Pink Floyd

Post e. g.
Shades of Plato.
Knot too Cave. 
Lost ^ in Translation.

^ trans-something/not mogrify labelism
[The E Ron Crisis.]

From the bottomlineup!
tergiversate/Di-spencer with/the wall/social Darwinism.

BFT:(back from tangent^)
In the "corporations are people" and "government is bad" absolutist field, Kant we see that death to a country(read that the ideal of the name) is not death to a people(except if change is the enemy)^^.  The act of saying/wiping any name off the map, does not mean people die, unless people die.  Changing or wiping off a name is not an existential threat.  Anymore than American describes a people, or Zion is a race or state.  This can be seen in the poll(I speculate), that Iranians might hate America, but be more favorable to the people and other principles.  It might also be seen in the take on Israel from True Torah Jews.  But change is a threat to a part of us all.  Even the name Zion has geographical and metaphysical branches.(Castle/Dry Land/Brook)    

^^  context is everything and Mani-Hegelism; like might means maybe, and duality does not mean to exclude. 

(too the moon!)
[Supply and Demand Myth]  Supply more money and demand will increase.  Oops that was too Economic. Demand must come from the bottom up, that is how the money gets created.  Ironically or Mani-Hegelianistically answers don't come from above.  The slippery-slope or domino theory are about the set up and playing the game, not the slippery game and knocking it all down.

Throwing the Game

or Tetrahedron.

Or should we call it die with less perspective?

Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.

The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.


[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.

Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.

What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]

[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]

Sanford Update?

It is almost hard to believe that Governor Mark Sanford has a book in the works. Many might cry, already? But no, it was already in the works.
Its title: "Within Our Means".
I guess it depends on what means means.[... and within the latter means "roundly mocked" is The Word "noncensus"]

Geometry of Purpose

Belated Congratulations for Fives Years
on Permanent Defense
Celebrating 5 years of facing the offensive likes of the Right,
and the offensive on the government and the middle class by
the likes of those like Tim Eyman.

Not that "3 strikes yer out" * does not work for baseball or should not be used to put repeat offenders in jail. It is too bad that at that rate Eyman is not at least out of the initiative business.

Geometry? Well there is the baseball diamond,
and then there is my paradigm I call The Power Broker Mountain Project [PBMP].
But I am thinking more of the parallel efforts which are being made not always in touch with each other, but headed in the same direction. My recent refocus on the local, means finetuning the approaches.

Two related efforts:
Not wanting to do justice to Culture Warrior Bill O'Reilly, I have coined, borrowed or claimed the position of Cultural Physicist, where everything matters. This effort led me to checking on an Internet parable (scroll down to The Tomato Company) and found the following Global Intelligence Briefing for CEOs found at The Braden Files by one Herb Meyer who by one American Thinker: "knocks the ball out of the park, explaining concisely and clearly the nature of the challenges facing Western Civilization."

And if I may connect more dots(and the ball park metaphor was not what I was going for) but I recall my poems on these parallels of sorts(the likes of who come to mind).

Right Face Left Faith

Great minds think alike
But being alike does not make right
Being right may make might
But more important is thinking
Right?

Being right is more likely
Why great minds will think alike
Thinking may not be so likely
In those that just think might
Right.

Faith is nowhere near alike
The truth that others think is might
Faith is might and more like maybe
Unless you only think it's right
Not maybe!

The physicist point?

Unified Poem

Everything
is but
a Wave
between
perspectives
in Time
and Space

Now to continue the path, and thanks again for the work of Andrew Villeneuve and Permanent Defense.

* just another initiative as segue

Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)

Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.

Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.

In memoriam.

* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.

** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.

*** maybe him but not here

Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]

P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.

Who is "Lighting a Fire"?

President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.

If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.

We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.

Clause Wits

...war is politics by other means
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?

*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense

[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]

*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:

Clausewitz’s trinity comprises three specific elements. The identity of those elements is readily evident to anyone who actually reads the first paragraph of his description: It is "composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason...." (emphasis added). This set of elements is usually labeled "emotion/chance/reason"; sometimes "violence/chance & probability/rational calculation"; or, even more abstractly, "irrationality/nonrationality/rationality."

It would seem that this creates our reality as opposed to an original intent begetting results, let alone values. Oh, but I guess it does. But some just have a different ge oh me try.
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Demon Pass

or Demonizing Politics with Deem and Pass!
At the 3 minute mark I agree the Democrats might be better off with a vote, but it is overly cynical of politics and ironically political to blame the creative process.
But Senator Stabinow defends or explains the process.
[Is that straight? I hope it is straight now, and I thought that the Klein and O'Donnell had fallen for some political spin, even though their intentions might be right. In fact, it is like the Valentine metaphor, but they just send them in one envelope.]

