At this point, now that we are really moving forward by looking back, I have begun the process of inserting labels on earlier posts* and Trivium is a recent word I learned and my first application is NO JOKE. Quadrivium is a later joke. But I assure this is no joke, and in fact pertinent to our course and our corrections.
*[Minor editing as in punctuation are also being done in this process of assigning labels and putting titles to their proper place.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query joke. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query joke. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Friday, September 17, 2004
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.
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.
Friday, November 08, 2002
NO JOKE
Last night, David Letterman made fun of the Democrats for not articulating a message or rather having lost to the Bush efforts of articulation. I won’t attempt to retell the joke, but it is sad, if the opinion prevails that the Democrats could not out-articulate Bush.
Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.
Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.
[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]
Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.
Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.
[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The History of B.S.
[Herstory and Blog Searches* aside.]
[Originally Drafted May 26, 2012]
There is a joke about what the oldest profession is, but I won’t go there. It is more or less about procreation. The B. S. I am talking about is the flip-flop of Simpson-Bowles.[1] Yes, I believe that was its name before it hit the road. It was supposed to be a bi-partisan committee on the debt, but could not come up with any consensus on how it should be addressed, so its full report was submitted more like a Supreme Court decision that was tied.
Recently it seems that its name was changed, to Bowles-Simpson.[2] Was there some reason for that? Could it be to honor the real oldest profession? And I don’t mean the Barter System. If this is too nuanced, maybe it is the joke, to be less about creation, more about pro$e. Either way this is a very economic and political history.
[More Bio-Product.]***
Speaking of PEG’d...(Private Equity Government)[3] or nailed it, Coffee Table This! [4-7] Now that is creationism.
[Now I realize that some boots may be needed for the above, but I was trying to be economic. But the point is that it is always political and it has not been bi-partisan except on the Democratic side. Pun on BP aside.** The irony is that it is about walking a plank. Both want a rising tide, but the Republicans want the people to walk the plank, while politicians take one to the other party boat. Unfortunately this may need deeper boots or Mitt-Flops for the economics, let alone politics. The B.S. may be in this writing, but it is in the links and balanced solutions as well.]
*literally I will present this without links(see footnotes later)
** bi-partisan (now that is slick)
*** oops: sorry for anachronisms
[Originally Drafted May 26, 2012]
There is a joke about what the oldest profession is, but I won’t go there. It is more or less about procreation. The B. S. I am talking about is the flip-flop of Simpson-Bowles.[1] Yes, I believe that was its name before it hit the road. It was supposed to be a bi-partisan committee on the debt, but could not come up with any consensus on how it should be addressed, so its full report was submitted more like a Supreme Court decision that was tied.
Recently it seems that its name was changed, to Bowles-Simpson.[2] Was there some reason for that? Could it be to honor the real oldest profession? And I don’t mean the Barter System. If this is too nuanced, maybe it is the joke, to be less about creation, more about pro$e. Either way this is a very economic and political history.
[More Bio-Product.]***
Speaking of PEG’d...(Private Equity Government)[3] or nailed it, Coffee Table This! [4-7] Now that is creationism.
[Now I realize that some boots may be needed for the above, but I was trying to be economic. But the point is that it is always political and it has not been bi-partisan except on the Democratic side. Pun on BP aside.** The irony is that it is about walking a plank. Both want a rising tide, but the Republicans want the people to walk the plank, while politicians take one to the other party boat. Unfortunately this may need deeper boots or Mitt-Flops for the economics, let alone politics. The B.S. may be in this writing, but it is in the links and balanced solutions as well.]
*literally I will present this without links(see footnotes later)
** bi-partisan (now that is slick)
*** oops: sorry for anachronisms
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Use Dispersants On BP!
Not the chemical kind, the market kind.
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
Thursday, April 10, 2014
EH?
Esoteric Humor?
Homage to oops ?
This is a bit of self-reflection. Not that I have fully read(vetted) or digested to my satisfaction the links above, but I am concerned with the hazzards(mind field) of irony and satire.
