Hi Ate Us

[updated 6-23-11 here and here]
[updated 6-22-11 below]

Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)
US in perspective?

(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)

[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]

[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]

Ephedra Ban Instituted

It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?

[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]

The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?

The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.

But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.

Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?

This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.

Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?

Supreme Court Jest Ice?

Where is the ice going? Well here is where it is coming from:

The New Yorker*: Rational Irrationality.

Well, not exactly: Obamacare Supreme Court Case is a Bad Joke.

Actually I will be intentionally preemptive**.

Is it some form of martial arts political calculus?

Maybe I have too much hope for Obama or too much faith in The New Yorker.

Bottom line, I have yet to read the article, but wanted to jump*** on the band wagon.(NOT!)

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I do intend to read more on this later.

* not that I have read it yet, but I like the heading.

** Jujitsu before reading.

*** case study[!] Reid sarcastic[!] Me...not read[!]

(also see "federal": not to mention Romney on Russia and Leno.)

[Seattle Times ]

[3-29-12 ALEC: Stand your Ground, Supreme Court Activism/ both sans comment.]

[Follow-up:

Seattle Excerpts, interesting hodge-podge of exchanges. If the constitution is not a living document, what is federalism? Killing two ironies in one comment?

Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler: Well ...

Times "seemingly split over ideology"/

But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.

Activism: "Justices Split".

Intentionally: Read Healthcare Jujitsu, Political Jujitsu, what's the difference? The party and the people. It would seem to me that Obama is the master, even without single payer as a goal. It might be called "free market" jujitsu where that is what could be flipped by even an option. The "free market" economic fantasy is under threat of being flipped as the fraud it is, under even the offer of competition. Maybe there is the jest ice.

Tangent of the day.^

[See original lede: Bingo on Faith, in paragraph two. Almost Bingo cubed !^^]

^ now that is an irony

^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^

^^^ or penta coastal or cost us [!]

[Fixing News: as opposed to breaking, I must update the Fixing . But what kind of market is it when if you don't participate you die? Ask Raw Money. On the other hand, he is correct: "We can't play the game like that." Let alone are banking and insurance really commerce? I they aren't, maybe they aren't people, maybe they are Leviathan? i.e. governments bailiwick or not!][Ed on Hannity: the journalist calling the journalist read, or the con calling the convict con(pot meet kettle/camel meet domino) ]

[3-30-12 Justices Meet...

Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But I will depun a bit on the self-fulfilling profits. ]

Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?

Why OWS is bigger...

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

Whine and G's?

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

Really?

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Not your grandfather's "traditional".

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast

Really?

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.

[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]

[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]

[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.

"Pentagon Pundit Scandal"

Investigations are called for:

And I add:
This seems to be a violation of the freedom of the press as well as the so-called free market. It should prove that profit and news at least on public airways be separated for all and good or at least that the free market is not anymore free than the press and both are failures.

related:
"Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law" - (nfry)

I'm sorry?

Did I hear that right? I will have to dig up a link later, but this is about the denial that Bush is still in, and the qualification Wells Fargo (CEO or someone) made, about the bail out not going for executive salaries. It is unfair for me to begin this blast without further digging, but just the surface sod is soaked with effluence. So I will sort some key words from the Bush: "capitalism" in conjunction/contrast to "free market".

With Wells Fargo it is a matter of bookkeeping and an earlier flip-flop it seems, on the matter of what the bailout is going for... are we rescuing failing institutions or helping those that are efficient? In this case I have rather unparsed and taken a tangent from the trickle-down of the bonus problem, but there is a righteous problem about the housing bubble and fundamentals.

Maybe a graphic form will help:
Capitalism - - Free Market
Bonuses - - Book Keeping
Rescue - - Help
Bubble - - Fundamentals
Meaning, Myth, Model, Metaphor; may be my mantra,
but there is a cycle that needs work.

And to my estimation (tergiversate[**] or not) the housing bubble is a result of a fundamental flaw in economics. It works for those that buy it. But it really matters what the it is. Not to mention who sells it.

Not to mention the media again: WWWWWH? I might return to give more particular sources, but for now I leave with the answer: who, what, when, where, why, and how? as well as note the only labels at this time are Progressive Media and Thom Hartmann, and if I return I will [bracket][*$*]changes.[*]

[* as soon as I finished this and bracketed that, I thought, and must note that I have now made minor edits (& bold) for clarity sake, unbracketed.]