[Here are the demons who don't understand that self-executing is just what they seem to want, when it really means getting it done, and I don't mean Dennis Kucinich.]
[Belated Chalk Up and Kudos to Kucinich ]

Incomplete Geometry

In the process of investigating the genome piece there was a podcast of it which included a prior segment.

[Very Rough Thinking In Progress]

In a bit of preemptive* positing, I note the potential significance of 8 and 24 dimension.

Could it be that it is related to the fact that 2 cubed is eight and 8x3 is 24. 

I say that without quibbling** over the definition of dimensions, but to say they are using it too purely mathematical. 

But now that I have spelled it out, might it represent 3 dimensions in each of the 8 quadrants of standard x-y-z grid.  Or am I just putting into words what it actually means in their math?

* having listened to the podcast but not done the math
** @ t we already have a different definition or do we?  (x,y,z, & t)
then there are the dimentions[!] of Arthur Young, and by golly was that 8 or v/7?***
[!]= irony or (sic) that I found him with that spelling

Filing purposes:
Or round file of clean desktop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_lattice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion


https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160419-string-inflation-triangles/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160330-sphere-packing-solved-in-higher-dimensions/


*** I was not aware of Young when I developed my own tetrahedron
(I credit a parsing of Einstein and a recreation of The Republic for my structure.)

BTW:
What is living?

5-4-16 
May the Fourth be with you!
Quantum Bookmarks:  3:40, 5:16, 5:4, 6:50, ...

5-5-16  OW / VP  (need more labels)

The Other Debates

Substance over*** Style? 
Here I go again,
preemptive over* reading**. 

* preceding two links are top embeds in prior two links
** links all inserted before reading ** or any others(including last insert ***)
*** retro GPS of sorts(C-lede/heading)

[Ouch! Mid^ -PI solar^^ flare... ***]

^ scroll over(not exactly^^^)
^^ having read ***...
Inslee is no Biden or Obama, McKenna is no Romney or Ryan. ^^(Re...)
But on the issue of conflict of interest, the conflict is ironic.



^^^ F'n notes:  Show me the money, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road ? !

^^(Re...) Don't call me..(Re...cycling^^)
...except for the Congressional connection(Biden/Inslee/Ryan and party differences).  Note that it is quite different to be a Republican governor in a Democratic controlled state(Romney), than a bipartisan Democratic president in a more evenly controlled but partisanly divided congress.  Republicans have been against what they might have been for if they had been in control(less so maybe locally given this context).  The debt being the Toll Keen under the bridge.   C-Mythmatic. Not to mention the road we hoe or Rove. The irony is even more dimentional in the local situation in that, Inslee as governor (re:legislative branch) would be more Obama(re:leg.br.) than McKenna as governor would be either Romney as executive.(re:either state or national leg.br.)  See Romney touting his term in Massachusettes with an 86% Democratic legislature. (It doesn't take much to sit down and cooperate.)  This is no excuse for thinking that divided government means more partisanship rather than cooperation and compromising as Democratic principles. (Further editing if NOT *,^'s may be needed[!]#$%)

[Re: Cycling notations (*,^,#'s) F'n Apologies Tour, not there yet. (quid pre**quo?) Stop that ? Ouch. ]

[ WeGotEd: Sherrod Brown / Uncle Joe/ Uncle Sam/ G.I. Joe / Gastro-Intestinal Joe! Roger Out! ]
[ Alter Net ... Substance/Style, Objective/Subjective, Reality/Matters(slash)dimentionalism what the heck is the point? ]

[Editors Note:(me that is)...the entirety of this post was finished before this. Bolded above from "The debt"...to..."Rove". They can't handle the Biden.  The key crack @little troll friends.  So...(I will have to review to see reference to Rove, but here is a rant or ramble(NOT) his nickname is "Turd Blossom"!]
[Randi Rhodes] 
[Paul Ryan Told 24 Myths in 40 Minutes]

10-16-12 Biden/Ryan Debate added.

I Ron Knee Chef

Ctrl F Kitchen

Obama Takes it to the Kitchen.
OK, Lawrence O'Donnell is not there yet.[*]
True Man Label: Bring it On.

* 1-5-11 Lawrence O'Donnell: McCain Courage, Mormon Cult(ure) and perfect family. (Mitt Romney)
Recess appointment is perfect politics.  Make our** day. (not to get Harry) i.e. take it to court or the people
Is Obama the 75% man?  Mitt may be politically perfect, or the least of how many evils?
Trump wanted some enthusiasm, but who am I to be enthused by the choice of an even weaker candidate to face Obama?  I hope the Republicans give us their best.  It is a process that just might do that.  Unfortunately their best for some Republicans, Libertarians, and farther wrongs would be worse for the country. A flip-flopping un-nuanced Romney is their best shot.  Someone more extreme*** would be better for the race and the country by allowing Obama to carry the middle left.