1. Twitter killed Stephen Colbert's joke
2. Critical Spontaneity
3. Word Herstory
4. Change Logos:
5. Creative Avatar [/?] #CancelColbert
^. Our Story
7. Economics 2011 (s.c. )
8. a. "Truthiness" of Ranked Words. b. Moos Room, c. Not your Liaison Report
9. 10. Joan Walsh on irony and irony .
11. Economics... (s.c.)
^5.(or%) a. NO JOKE, b. i. Mess Age Monger, ii., iii.->, Ctrl F "bottom line" [/?]
iii.-> [ i., ii., iii., iv., vi., ...%(e.g. # / d. c.)]
[Not to mention ...EH ?]
[Let alone ...] Seriously, now that I have 3 schools of EH, I must remind the reader of my "vetted" reference in regard to economistic heterodocksea. # * Labels.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Off to Argentina?
No. But Happy Fourth of July and family matters, I will be taking a sabbatical.*
Period.
Joke not lest yee be the butthead.**
I guess not so period.
[Update: OurFuture Public Plan Saves Money]
[And presumed hope.]
[7-3-09: back panel ]
[Update 7-6-09 Retro 7-2 Palin & Cheney]
[Morning from Wasilla]
* [7-7-09 oopssee]
** [7-8-09 belated King of Pop, R.I.P. and tangential translation: careful what you joke about.]
Period.
Joke not lest yee be the butthead.**
I guess not so period.
[Update: OurFuture Public Plan Saves Money]
[And presumed hope.]
[7-3-09: back panel ]
[Update 7-6-09 Retro 7-2 Palin & Cheney]
[Morning from Wasilla]
* [7-7-09 oopssee]
** [7-8-09 belated King of Pop, R.I.P. and tangential translation: careful what you joke about.]
Monday, June 15, 2009
Dividing Not Uniting
[Held in draft since 6-12-09]
Republican Study Committee needs more study.
While some factions blame Obama for bailouts, another blames him for not standing with holdouts for a bailout.
Meanwhile Palin starts a war on comedy as an expert on double standards. What started as a reasonable admonition to David Letterman who made a disparaging joke that did implicate her under aged daughter, soon bordered on pandering violence. While this is a big stretch from Letterman not wanting to be caught "off guard", it is more innuendoed than the error of the joke(which daughter) distracting from its original distastefulness(to daughters in general*). Now will Palin go after Death Talkers or will Letterman go more political shock jock or start a blog?
It is my opinion that Letterman should apologize for the jokes erroneous implication and the overall distastefulness of the subject.[**] Then Palin should work on her fellow partisans and "so-called" conservative "leaders", be they elected or sponsored in their "free" speech; in particular surrounding the improper use of words like socialism and racism and the irony and empathy of Alaskan ownership of resources. If she could make as good a showing with her "so-called" friends, it would be a service to her party and the nation.
* the original distastefulness was more standard fare for late night yet the error aside, other exaggerations have been made in making this an issue about women.[These two links were found and inserted after I finished this post. But I think there is a general hazzard in communication that transcends humor or could actual be a key ingrediant that is often missed. If one takes the word "slutty" and recognizes it as an adjective and not part of the noun, one might not be so quick to empathize as a victim.] [late read]
[**] to a great extent he has, but I mean acknowledging the error and not unreasonable offense taken by the daughter actually at the game (at least until it was made "hey" of)
[Later 6-15-09 follow-up Letterman Boost and word out that Letterman will re-apologize.]
[6-16-09: Palin accepts apology and evolution.]
[Further RE:Devolution On CBS]
Republican Study Committee needs more study.
While some factions blame Obama for bailouts, another blames him for not standing with holdouts for a bailout.
Meanwhile Palin starts a war on comedy as an expert on double standards. What started as a reasonable admonition to David Letterman who made a disparaging joke that did implicate her under aged daughter, soon bordered on pandering violence. While this is a big stretch from Letterman not wanting to be caught "off guard", it is more innuendoed than the error of the joke(which daughter) distracting from its original distastefulness(to daughters in general*). Now will Palin go after Death Talkers or will Letterman go more political shock jock or start a blog?