[** I wonder if I am a De-tergiversator ***?]

[*** I had to go old school and open a book, the answer is; not if it is (the latter) to change one's opinion, but may be others, not the De. Yeah, the De and the Un.]

[*$*] passing the buck I have not returned but simply connected here

Fare Market Ideas?

Yes! I spelled it right. Free market is what they call it. But I cannot really suggest a method of fair market, but possibly some sort of fact filter. Of course that is us, but some are against the idea of being educated in fact suspect educators, like lawyers, politicians and even "the liberal media".

This is preemptive comment before getting to the bottom line of a either a Politics in Mudville comment or the Daily Kos discussion of Right Wing Think Tanks.

For a local review of legislative events see
Northwest Progressive Institute's update.

4-11-07 Terrorists Strike Shock Jock and...

"young women" athletes.

Jason Witlock, on TODAY, attacks "opportunists" and "domestic terrorists" Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for "causing them to receive threats on their lives." While he seems to be placing this in some rational context, he continues they "continue to go light fires around the country". Frank Luntz talks about "words that don't work" also on TODAY.

These clips taken off the Internet are not necessarily in context, but they do afford an opportunity to react. Taken separately they are part of the problem. Individual fires that need to be addressed. But the metaphor of war or fires are mixed metaphors, or are they (?) People are not trees, but fire fighters do light back fires to fight fires, and this is an interesting "firestorm"[Matt Lauer, 2nd clip] For the reaction that these "opportunists" are accused of "causing" are needed, not only to stop the spread of smoldering degradation, but to light the way to more confrontation. If the market is supposed to be what will address this, and supposed to be free, then how can shining light on that market be blamed for correcting it.

More light needs to be focused on the producers of these clips and their overall programming. For the smoke was blown by their presentation and likely lack of confrontation directly, at least as they are spread on the Internet. Matt certainly let this spread without even picking up a shovel, which is what fire fighters (the media) should do, rather than aid the arsonists or real opportunists, like the networks. The real light may be that the market obviously does not work in either focusing light or fighting fires, but more light or more reaction are not the terrorists.

My point is that if September 11th, 2001 changed things, maybe April 11th, 2007(the day MSNBC canned Imus) has changed things, and we will really fight in a new light. Unfortunately light is not new, and fire was a great invention{?), but smoke is only a signal that often is just blown away.

If this is just a media war, it should not evolve to just "star" wars, where personalities rise to the skies and continue to fire from satellites. That product of progress will really shine the light on the intentions(?) of the market and the culture of personalities(Imus) who might step up on the bottom line of all else. If he makes it elsewhere will he change his shtick? So far intentions are really lost in the smoke of slightly longer sound bites, that are just more little fires. Demonstrating that the so-called "opportunists" Witlock "blames" for setting fires are really doing the "hard work" that needs doing.

(apologies that these are only clips and I did not directly address much of either)

[4-17-07 slight punctuation changes and note 3(?):
intentions(?) of the market, invention(?) of fire- and there is more association than I thought of at the time I was just noting the ironies of mixed metaphors (?) ]

Capital Quotes

Lincoln on labor's superiority.

Without control of capital there can be no free labor. While some feel that free labor is a right to a free market.(:44-8:10) "...the economy is based on job creation" O'really? Very creationist. And has Friedman been freed?

Rat Races Van Mices?

Re: Barberization^ ?


Dequilting Platonics ... ? or DecomPart Meantalizing* Plato?  (Related reading problematics**).

* two unread reviews of a "have read".
** un-quilted 
reboot:quil  un-**ted (Not to disparage Sandel ...Slash Segue... but to weave or needle the*** dilemma.)
*** HayesTact (Bonus Straw ? ) O - W


^ Credit: streamica for the following side-bar there.
The Man versus The State (Forward) by Herbert Spencer
views: 1640
@LibertyInOurTime 1485 days ago