** dirty Truman and his spatula
[Later The Daily Caller and Neo-Nuanced R's. ]
*** link added (**also & Neo)
[Neo-Bush, Frank/Dodd and Obamanomics.]
[Rachel Maddow, Star Chamber]
[Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Lawrence O'Donnell]

1-6-11 Paul Harvey, The Rest of the Story. "not really".
Jobs-check, Cuts-check, debt next, but that means revenue also. As for certainty?
Note: use of punctuation, (sic)/pun, "air quotes" or lack of... c-BTW/irony.
(Ctrl F: "best" link inserted above)
[Rachel Maddow follow up or vise verse us ? Steele and Obama!]
[Santorum: Civil ad cert'em, a lesson in logic and taking the 9th.]
[Lawrence O'Donnell follow-up and tetra heed run ! (c-1-5 "courage":It was noted that it would be a lack of courage for McCain not to endorse a Republican candidate at this late date.  So he endorses after the first delegates have been selected?  Typical fear of fear monger.)]
BTW:  China Or Germany? Which Economy Stupid? This proves you can learn from others, but it doesn't say what.

Awkward Breaking(BTW/Less Embedded)News(Ein, Ein, Ayn?)
i.e. next post/segue!
Speaking of Newt Eyed Peas, what he said to the NAACP.
Just demand jobs instead of food stamps?  Not to be snarky.

< previous post >

There was nothing...

necessarily prophetic meant with Third Time's the Charm. Or was there? It may have been the spin-off of either or and the likes of Beck and some evangelicals. Even just in the either or of "I'm just saying", which might be related to a silver lining, which only has three sides. There is the light, the dark and the actual cloud that matters. [SAVED IN DRAFT & CONTINUED & SUBMITTED 3-22-11) Third Times a Charm, means that if you look right, look left, cross the street, and there is a chicken already on the other side, you may have learned a lesson...or not. Not to be making light of recent tragedies, but that actually is the point. That nuclear energy is not on the same plane as air or traffic accidents. But back to the original point, that Third Times a Charm regards Toning Down the* Lines.

*Or were we?

[SUB-TEXT: the table and I Ron Knee.]
[Update: my original assessment before the air strikes began was that the President was following the letter of the law if not the spirit. I won't get into the spirit of the Patriot Act but is part of the law as well as the 1973 War Powers Act and the constitution. My point being that it is one thing to debate an action by the president, it is another to make a law determining or undermining his powers. Any reassessment will have to take into account the current politics as well as earlier circumstances not to mentiuon the politics then. It is that frame in which I am optimistic that change matters as well as who is in charge.]
[Footnote to power and politics not to mention economics.]
[Not exactly breaking, but one reason going to congress would not make sense. Would it make sense to make doing the right thing even more political? Would it make sense for journalists to be giving detailed intel to an enemy? The right thing being to save lives rather than waiting for a massacre. It can be wondered well why not other places, well then get some consensus, but some are in the past and others may be prevented in the future or nothing may change. And there may be a bonus feature[**] in this turkey on the table and that is the subject of war funding and the budget process or complacency.]
[**] 3-25-11 links added

Crisis in Austrian Thought

Re-Evolutionally the missing link[!]

The crisis in thought is a split ideology regarding who is in charge, by George[!]

Think Washington the figure, not the DC or state. A founding father for sure, but the crisis is in leadership, and perspectives on the founding documents, not to mention Democratic Character.

Alex Witt's topics cross these threads. Including an MD/rX of DC?

{"crisis in leadership" Boehner, Bain or Bane or change. Mitch Daniels, not to mention Harold Ford Jr. }

[Breaking E-Mail: I haven't even read what it means but it might be the missing thought.]

[1-30-12: adding links, crisis,(2)(3)(4)* Ford, leadership**, there is a reason there are three branches of government and one is called the legislative, and it is not the executive's job to legislate, besides they can see the legislative ideas if they bit 'em.]

* not finding the exact link*** really, not yet

**Boehner: “Last Night Was Just Another Campaign Speech.” “He [President Obama] wants to take no responsibility for his policies that have failed and made no reference last night to really stepping into the game and legislating. He has spent every day since last Labor Day campaigning - not legislating, not involved in the process of our government here. And last night was just another – another campaign speech.”

*** this comes closest (sausage grinder?)

[Bottom line: there are two Austrian perspectives that come to mind, the economic and the psychological.]

Thought experiment.