It is my opinion that Letterman should apologize for the jokes erroneous implication and the overall distastefulness of the subject.[**] Then Palin should work on her fellow partisans and "so-called" conservative "leaders", be they elected or sponsored in their "free" speech; in particular surrounding the improper use of words like socialism and racism and the irony and empathy of Alaskan ownership of resources. If she could make as good a showing with her "so-called" friends, it would be a service to her party and the nation.
* the original distastefulness was more standard fare for late night yet the error aside, other exaggerations have been made in making this an issue about women.[These two links were found and inserted after I finished this post. But I think there is a general hazzard in communication that transcends humor or could actual be a key ingrediant that is often missed. If one takes the word "slutty" and recognizes it as an adjective and not part of the noun, one might not be so quick to empathize as a victim.] [late read]
[**] to a great extent he has, but I mean acknowledging the error and not unreasonable offense taken by the daughter actually at the game (at least until it was made "hey" of)
[Later 6-15-09 follow-up Letterman Boost and word out that Letterman will re-apologize.]
[6-16-09: Palin accepts apology and evolution.]
[Further RE:Devolution On CBS]
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Economic Reform.
Not really.
But from my FB:
[ALSO THANX Rob for Obama Reformation.]
I recently heard, that the top 1%(or 2) account for the same as the bottom 50% in income and 90% in wealth held.[***] Just thought I would throw that in without too much other comment, it was very interesting to read the exchange, thumbs up, to... all.
But Yes, the point about investment and trickle down, the argument that(BTW, it is not raising taxes, it is an end to a tax cut, which the Republicans passed, which might sound the same, but is not, neither economically or politically) an end to the tax breaks will mean they will not be able to hire, is contrary to standard business and tax practices regarding what is deductible. It seems to me that it shows that there are a lot of people in business that are lucky to be there given their understanding of things, or it really doesn't matter how well one understands things to work, and probably a bit of each of these. But the Laffer curve is the biggest joke, not to mention the bell curve in general, but actually the joke is not in the curves but in the way people use them. OK, I did have more than I intended to comment*, but I must not forget my "nose under the camel's tent"(metaphor),[**] which represents the fear that change will be continued. 'nough said? (see the BTW)
OOPS!
I left an asterisk hanging: it regarded my metaphor...of knows or # of stakes OK, I just caught myself. . I am chuckling so hard, I better ponder before deleting or refudiating.
Ah, there's the rib!
[Speaking of Anachronism and Comprehensieveshun... I only now finished reading the NYT top link.]
[**] Not to coin a Palin, my original intent was the "camel's nose" but who knows? Only the Shadow.
[***] Thanks to Thom Hartmann...if we(I) have the numbers right. Meanwhile, I cannot believe there is not a reasonableness(constitutional pun) retort to this. i.e. I look forward to more context and links.
But from my FB:
[ALSO THANX Rob for Obama Reformation.]
I recently heard, that the top 1%(or 2) account for the same as the bottom 50% in income and 90% in wealth held.[***] Just thought I would throw that in without too much other comment, it was very interesting to read the exchange, thumbs up, to... all.
But Yes, the point about investment and trickle down, the argument that(BTW, it is not raising taxes, it is an end to a tax cut, which the Republicans passed, which might sound the same, but is not, neither economically or politically) an end to the tax breaks will mean they will not be able to hire, is contrary to standard business and tax practices regarding what is deductible. It seems to me that it shows that there are a lot of people in business that are lucky to be there given their understanding of things, or it really doesn't matter how well one understands things to work, and probably a bit of each of these. But the Laffer curve is the biggest joke, not to mention the bell curve in general, but actually the joke is not in the curves but in the way people use them. OK, I did have more than I intended to comment*, but I must not forget my "nose under the camel's tent"(metaphor),[**] which represents the fear that change will be continued. 'nough said? (see the BTW)
OOPS!
