Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness.

One statement that may summarize or simplify the theme behind my writing is an old saying and an old joke:
Follow the "Golden Rule".

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
and
"Those with the gold, rule."

Both may be true, it is the extent that we apply them that matter and in modern terms it could be said that those with the oil rule. It is also to the extent that we know they are a joke, that we know anything. Or rather it is the extent that there is any truth that we we know it is a joke.

The theme is further complicated by just the trickiness of the words, rule and follow. Connections have been a sub-theme, but anybody can make them. Following may require a leader but a leader should remember that others follow what you do more than what you say. This would seem to be important whether we know what we mean or not.

It is tempting to want people to "Do as I say, not as I do." just as it is satisfying to "Have your cake and eat it too." But do people have faith in the words or math that power makes fuzzy? Do people really understand how to follow this?

This is what I have been saying in a round about way. It may be coincident that I run into the work of Philip Gold or it may be that I have been following public radio, but he has a book called "Take Back the Right." Not just that he has the right name(again) but his words echo mine and he seems to use the word right, among many, in a way that has meaning.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0786713526/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8108271-4043046#reader-page for a review of the book and see his article in Seattle Weekly at the link below.

We may not have the same destination but we need the tools to build the road and we cannot ignore as much in the planning.

Strike the Right...

Balance[!] <-[Meet the Press]*
Rough Notes:*

Meet the Press (w/) Gingrich /Cantor***,

Rush and Pills.

The Economy not contraception.

It is about religious freedom.**

Energy Policy.

"The Catholic Church is about charity and philanthopy for everybody." NOT!

There is an exception to the rule for those "of the faith". But not if they are dealing with everybody, or the Catholic Church will be violating "religious freedom".

Access is not the ability to receive. The argument (is that) insurance companies must not descriminate. Religious institutions have their exemptions.

SEGUE

Then Wasserman-Schultz ^ and then the panel.^^

"...re-framing the debate on (the) Democrat(s)ic terms"

* "SEGUE" added, brackets being removed, and (^'s) aside, adding links.

[i.e. Rough Notes are basically "as is".]

** original single asterisks unknown reference

[In search of links, "Footnotes". M-H Perry: ]

*** correction (also links being added "with difficulty" / "red lines"?

SEGUE 2.0

[It was with specific intent that I delayed a reading of "diplomacy" here.(to reread Kroenig in Foreign Affairs). It was not necessarily necessary. But having now read the Chomsky, I agree.]

[This seems a three pronged attack on the Economy by the Republicans. Prevent the President from succeeding economically, diplomatically and energy wise. Opposing Jobs measures other than their own which have been used to compromise Progressive successes(i.e what might work better), war monger[*] on Iran and other efforts in the Mid-East, dove-tail (Ironic Albatross/pun) into higher gas prices to ensure regime change at home. Politically, do we want to return to where we were going 4 years ago? That is what a change of course would bring. Where is the pun you might ask? C-gull able. Hmmm, I just may have struck gold in this here heading.]

[*] 3-5-12 or "loose talk"