On the suggestion that there are different dimensions of a religion or ideology based on the do amicus [!] ...dynamics of political power, akin to my lemony ship it...*

*links and edits 5-23-16
[!] spell check LOL
(do amicus: auto fill)
[and labels]
[This originated from a comment that there are different "levels" of Islam. Well... there are certainly different perspectives on Christianity.  Do they really depend on whether they are in the majority politically?  This might open up an whole new bailiwick.  ( !?! Sanders and Trump "followers" and the rules.) ] 

Separate thought or tangent:  $13.50 Too muddle against the means.

5-28-16
Jennifer Rubin: Raw Story on Clinton Republicans
Michael Bourne: Salon on Bernie as Clinton VP
David Sloan Wilson: Evonomics on Corporate Evolutionism
Anne Gearan: (RSN) Washington Post on Sanders DNC platform (Cornel West)committer persons.

5-30-16
Perspective in Progress [ ? ]  (/)

Catch-44

President Obama seems to have doubled down on the culture war.

2-15-12 Politics and the Table.

Politics is the pinnacle of the power play.

Physics, Psychology and Philosophy are the base.

Culture is the result and the field of play.

Economics, values and pragmatism the material.

The Irony Leviathan.*

* not the same vehicle

(Million Dollar Baby/Inconvenient Segue)***

[I have a hecuva lot in draft as well as embedded in previous posts that need sorting, and this may be a crack at that. And to un-Ribble it is in the social Darwinism and the yo gurt! If this is too fantastical, well just ask Raw Money, "Corporations are people too, my friend." See Leviathan, and intestinal Darwinism or rather the cultural state of progress.]

[Andrea Mitchell** and Ginzu Alice: Santorum and Romney slash the economy, with GM and the big dig but we need a big deal.]

** two segments Santorum spokesperson Alice, and reference to slashing the budgets in Michigan and Massachusett, under the light of federal projects.

***[Just caught this Thom Hartmann.]

[Common Ground the Enemy? Recent enlightenment on "The end justifies the means." At the moment I can't locate the link.*^^ But it might be Twain "The Prince"*^ and the Pauper. Martin Bashir segments enlighten, especially the Bane Or Change. Also on the Clint Eastwood Filmography, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, not to mention the Three Little Pigs. Not Bashir, that was elsewhere. Doom and Gloom Snobbery?]

*^ The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, not exactly ugly but three pigs in a blanket of rhetoric. Freedom is not a force, but the government is our creation.

*^^ Somewhere there may be embedded some links on the evolution of the 3 founding documents through the likes of Madison and George Washington.

The Straw Bear

If a Republican runs in the woods and can’t see the forest for the trees and the Republican falls, does anyone hear what the bear does in the woods?

A little riddle on the straw bear of propaganda.
Ah, the power of myth.
Maybe this is a mother goose chase but those were the days. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Speaking of Teddy Bear, did you know that Wilson made Pershing the first general since the Civil War? The Palin Romney romp through the woods with a bear is quite humorous. It reminds me of, if a tree falls and what a bear does and if anyone will see the forest for what we hear* fall.

The point is that the use of "some people" makes faulty facts bearable. I do not think there is any information that the U.S. was anywhere near losing its dominance in military spending or economic might. In fact I believe that it was over twice the combined spending of the China and the former Soviet Union at the time it fell. In fact it was them coming to an economic grip with reality that did them in. So now China is a different bear and we need no bull in our cabinets.

So war is a straw bear argument. That just means that you have to keep fighting it; the fear mongering and comedy that goes back to our nations birth. Heck beyond, I will say probably cave paintings. But it is no laughing matter that even if the current 6 to 1 ratio has the profit factored out, we could be in trouble.

* the tree is yet to fall on Countdown re: Congressman Cantor listening tour denial
[5-7-09: I did not hear this coming. Nor see "the tree" fall. At least not in real time.][Not to mention lost in the forest I am trying to dig up a Romney reference to us and them(found 6-3-09), the revolutionists versus the royalists which is more flip-flop.]

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

Book by it's cover, memo by it's title: historical?

At the time of this posting I am several great ideas and a few good sites behind in my postings and reading. But these two I could not resist posting preemptively. That is before reading, as the concepts seem to be worth it in their titles alone. I could refer to them as my hero and my idea. The former being Murtha's latest charge, the latter being what might be to come if Alito is slipped through. I will correct or amend myself if I am wrong, but they are Murtha says elections could end war and a writer Paul Rogat Loeb in a Truthout Perspective says Filibuster Bush, Impeach Alito. Now maybe I got the cart before the horse or Bush is jumping the Shark or I have flipped the couch, and if you aren’t sure what that means ask Dori Monson or Oprah Winfrey, but my first estimate was that we must stop anything Bush does if Alito is force through. But the premise could actually be that he should be impeached after he is rejected for the Supreme Court. Of course I could have read both of them it first, but it is late and it would ruin my premise that this is urgent.

[update edit 3-12-14]