I left an asterisk hanging: it regarded my metaphor...of knows or # of stakes OK, I just caught myself. . I am chuckling so hard, I better ponder before deleting or refudiating.
Ah, there's the rib!
[Speaking of Anachronism and Comprehensieveshun... I only now finished reading the NYT top link.]
[**] Not to coin a Palin, my original intent was the "camel's nose" but who knows? Only the Shadow.
[***] Thanks to Thom Hartmann...if we(I) have the numbers right. Meanwhile, I cannot believe there is not a reasonableness(constitutional pun) retort to this. i.e. I look forward to more context and links.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
I am the detector...
and the borrower.*
A reporter asked Bush if he had taken the lie detector test on leaking which the CIA has required all it's agents to take and which even The Director took.
Bush said he already had taken it and he got the highest score ever recorded.
* Of course this is from a very ironic source: Al Franken.
The above joke was spun from* my urge to explain(aren't the best borrowed anyway) a good joke but then it takes the thinking and fun from it and who knows who may be laughing even without getting it.
Anyway here goes. Ya see, it is unlikely Bush would take one, and it is even more likely that lie detector don't give scores, only something the experts interpret anyway.
A reporter asked Bush if he had taken the lie detector test on leaking which the CIA has required all it's agents to take and which even The Director took.
Bush said he already had taken it and he got the highest score ever recorded.
* Of course this is from a very ironic source: Al Franken.
The above joke was spun from* my urge to explain(aren't the best borrowed anyway) a good joke but then it takes the thinking and fun from it and who knows who may be laughing even without getting it.
Anyway here goes. Ya see, it is unlikely Bush would take one, and it is even more likely that lie detector don't give scores, only something the experts interpret anyway.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Clog Alert!
Not to Ribble, but regarding two points here:
The tenor of Bane Or.
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)
A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.
Further parse N later ... [^]
^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ? w h ?
[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat" RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn? i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*
^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *
The tenor of Bane Or.
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)
A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.
Further parse N later ... [^]
^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ? w h ?
[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat" RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn? i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*
^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Recent Letters.
To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:
What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]
The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".
Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.
Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]
Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.
Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.
What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]
The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".
Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.
Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]
Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.
Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
December FOOTNOTES 2.0
SCROLL DOWN FOR CHRONOLOGY.
BEGUN 12-3-12 Fiddle Sticks^
...(under review)
(under construction) 12-3-12 (Kant.)
(b.s.) "Lede+or+Ship"^
Swift craft
Swift satire
M-bed ***
* by Jenga (enough! )
** un-M-bed
*** not to charm but what the?
[Anacronism of asterisks is a real problem between ** & ***,
but it was through Slate*** under Osmosis** that I found the Doonesbury.]
^ ( Context/LEDE: Lede or Ship Politcal** Gaming*.)
^Not to pronounce can'tOr continue.
...
12-4-12 Pre-Pan FRY.
^ post comment/(fn)/links added under Claus,
Post Wits / 4. For words! Theory.
12-5-12 Joke of the Year!
ALSO Re:"time" will expire. Scroll over latter two.
12-18-12 Camel in Tent
12-21-12 Oh so Too Point* SO!
* under (b.s. anachronism)
! (b.s. "subjective"+"objective") =
Obama Leaks
The Other Debates
REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!]
CAD (To be or not 3d)
State of Politics
Ideology
Running Thoughts
(toll keen over trolls)
2-22-12 Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages
BEGUN 12-3-12 Fiddle Sticks^
...(under review)
(under construction) 12-3-12 (Kant.)
(b.s.) "Lede+or+Ship"^
Swift craft
Swift satire
M-bed ***
* by Jenga (enough! )
** un-M-bed
*** not to charm but what the?
[Anacronism of asterisks is a real problem between ** & ***,
but it was through Slate*** under Osmosis** that I found the Doonesbury.]
^ ( Context/LEDE: Lede or Ship Politcal** Gaming*.)
^Not to pronounce can'tOr continue.
...
12-4-12 Pre-Pan FRY.