Audio presentation of Herbert Spencer's classic 1884 book 'The Man versus The State.' Read and produced by Jock Coats and made available online by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Herbert Spencer lived long enough to witness both the hey-day of classical liberal reform in the mid-nineteenth century—the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 which ushered in a period of virtual free trade in Britain—and the gradual decline of classical liberalism towards the end of the nineteenth century. It is the latter which helps explain the grumpiness expressed in his later writings such as the collection of essays entitled Facts and Comments (1902). Spencer was born in Derby, England in 1820 to a strict, non-conformist family, and died in 1903. As a young man, Spencer worked for the leading free trade journal of the day, The Economist, from 1848-1853 during which time his first significant book appeared—Social Statics (1850). Here he worked with James Wilson, one of the most consistent advocates of laissez-faire in Britain, Nassau Senior, one of the leading members of the classical school of political economy, and Thomas Hodgskin, a radical individualist author. Much of the rest of his life was spent working on an all-encompassing theory of human development based upon the ideas of individualism, utilitarian moral theory, social and biological evolution, limited government, and laissez-faire economics. In his later writings, most notably The Principles of Sociology (1876-1896), he drew a sharp distinction between the peaceful productivity of free market societies ("the industrial type of society") and the social conflict, political privilege, and proclivity to war and empire inherent in societies with "over-legislation" ("the militant type of society"). In The Man Versus The State (1884) Spencer argued that the politics of vested interests and the increasing demand for economic regulation would lead to a new form of "slavery" and a "rebarbarization" of society. The rise of pro-interventionist "New Liberalism" in the 1880s and 1890s and the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899 confirmed his worst fears. (Source: Liberty Fund, Inc.) Read 'The Man versus The State' online: http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS.htmlLinks

links to more online books and essays by Herbert Spencer: The Right to Ignore the Statehttp://mises.org/daily/2624The Reality of Political Momentumhttp://mises.org/daily/4772Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physicalhttp://mises.org/resources/4968From Freedom to Bondagehttp://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=313 The Principles of Ethics, Volume 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=333The Principles of Ethics, Volume 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=334Political Institutions, being Part V of the Principles of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1336Justice: Being Part IV of the Principles of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1100Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 1http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=335Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, Vol. 2http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=336Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative, Vol. 3http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=337Essays on Education and Kindred Subjectshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2249The Study of Sociologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1335Social Staticshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=273The Principles of Psychologyhttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1394The Data of Ethicshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=331First Principleshttp://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1390Links to essays about Herbert Spencer and his works: Herbert Spencer: Libertarian Prophet by Roderick T. Longhttp://praxeology.net/herbertspencerlibertarianprophet.pdfHerbert Spencer: The Defamation Continues by Roderick T. Longhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long3.htmlHerbert Spencer: Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet? by Peter Richardshttp://mises.org/daily/4779From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984 by Henry Hazlitthttp://mises.org/daily/2680The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution by Robert M. Younghttp://www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/spencer.html

FYI: I have a collection of Herber Spencer's Books, having only read First Principles.  

Update: 2-22-14  Images C-Labels /T

 

 

 

GPS- general practice syndrome?

Happy President's Day

Speaking of Shout Out:
Just where did George Washington say:
"Government is brute force." ?
Really! Not to mention where does the question mark go?
So even though it is neither president's actual birthday
and not our first president's till next Sunday,
I do him the reference here:Better context

At his inauguration, Washington stated, "This Constitution is really in its formation a government of the people . . . in which all power is derived from and, at stated periods, reverts to them. . . . It is purely a government of laws, made and executed by the fair substitutes of the people alone. . . [The American form of government is] a new phenomenon in the political and moral world, and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brute force."

[UPDATE:ARARA not... ]
In this regard for wondering:
From LewRockwell.com
and Where thin air meets hot air,
there is More Scrutiny Needed.

And more on Thrasymachus:
Or the Mealymouth Debates.*

The Nature of Justice. The question which opens this immense dialogue is: what is justice? Several inadequate definitions are put forward, but the most emphatically presented definition is given by a young Sophist, Thrasymachus. He defines justice as whatever the strongest decide it is, and that the strong decide that whatever is in their best interest is just (review again the Athenian position in Melian Debate). Socrates dismisses this argument by proving that the strong rarely figure out what is in their best interest, and this can't be just since justice is a good thing.

*No disrespect for the Athenian position but a play on the media or maybe the right. (Actually I did just review it, and then the history that Athenians were defeated by the Spartans or Typhoid. ) Story aside I wish to note my leap based on the words that preceded and how one leaps. To this: Some expect their thinking or success to not be based on others. While they may be right in parts, together they cannot stand without facing the wrong. Freedom in particular does not stand or fall alone. And in view of some wrongs, must not. Yet arguments on economics and the environment are a case of not even being able to survive without some outside force. Or a case of the case for a free market, not being able to survive without the workings of the market as it actually exists, while anachronism and stories run through it. [Bumper stickers and name calling aside, there is a tendency to oversimplify, but here goes. It may be a case of the bubbleheaded elite and who blows it for whom.]But I guess that is just disrespect for the Athenian position and respect for the review.

