Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.
That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.
Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.
*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)
**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query green. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query green. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Lemon or Orange?
Or Green*? Why vote?
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.
*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.
** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.
*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without Green or any other color being a factor in making us see red.**
[Please note the bold "Green or any other" was struck by the editor, apparently not obvious enough that Nader was the Green party, (and green)the almighty buck and envy. And these days if you need a Tea Party pallet, just smear the colors and brown with hints of purple works nicely.]
** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]
Friday, January 24, 2014
Third Times A Charm?
Or one too many mulligans?
(the rough, the fairway or the green)
David Horsey: "without green being a factor in making us see red."
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
[Personal Note: See bold and italics bold. For apparently the italicized irony, "green" was replaced by "colors" by the editors.] Not to condi send but, Nader was a factor along with chads.
More on Boehner and jobs later. i.e. the success and pop(ularity) of congress
(the rough, the fairway or the green)
David Horsey: "without green being a factor in making us see red."
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
[Personal Note: See bold and italics bold. For apparently the italicized irony, "green" was replaced by "colors" by the editors.] Not to condi send but, Nader was a factor along with chads.
More on Boehner and jobs later. i.e. the success and pop(ularity) of congress
Monday, June 18, 2007
Notes from Al-Qaeda
"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Parsed (& Partied) Political Process
Debate!
(the rest I needed)
OK, I have some catching up to do,
but will probably not.
(rocking the boat ain't bad,
but not Gilligan's Island)
OK, I was out of touch for the weekend.
As far as the vote and third parties,
I feel that more competition will help the debate.
As long as people realize where their vote will lead.
Triangulation may be the change we can believe in * ,
but not the leader. My hope is that indepedents from the left or the right, (say Nader and Barr) will be included in the debate, where triangulation is a form of navigation based on principles, but also where practicality hits the road. Give the poor track record of the media, and the bifurcation -(Red and Blue America)- of the internet(unfiltered), expanded participation may better focus the dialogue, but don't forget the green.
[Nader, Barr, and Green?]
[I leave you and Green to search and speak for your selves.]
[*: under Geometry of Purpose: related efforts, links no longer appear, but my point was by contrast to Bill O'Reilly, and definitely not to agree with the parable nor what is still found at American Thinker.]
(the rest I needed)
OK, I have some catching up to do,
but will probably not.
(rocking the boat ain't bad,
but not Gilligan's Island)
OK, I was out of touch for the weekend.
As far as the vote and third parties,
I feel that more competition will help the debate.
As long as people realize where their vote will lead.
Triangulation may be the change we can believe in * ,
but not the leader. My hope is that indepedents from the left or the right, (say Nader and Barr) will be included in the debate, where triangulation is a form of navigation based on principles, but also where practicality hits the road. Give the poor track record of the media, and the bifurcation -(Red and Blue America)- of the internet(unfiltered), expanded participation may better focus the dialogue, but don't forget the green.
[Nader, Barr, and Green?]
[I leave you and Green to search and speak for your selves.]
[*: under Geometry of Purpose: related efforts, links no longer appear, but my point was by contrast to Bill O'Reilly, and definitely not to agree with the parable nor what is still found at American Thinker.]
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The best laid plans...
I get back from some errands and instead of it being 15 minutes into the Greenbay /Chicago game it is 14-0 Green Bay and almost the 2 minute warning to the half. See post from draft, and on my honor I do not have a parallel post, but must get to my game food.
(life goes on[**]... see Vinyl Cafe)[*]
OK so 3PM Eastern is Noon not 1PM. My bad.
[meanwhile: lost in some notes there is the booer and the booee of a Floyd Little interview] SEGUE..That "capitalist community" Green Bay pulled it out over all those references to Chigago and Platonics.
Well...Congratulations to the Steelers(24-19 over Jets) and all that rooted for them. I may wax philosophical later. I'll take Green Bay, may it be a hecuva game.
[* 1-24-11 links not complete yet, not that they will]
[** foiled again: a word tetradox or pun on pair o'] Speaking of plans, this was not it. Nor Lonesome Roads.
(life goes on[**]... see Vinyl Cafe)[*]
OK so 3PM Eastern is Noon not 1PM. My bad.
[meanwhile: lost in some notes there is the booer and the booee of a Floyd Little interview] SEGUE..That "capitalist community" Green Bay pulled it out over all those references to Chigago and Platonics.
Well...Congratulations to the Steelers(24-19 over Jets) and all that rooted for them. I may wax philosophical later. I'll take Green Bay, may it be a hecuva game.
[* 1-24-11 links not complete yet, not that they will]
[** foiled again: a word tetradox or pun on pair o'] Speaking of plans, this was not it. Nor Lonesome Roads.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Go Purple!
Red and Blue America
Must Go Purple!
What about green?
Here is a useful (although marginally) group of charts for super delegates and the overall picture of hope for Democrats. The "original intent" for this post was to direct you to an Obama purple ad that had the red and blue states going purple, speaking of McAd. But here is another a bit more technical.
