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.

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.

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.

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.]

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]