Myths for review:
Ruin your health with the Obama Stimulus...
Thin air meets hot air...

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.

Incompetent Boobs Exposed (02-02-04)

Is it any wonder the media focused on the Dean scream more than answers to real questions? And what about the claim the market place should operate as Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations, an "invisible hand"?

Free speech is out the window if not only buying airtime is required, but now even prohibited as CBS refused moveon.org’s "Child’s Pay" Super Bowl ad, exposing the national debt being passed on to our children. It would be one thing if consistently done, but this calls into question CBS’s professional credibility, not to mention right to airwaves.

Now with the investigation by the FCC into the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake promotional stunt, what does this say, about the market place being the place to determine what is free not to mention visible?

On the other slightly more visible hand, maybe CBS deserves kudos for one, getting more free coverage for the ad on other networks with their rejection of the ad based on their refusal to do advocacy ads. And for two, being so incompetent in their screening of their entertainment and more than suggestive ad campaigns which exposed the hypocrisy of trying to filter or not advocate for causes.

With the uncertainty of what was intended and what was presented the viewers, the voter should keep in mind that they are the important filter that sorts the questions of elect-ability. Is it too much to ask that "wardrobe malfunction" be connected with the "emperor’s new clothes" or budget and intelligence failures?

Collateral Damage

Near Certainty?  LOL^

The Cycle / Fair and Balanced?
Intelligence Estimate~drone program. 

(/) verses FOX
Truth is a 2~4/9-7 letter word?
Like~free market
free speech
that's the ticket!

^Left Out Logic?

(Fb: L@): "of course", Fox, till, rake?
[Milibank petard?]

[NOW w/Alex Wagner: Drone Wars/WWLB ~"what we leave behind"
Also Hillary: There is a there there. ]

Caging Godzillas

Sustainability Requires Caging Godzillas- Andrew Sheng (INET)
Finance reforms, to meet the challenges of trade cycles and the debt bubble require Financial, Social and Resource Stability and Sustainability.
Finance is ungovernable, because of creation of credit.(paraphrased and contexted 4:58 in video through 10 minutes and more on global game-local blame.) The bubble containment dilemma*: leveraged capital flow, ability to get around** boundaries and rules. My aside: Bailouts are not stimulus, and stimulus are not bailouts. The problem and the solution are at the vertex of the three in politics and governance. Finance reform recognizes the role of governments in creating a system(market rules) that balances consumption and "creative destruction". The Godzillas are the metaphor for the responsibility that is avioded by not taking on the responsibility and blaming the market. Rollover of debt to public debt, crisis of reserve currency and international monetary system. Segue: BO-OB Barack Obama -Optimism Bias Extra Credit: Debt is not just about borrowing, it is about not paying for it. All bailouts and stimulus, not being equal, let alone at all similar, they are not all bad. Something somewhere has got to give. It is not all about free markets and free trade, but providing a system that does not just take, whether it is freedom, labor or resources.

[Laffer Cry or D ' Ribble]

[Hint: to Obama: Wrong Try Pod? More Cow Bell.]
[Huntsman Aside, Ring Obama]
[AND Congress- as amended: cutting loopholes are on the spending cuts not the tax hikes side of the equation.]

* my model/metaphor related to Platonic Tetrahedron
[** not an endorsement of shape of the curve, but another Godzilla factor]
[Breaking News: Presidential Press Conference]
[See Comments below Re:]
[Update: 7-1-11 He has a long way to go to be a Boehner or a Whiner, let alone "Tricky D." ]

Connecting the Dots

Yesterday's post was a bit too way out,(Way, Too Point Oh?), from the Campaign for America's Future's Star Wars attack to the Institute for New Economic Thinking's flip-flop of the free market fantasia. By way of explaining the stretch, from the Wall Street Bull to the Statue of Liberty there is the Bully Poor Pit.

Obama is no Trekky or cable guy, but he is more bullish than just hat. I was recently reminded that the "bully" in "bully pulpit" is not the bully of the school yard but was Teddy's term for good. Bully for him. President Obama is no messiah, no FDR and no Teddy, but he is also no bull nor bully. He will be at the Bully Pulpit, and that is a good thing. No pun.
[See 1st Comment]
[update Chris Matthews: more links and follow-up today.]

