Inciteful?

Insightful, not incitable.
It occurred to me that Letterman maybe threw out a pun in this exchange.
In that the heat of the recent debate had some value. It was maybe insightful.
It is my take that some are more insightful, and some are more incitable than others.
Edwards - didn't bite.
Obama - inciting and incitable.
Clinton - inciteful. [*]
Yes, it is not a word.

[Scroll over candidate names above for my blogs. Unfortunately or fortunately, Edwards is more filtered: I was trying not to be self-serving, but finally hit on a tangent that came back to the point. (Filtering, input and output) A vote for my post is not a vote for Edwards, but like regular voting sometimes there are hurdles.]

[ * note scroll over of cursor to save you the trip to the link, and a hint at the gist and the jest ]

Not to make light...

but actually that is the point. To shine a light on things.

While there is a far cry from the Penn State tragedy and the "agreement" that Herman Cain is dancing around, there does seem to be the thread of "market forces".

I should note, that like Cain, in some respects I blame the media. But we must not shoot the messenger. Nor necessarily "blame yourselves" for not having all the horrific D-tales. i.e. I don't think the severity of the details came to light immediately. Even though events have occurred over a broader spectrum of time [!]
Oops ? That's Right. That's the ticket[!]
[Who wants their MTV?]
[Back to a revisiting of the Star Chamber, Randi Rhodes is up there with her always insightful and often inciteful analysis of the Republicans as well as Obamanomics. Lawrence O'Donnell is the MSNBC/congressional version. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are two candidates I endorsed for their positions at MSNBC. And Norman Goldman is like the most legal and often infuriating, point of light.]

Economy or Economics

To SIN or not to sin?

SIN*:
Switch Topics
Ignore Facts
Name Call

Call it a Wrap?
With no bow on it, or aft?**

* rated X for economiX
(I should note that I was thoroughly entertained by the Fight of the Century, but it is a Koch sponsored production, and requires a fair bit of economics** as well as other disciplines to see that it is more inciteful than insightful. But the other links provide some other perspectives that I only have a hunch are more "fair and balanced" and not in a Faux or FOKS way. I have only begun to unRap them, but there is a pun in the 3 bows.***

** redone duncy Not! (actually this just might be the bow)

*** correction 4 is more on target

[NOTE: Under(see Wrap) and a fair bit of economics and NOT! are the links I have yet to dijest (see sic and pour ridge metaphor)]

Aurora Shooting Update

Aurora Shooting Update* :

Update and effect on campaigns.
(label)

Today it looks like Mike Papantonio will be ranting** on hate and the nexus to violence.  These are not exactly nuanced or non-inciteful, nor linked to today's Ed Schultz Show.(The Ring of Fire links{"hate" and "nexus"}are not associated with The Ed Schultz{radio"wegoted"}Show, MSNBC*** or Rachel Maddow, nor fully viewed by me.)

NorMan GoldMan - A Smart Alex[!]

*link has nuanced follow-up(&scrollup) re:"under...standing"
** not intended as negative term
*** best wishes to Wendy Schultz

[!] not to link NorMan or BaldWin to ALEC, but Get Smart to Raw Money.

Trouble with the Curve?

 

W'rithmatic and the Empty Chair.
It's Marvelous! *


Obama is 4... the 96%!

*not an endorsement


Waaaaa!!!!!  ;-): 

The Top 5%** income brackets pay 38% of total taxes collected on 35% of the nations income, while the bottom 95% pay ONLY 62% of taxes on 64% of the nations total income[!***]




** thanks to Jared Bernstein's colleagues and Citizens for Tax Justice.
*** real math is not that inciteful !