Speaking of colors and humor not getting in the way. Here is my original:(letter to the editor, May 26th 2002)
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
(This demonstrates how a careful read and one word can jinx or preempt a meaning or change. And again "it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other." and not torture meaning like the editor did to my piece by changing green to color, "not that there is anything wrong with that", but it does narrow the course and change the meaning.)
Must Go Purple!
What about green?
Here is a useful (although marginally) group of charts for super delegates and the overall picture of hope for Democrats. The "original intent" for this post was to direct you to an Obama purple ad that had the red and blue states going purple, speaking of McAd. But here is another a bit more technical.
Speaking of colors and humor not getting in the way. Here is my original:(letter to the editor, May 26th 2002)
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
(This demonstrates how a careful read and one word can jinx or preempt a meaning or change. And again "it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other." and not torture meaning like the editor did to my piece by changing green to color, "not that there is anything wrong with that", but it does narrow the course and change the meaning.)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Think Blue
Click Green. That's right or at least it is wiki.
Duh...Trinity. I use the above for segue...
[3-1-11 View of Airport Vortex(foreground right slope) to Bell Rock Vortex(distant smallest peak just right of center)]
[GPS: Closeup of Bell Rock, Looking back from Bell Rock.]
As I listened to Thom Hartmann, there is an appropriate* tangent to investigate later. As a caller pointed out it, is not about the rich and the poor, it is about people and capital. Would that be Cap I Toll ism?
*or maybe just interesting; not only in the nature of the trinity** of vortexes, but the wearing of the green or the red.
** self/others/balance
[Missing link : of google journey.[Not really even chaos.]
Friday, June 10, 2011
No Frackin' Way
Nuclear power is one thing*, but Frackin' with our water?
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
Friday, January 21, 2011
Green Bay / New York
Just for the fun of it, these are my picks.
No brilliant insight, only hunches based on interests.
For Green Bay it is fan ownership.
For New York it is the USC quarterback.
But what really matters? Finding meaning in things.
Then change.
What is the link here? The final two links regard a Sense of Events, by Donald Sensing. Quality satire(above) and comment.
Well... it is ironic that I have possibly been too fair and balanced in my view of the latter selectin of his. But his comment on the former may be the key:Stephen Hawking’s philosophy is so deficient that you have to wonder whether his science is, too. It would seem that only the reverse could be try*, but even that is ironic.
[This post pulled from draft at this The best laid plans... time.]
[*not exactly tried but...true, evidence of draft nature]
No brilliant insight, only hunches based on interests.
For Green Bay it is fan ownership.
For New York it is the USC quarterback.
But what really matters? Finding meaning in things.
Then change.
What is the link here? The final two links regard a Sense of Events, by Donald Sensing. Quality satire(above) and comment.
Well... it is ironic that I have possibly been too fair and balanced in my view of the latter selectin of his. But his comment on the former may be the key:Stephen Hawking’s philosophy is so deficient that you have to wonder whether his science is, too. It would seem that only the reverse could be try*, but even that is ironic.
[This post pulled from draft at this The best laid plans... time.]
[*not exactly tried but...true, evidence of draft nature]
Monday, April 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013
4-1-13 April * 1st. Big
Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Bush Legacy?
A NEW TACK WITH TACT
Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.
Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.
Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".
This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.
We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.
ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.
[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}
Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.
Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.
Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".
This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.
We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.
ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.
[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
A Plan to B-Team
[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Thursday, June 25, 1970
Try Angle Nation
RSN: cant or
I, J, K street?
Gender Clash
More Mon knee? TP
O W [?] ...
(tout court [!]) 6-25-14
Let alone Green's function 4yeah or phoyer, let alone faux-yer. Bin go.
Ruff FP:
orbit - Anachronism , Scratch That...
"many body" not exactly , hertz
Pars'n any: A. Thumbs/GOP and OWS , B. Anachronism , C. Schiller, Schelling, Shell Lacking and Schopenhauer*?, D. A Tail of Caution , E. I Told You So., F. Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. (re:legend - sc)
I, J, K street?
Gender Clash
More Mon knee? TP
O W [?] ...
(tout court [!]) 6-25-14
Let alone Green's function 4yeah or phoyer, let alone faux-yer. Bin go.
Ruff FP:
orbit - Anachronism , Scratch That...
"many body" not exactly , hertz
Pars'n any: A. Thumbs/GOP and OWS , B. Anachronism , C. Schiller, Schelling, Shell Lacking and Schopenhauer*?, D. A Tail of Caution , E. I Told You So., F. Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications. (re:legend - sc)
Monday, April 07, 2008
[ POW?!!!WOW!!!? ]
[Originally: McCain Legacy: now with Rice Lacuna. * ]
Son of an admiral.
Grandson of an admiral.
Shot down, POW.(served with honor)
Speaking of bringing it to the table or Seeds of Compassion I think I need to turn over a new leaf at the Green Festival.