^ post comment/(fn)/links added under Claus,
Post Wits / 4. For words! Theory.
12-5-12 Joke of the Year!
ALSO Re:"time" will expire. Scroll over latter two.
12-18-12 Camel in Tent
12-21-12 Oh so Too Point* SO!
* under (b.s. anachronism)
! (b.s. "subjective"+"objective") =
Obama Leaks
The Other Debates
REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!]
CAD (To be or not 3d)
State of Politics
Ideology
Running Thoughts
(toll keen over trolls)
2-22-12 Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
New Hampshire Defeat?
Or Win for progressives?[or change *]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting
John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting
My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.
And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.
[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]
[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting
John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting
My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.
And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.
[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]
[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Joke of the Year!
"In turn, Republicans say Obama is acting like a stubborn partisan who will put
the economy in peril in order to get his way."*
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Analysis-Obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-4091855.php#ixzz2EC9tWNey
THAT WAS THE PUNCHLINE, HERE IS THE SETUP.
"Seeking to cement those impressions, the White House is casting Republicans as willing to forgo tax cuts for the middle class in order to protect lower rates for wealthier Americans. Rates for all income earners will go up at the end of the year if both sides can't reach a deal."
Read more: Ibid.
OR WAS IT A STRAIGHT LINE to the people and UPPER CUT from the Republicans?
"Obama has made that case to Republicans before only to back down in the final stages of negotiations. But this time around, the president and his team believe they hold the political leverage**."
Read more: Ibid.
*NOTE: These Seatlle PI quotes included no hyperlinks, those are my sorts.
** It is only funny if you enjoy political hypocrisy, cynicism, screaming and pulling your hair out. The political leverage and political capital is completely on the President's side.
(Ctrl F: political capital) ALSO Re:"time" will expire.
(fn)
[Full Crumb ? Or Fiscal Crypt ? ]
[Foundation Culture ! v.c. tetrahedron !]
12-6-12 [Somewhat correlated ?]
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Analysis-Obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-4091855.php#ixzz2EC9tWNey
THAT WAS THE PUNCHLINE, HERE IS THE SETUP.
"Seeking to cement those impressions, the White House is casting Republicans as willing to forgo tax cuts for the middle class in order to protect lower rates for wealthier Americans. Rates for all income earners will go up at the end of the year if both sides can't reach a deal."
Read more: Ibid.
OR WAS IT A STRAIGHT LINE to the people and UPPER CUT from the Republicans?
"Obama has made that case to Republicans before only to back down in the final stages of negotiations. But this time around, the president and his team believe they hold the political leverage**."
Read more: Ibid.
*NOTE: These Seatlle PI quotes included no hyperlinks, those are my sorts.
** It is only funny if you enjoy political hypocrisy, cynicism, screaming and pulling your hair out. The political leverage and political capital is completely on the President's side.
(Ctrl F: political capital) ALSO Re:"time" will expire.
(fn)
[Full Crumb ? Or Fiscal Crypt ? ]
[Foundation Culture ! v.c. tetrahedron !]
12-6-12 [Somewhat correlated ?]
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Broken News.
Imus is history on MSNBC?
That reminds me of a joke I came up with about those that fail to learn from history, repeating it. President Bush should have repeated English and math as well. OK!
Is humor the topic? Well Imus claimed his context as close to an excuse after being relatively up front in his apology.
I almost feel sorry for Imus, seeing what he has going down the drain. But that is the difference in perspectives. There is free speech and personal conduct, but that does not mean it has a right or need to be distributed and at a profit no less. And there is a difference between having an opinion and using it to describe individuals compared to describing one's perspective on history and raising questions that could and should be addressed.
Maybe advertisers will consider more carefully their own opinion on what controversial means. It seems that advertisers may be slightly disingenuous or just woke up to the idea that there may a problem profiting from controversy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.
That reminds me of a joke I came up with about those that fail to learn from history, repeating it. President Bush should have repeated English and math as well. OK!