Nadir

or Bane or...

Enhanced State of the Union,
Republican Response,
and the Third Way?**

With minimum of rhetoric I have filtered of sorts. Boy, was it hard work! Googling* is not easy. I tried to find "fair and balanced" sources, but these
were the ones I chose to settle on. There is more than irony in the way the searches worked, or is there? Some might call it a conspiracy. But others might wish for a 4th dimension.

* or any search engine depending on the words chosen
(and original intent) as original viewing was CNN but sometimes it is not just me.

** 1-26-11

[1-26-11 Woof! Ratings are now in for the SOTU, and here are two ecumenical references. Rachel Maddow, a "prayer for the free-market" from as Joe Scarborough put it "the Cardinal". Who let the CEO's out! Speaking of "genre" note the connection to CNN. My bad, I can't located any embedded references in by blog to a recent Republican Debate sponsored by CNN, but it may be there somewhere. But this does link to the question of the genre of the networks.]

Child's Play

Freak Show vs. Bogeyman:

The Lyin' King?

While my original intent was the feeling that this is getting old, or rather childish. Then to see the nature of the exchange on Morning Joe, it takes some perspectivising.* Martin Bashir covers another aspect of the picture show. Back to the future, I mean Morning Joe, who is in the drivers seat? Mika or Joe? The image of President Obama getting into a car at an auto show. Who is in the drivers seat? Politically the President is. But it is like one of those drivers-ed cars with a second wheel and brakes on the passenger side, and congress is in that seat. But with Batman, I mean Bashir on West, Republicans would have no message if they did not have imagined monsters: "equality of achievement", "economic dependency"and "enslaving".

So...bottom line, Political is a double-edged sword. There is the race and there is the economy. Congress plays a role in both, and negative is not just ugly, it can have actual facts. So Mika can say that Obama is behind the wheel. And Joe can say he is not. Now you may see that the president is not the only one in the car, with a hand on the wheel.

* not that I take the Mediaite perspective (Donny Deutsch made a reasonable point, see negative/ugly/facts.)

[Not to call it a hatefest, just a hecuvafest.]

[Not to rob Peter to pay Paul. See Freudian/Austrian. Lit-urgeical hint]

[Couched Analogy?]

[not to leap fest** but I am missing a piece on certainty***.]

[Action item: FEC apointments & expired terms]

** tba: no pun on SBA, but to be arranged

*** dba? a pun/myst on the "free market" need(see drives-ed car) for certainty

[BTW: if you need GPS, why not Ctrl F frackin' fudgin"? Pun with acronyms, not to mention initialism. Speaking of caricatures and labelism.]

Less Foiling Around

O W [?]

Knot to mention... free market irony.

[I know the Daily News is not the House or Republican newspaper, but it is an alernative to another two...not to mention Slate being a third on an other plane of book by it's cover.  But I wandered upon a quiry of polls on pols and pondered to the tip of my lace.]

10-5-13
Reorient?  House Democrats Unveil Discharge Petition To Force End To Shutdown
Inside Obama's Game Plan For The Debt Limit

10-6-13
Speakers of Leafing [!] (sic)

Way, Too Point Oh?

On the "to read" or "not too" read front, Speaker Bane Or quotes Campaign for America's Future, but can it be put in context, not cherry picked?

Speaking of hitting the nail on the bubble. Here is "the hammer" (no pun) to the "free market" fantasy and the right.

[Please note that I had not yet finished reading the first link before I watched the second link's interview and had read the last link's editorial. What is the point? Well, I had yet to get to the 3 dimensional nature of the argument, not to mention fighting the farce. So boldly* go where*** the borg** dares tread.]

* now 3 bolds mean 3 read
** update correction speaking of quotations
[SpeaKING of links or D'Ribble.]
[Not too men/tion.]
*** last insert: hint of context

(8-29-2010 Bowling Green Park, NY)

[May the farce not be with you, or against us. More from Ed and Obama. But "here" is the Republican Debate. Speaking of tread or is it bubbles or gravitas?]

(8-28-2011, on the way to Ellis Island, N.Y. And a tip of the hat to Ed.)
[Not to mention talking down with Chris Matthews(updated links) or Punching Up the talk. Will there be a draft a Texan or Floridian? Rick Perry is not in the race, and Michele Bachmann is. ]