[Over the weekend for some reason; possibly while McCain was not answering questions about his potential running mate, the name, Condi Rice came to my mind briefly yet clearly. I do not recall this item being the trigger, but in my mind it would make it interesting, and it happened to be in my inbox this morning. A McCain/Obama and Rice/Clinton debate series would be interesting as much as any other mix of these: Tempered dialogue and senses of humor aside. ZING!
* "grain of truth" ?
** FEATURED ARTICLE: WOW!
[[ UPDATED 04-04-08 WOW! & this item on Rice
& UPDATED non-denial she does not "do politics"
MY TAKE? What was she doing with The Americans for Tax Reform, as Secretary of State? ]]
NOT UNDERSTATED: [Not to mention - - The McCain Record on Veterans
and WeGotEd.com (nfry).]
Son of an admiral.
Grandson of an admiral.
Shot down, POW.(served with honor)
"I am the son and grandson of admirals," McCain said. "They were my first heroes, and their respect for me has been one of the most lasting ambitions of my life... They showed me how to love my country, and that has made all the difference for me."Speaking of respect and being a POW-WOW! **
Speaking of bringing it to the table or Seeds of Compassion I think I need to turn over a new leaf at the Green Festival.
[Over the weekend for some reason; possibly while McCain was not answering questions about his potential running mate, the name, Condi Rice came to my mind briefly yet clearly. I do not recall this item being the trigger, but in my mind it would make it interesting, and it happened to be in my inbox this morning. A McCain/Obama and Rice/Clinton debate series would be interesting as much as any other mix of these: Tempered dialogue and senses of humor aside. ZING!
* "grain of truth" ?
** FEATURED ARTICLE: WOW!
[[ UPDATED 04-04-08 WOW! & this item on Rice
& UPDATED non-denial she does not "do politics"
MY TAKE? What was she doing with The Americans for Tax Reform, as Secretary of State? ]]
NOT UNDERSTATED: [Not to mention - - The McCain Record on Veterans
and WeGotEd.com (nfry).]
Monday, June 08, 2015
Green Walled Parallel
Not exactly the lesson.
The LA Times piece was much more fair and balanced* than The Intercept "editorial". Snowden was not the author of the legislation, congress was. Glenn Greenwald's journalism(or logic) on this matter might lead me to give the Republican Party credit for the recovery**.
*I've decapitalized and un-quotation marked for sake of irony
[Rumsfeld/Korb All In for American Progress]
** if it wasn't the LA Times that made the claim on authorship
The LA Times piece was much more fair and balanced* than The Intercept "editorial". Snowden was not the author of the legislation, congress was. Glenn Greenwald's journalism(or logic) on this matter might lead me to give the Republican Party credit for the recovery**.
*I've decapitalized and un-quotation marked for sake of irony
[Rumsfeld/Korb All In for American Progress]
** if it wasn't the LA Times that made the claim on authorship
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Friday, May 17, 2013
Food for Thought...
Or Fodder for Field Blossoms ?
F1*, f2,
* links unembedded further "fodder for" ? !
5-20-13: Krugman perspectivism.
I'm not saying...
Is it a win for transparency or more of the same GOP trickle-down?
James Rosen Treason?
Robert Kennedy Jr. Plumbers?
FB
Recently Pulled Submission(Not by me) Re: Watergate/ Democrats ~ holding to their own standards ~ their own~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/obama-nixon-watergate_b_3305611.html
C: Green walled [!]
5-22-13***
IRS testimony**, the other Rand, McCain/Graham Rice, "fool's errand" [?]
**Issa touts the 5th (C-NOW w/ Alex Wagner) "Republicrats" "Democans" "barking up the wrong tree" Charlie Cook.
(*** b.s.): Knot So Well ? Sheep in FOX clothing?
5-23-13: Boardman, Reich, Wired, Cole ? Not to coat tails.
Millennial Miss fits?
F1*, f2,
* links unembedded further "fodder for" ? !
5-20-13: Krugman perspectivism.
I'm not saying...
Is it a win for transparency or more of the same GOP trickle-down?
James Rosen Treason?
Robert Kennedy Jr. Plumbers?
FB
Recently Pulled Submission(Not by me) Re: Watergate/ Democrats ~ holding to their own standards ~ their own~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/obama-nixon-watergate_b_3305611.html
C: Green walled [!]
5-22-13***
IRS testimony**, the other Rand, McCain/Graham Rice, "fool's errand" [?]
**Issa touts the 5th (C-NOW w/ Alex Wagner) "Republicrats" "Democans" "barking up the wrong tree" Charlie Cook.
(*** b.s.): Knot So Well ? Sheep in FOX clothing?
5-23-13: Boardman, Reich, Wired, Cole ? Not to coat tails.
Millennial Miss fits?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Major Deal of Minor Gotchas
A matter of direction and degree.[a matter of reading and trust]
Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.
But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."
Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.
A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.
[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]
*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.
Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.
But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."
Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.
A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.
[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]
*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
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. ]
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. ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)