A Uniter in Illusion.
(Just my perspective on the Speech.)

The President’s State of the Union speech was obviously much more than a report on the country or even an outline of goals, it was a stand-up sit-down fight, fight, fight, song and dance. Of course expecting partisanship to be missing is not realistic, nor ever really lacking in the past, no matter what party was in charge. However for a uniter not a divider?

Some candidates have been accused of being lackluster in the past and now some are revealing too much emotion, but does it really compare to the smirks, and half-winks as the president presents the state of the union. Of course this is just my characterization of it.

But was there not a record amount of standing ovations? Some were certainly over the obvious and non-partisan, like a tribute and thanks to our fighting and dying men and women in arms. There were more occasions where the Republicans would rise as if on cue, and they probably did have some sort of cheerleader or choreographer. Or at least they should have as some in the crowd could have used some directions, as they even seemed perturbed or curious about their reason or whether it was their move.

The positive reaction to the president’s statement that the "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year" was expected by the Democrats. But his emphasis almost with glee that "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule" brought unusually rousing applause and glee from the other side. Were they really listening or just unthinking?

Late in the speech another rousing ovation also followed his statement that "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." He went on to explain: "The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." But this last bit must have been confusing for some or they were morally tired, as they seemed to almost forget to clap or see that that was a very good line. It is interesting that he even mentioned a debate.

Is my characterization of smirks and winks unfair? What about the choice the president brings up barely into his speech:

"We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare, or we can turn back to old policies and old divisions. "

Who casts illusions, let alone divisions? The emphasis, partisanship and divisiveness are sickening.

MAY 2013 Footnotes Page Two

5-1-13 : Irk Sum is the pun on... Happy May Day!
"carefully" continued: A, B(b), c, D, e, f, G(g), h, I (i)...M(m), N...T

5-6-13 "wiggle room" insert post footnote daylight(b.s.)? [Our Story , Following results.] Knot Now and Richard Engle on AM.

5-10-13 Spinning / off:  A. Mmmm MOW, MOW,  B. Tin Foil Herman, C. R.S.V.P.  /  A. The Read C? , B,  C,  D, E. Simon says..., F. The History of B.S.,  G. What the Beck? // Knot Exactly!

5-15-13 (s.c.) secondary clicks [!] Nietzsche’s Marginal Children: On Friedrich Hayek, The Latvia Illusion, Deficit emergency over.

5-17-13: Further Fodder for... Not to dis defense or commanders ... 

5-30-13: not exactly labelism [?]

It turns out...

that "turn around" has been a familiar refrain* for generations.  This^ issue has been the standard rhetoric^^ bearer for every administration:  the debt is a problem only when running.

* Rove, Koch, Cain
[Parsin' Local-ships ? ! ]

As it so happens...
I only saw part of the townhall style debate, and heard part of it, and missed part of it.  But from what I did get, it seems that the President had the upper hand, and the Governor*** the upper fACE.  OK, I could only do this so straight, without a Bane or Tan Gent.**

** hmmm  

10-17-12***(Second debate link):  I just did not want to characterize the in"f"able expression(a smile, I guess), the Governor often has.
CBS: Fact Check, combative, edge, contentious, Romney/Bush, outsourcing, assault, Libya, Libya.
Libya Follow-Up. 

^ Republican debt.
^^ Not running well local.
Economics: local / global ^^^
Globalization is not as daunting as the haunting of the illusion of democracy and economics.(note: exception to b.s.)

We got it!

We got the Nobel Prize!
Having been startled by the announcement, I thought oh no!
But that is only in terms of where the likes of "just a guy"* might take it.

ANACHRONISTIC SEGUE [***]
"Some are guilty by association and some are innocent by no association, with thinking." I had employed this phrase in reply to a buddy who is "just a guy"**, and victim of the Rand Illusion.

But seriously, the Nobel committee recognizes the power of hope and more importantly, people being at the table, let alone who gets it in the end.

* Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly agree: Glenn Beck is "just a guy"
** ironically a veteran and anesthesiologist

[Teddy, Woodrow, Jimmy, and Barack : Just Guys! ]

***there is a bit of preemption in the links and context but on the other hand it does just flow as read.

[Just a digg, the Barack link was originally RealClearPolitics.com which did not present [Correction:no longer presents] Obama's comments but was live.]

[10-13-09 8 Most Outrageous Attacks on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize ]

[update: 10-21-09 Joan got it and anachronisitically I clarify the segue at *** where I had just listed the [Just Guys]just before Obama held his press conference.]

Phase II?

Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.

My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.

The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.

Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.

Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.

Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**

On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"

And The Hidden Power or con-science.

I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.

*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06