Is humor the topic? Well Imus claimed his context as close to an excuse after being relatively up front in his apology.
I almost feel sorry for Imus, seeing what he has going down the drain. But that is the difference in perspectives. There is free speech and personal conduct, but that does not mean it has a right or need to be distributed and at a profit no less. And there is a difference between having an opinion and using it to describe individuals compared to describing one's perspective on history and raising questions that could and should be addressed.
Maybe advertisers will consider more carefully their own opinion on what controversial means. It seems that advertisers may be slightly disingenuous or just woke up to the idea that there may a problem profiting from controversy, not that there is anything wrong with that.
I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
McCain camp sexist.
Sarcasm? (see video)
No- perfect rhetoric.
[If you can't stand the heat...]
I don't know about Sam Stein's comment, but Ed Schultz's callers thought Campbell Brown was being sarcastic? Could be, but that only misses who it is aimed at. Ed and I take it serious. Maybe I missed where Ed is lost, but the Palin selection is no Joke. The point is that sexism is their defense for their offense. It is great that she is a woman. But if she were a man, her policies would be the point where we would have issues. Meanwhile she (the Maverick) is being trained in the same old politics. Oops, now I have trampled into agism. But referenced back to training and issues should bring to mind Reagan not to mention Nixon handlers, by way of Bush and Rove.
Forget about Truman and his "get out of the kitchen" metaphor: they can't even stand the sarcasm, let alone the media.
[get out of the sarcasm...]
[But it remains to be seen when she does face the media, will she be prepared or just polished and the media still the battered significant other.]
No- perfect rhetoric.
[If you can't stand the heat...]
I don't know about Sam Stein's comment, but Ed Schultz's callers thought Campbell Brown was being sarcastic? Could be, but that only misses who it is aimed at. Ed and I take it serious. Maybe I missed where Ed is lost, but the Palin selection is no Joke. The point is that sexism is their defense for their offense. It is great that she is a woman. But if she were a man, her policies would be the point where we would have issues. Meanwhile she (the Maverick) is being trained in the same old politics. Oops, now I have trampled into agism. But referenced back to training and issues should bring to mind Reagan not to mention Nixon handlers, by way of Bush and Rove.
Forget about Truman and his "get out of the kitchen" metaphor: they can't even stand the sarcasm, let alone the media.
[get out of the sarcasm...]
[But it remains to be seen when she does face the media, will she be prepared or just polished and the media still the battered significant other.]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
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**.
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[!]
[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.
^ now that is an irony
^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^
[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. ]
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Running Joke
Guilt by association, innocent my label.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.
Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]
* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.
Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]
* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.
Sunday, December 01, 2013
FOOTNOTES PAGE DECEMBER 2013
Begun 12-3-13
12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ?
rtd 12-3-13
Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality// trinity/body Headings
and^ Leadership*. (dynamics)
^ of/or 8: Snooze/Dream(4,6) *prof(it)C? (7,8) Bane or Right? [Not to blog both ends against the middle.]
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. / The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy Try Ad of Caution? (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics) OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD
12-23-13 (4) A. Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed g, What's good for the goose...
12-27-13
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?^] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9 // 10 / 11
^ insert a - h
12-29-13 - Original 5 links. A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?, 2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix ///
12-30 F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5. , G.notes^ -1. 2.Heuristic
Concurrence and 3.My
Respects to Those who Celebrate. (re-search*) ,
H.math^^ - 1. Too
Random... , 2., 3.Bury
the lede?, 4. ROW
MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] . *(under the case of not fully read yet, but back to math... why now 16? too cubed by two? Speculation that the 5th perspective is from apart too pun? The three-body problem regards intitial circumstances from within or without. R 1st 3 models different than recently added. The pow#r of i(V)?
12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ?
rtd 12-3-13
Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. / The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy Try Ad of Caution? (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics) OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD
12-23-13 (4) A. Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed g, What's good for the goose...
12-27-13
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?
12-29-13 - Original 5 links. A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?, 2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix ///
12-30 F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5. , G.notes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)