
[And one more shovel or scoop of apathy.**

*Health Care
** intended link
*** (future link: see comment) Nuance of polls and evolution of the word
[Update: the word]

Niche for our Nietzsche

It is not about US?
Hint: niche = field
Nietzsche i.e. proper name for our place?

[Update or bold us, with
Wake up and Eat Some Breakfast** posted from draft 12-29-10 and No Label added.*]
*not(just to be clear, I've add one label below and two links re: No Labels, but not re: Aye of Newt. Well maybe another label.)
[** breaking polling]
[twitter liberals? and here and Re:tales?]
[and Lagging Hope?]

On the level...

playing the field.

It takes three points to determine a plane,
in contrast to the previous cloud.[*]
(silver lining / golden rule)

[Not to mention "transpartisan possibilities" Again thanks to Stephanie Miller.]

[Update More Cow Bell.]

[*] see Oh

13 and a half men?

C-Birds
and 16 models of the 3-body /metadigms*

Non-live blogging of the Seahawks Game. 
A tip of the model to Frank 'n Warner Bros.
Homage to the 12th man and some odd plays or caws.

Final 9-27 Seahawks over Rams.

*some rough notes^ on the field of math^^

^ 12-30 two added (b.s.)(FP)
^^ one added
1-30-14 label added

Footnote(Page 2) February 2013

2-4-13 "the birds": Back to "The One Thing?" (sc),  Waiting for [Calm Cast] (sc), DECEMBER 2012 FOOTNOTES (fn) PAGE, Where everyone needs to read... (sc),  In the begining..., Two Birds (sc),  The one thing? (sc), The Pacific? , FOOTNOTES FEBRUARY 2013,  Obtuseness? (sc), Quoth the...[_ _ _ _ _], We Need Ed, Waking up to a New Year., HiTetra! .
Published without comment 2-7-13.


2-11-13 *bracketeds* = pun, [!] or (sic). / / [*] lateM-bed ? ['n-Oh-particular order!]
(sic)= b.s. "ofor"" / / [*]= Plato's Theory of Forms, late= Choice v. Referendum, M= Under the Table?, bed= Health Care Summit (sc), ?= cart B4 horse?

2-12-13 Carpe Diem! SOTU NBC Politics * tetra heed run of sorts?  Photos, images etc.

2-13-13 (FP1):
grand =  (b.s.)"TOW": A.The Be All and End All? (sc){L}, B.A Shot in the Arm?, C.But for Obama.(sc), D. Obama Economy Town Hall (sc) , E.D or R (sc) F.Faux Campaign (sc) ,G.FAUX NEWS! (sc) , H.What the Beck? (sc), I.Betray US Report (sc) , J.October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain" (period)
{TO BE CONTINUED}(sc) un-hyperlinked need follow-up.
{AND all (b.s.) will not need all their "alphabet"}
picture = (b.s.)"ge+oh+me+try":
how = (b.s.) "trigger+no+metrics":
things = Lincoln on labor prior to capital.

2-19-13 (FP1)... and field theories of matter. (Con temporary: @The Cycle "Beat the Press"!)

2-23-13: Accidents? $tar Buck$
[Bottomline: Do I have John Irving on a shelf(or in a box)?]

2-28-13 You Scroll or Click(sc) normally reserved for (b.s.) [Follow up on, or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road?] i.e. only the by is not a heading. It is the source of the photo. Speaking of by and buy.

Who the heck...

took the W off of wholistic?

Must have seem him coming. Can we have it back? W?

Odd works in strange and myterious ways, or I made a mistake. Or someone has a sense of humor. Note the odd G oh d another {o}ops! Ok, its me. I was avoiding the G word. By George or Rather letter. See Dan or CBS.

But back to the way this worked, I thought it would be funny to post this on wholism or was it wholistic, since my first search came out with 36,300,000 and I wanted to tweak that by one, but when I refreshed the search engine instead of 36 million 300 thousand and one, it dropped to 57,000 for wholistic and if that is not better, there are still 21,100 for wholism.

But I digress, or progress, it remains why wholism is a variant on holism. It turns out that it may be a long battle at least at this point over Words. Suffice to say for now that for our health we bridge the gap between the whole and the hole.

[Non sequitur - or might it? *]

* akin to footnotes?

[The best I can wiki-google is that 1929 was when holism was spelled first, while some may believe in the power of spells, it seems that words have always been a field that yields.]
[not such]
[Happy End of Year and Hope for a New Air-or]