Borrowed Comment!

* * *
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *

* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *


Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.

On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?

Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.

Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.

* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.

Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!

[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]

Fine Tuning.

THE GAME (Slightly updated: bold Stay the Course - job->search) The topic is our job which is to help navigate embedded with a link to help you navigate. Not to mention bottom links that brings some news to light if you go there, or sometimes just a previous connection as below.

In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.

All Politics is Local?

If you participate!
[Whether you are Blue, Red or Green or other part of the spectrum. Purple or Violet? OK I won't go there, on and on with the spectrum of possibilities that is. UPDATED: 7:42 PM This section and a bit of editing below.]

[3-15-07: Rachel Maddow guest: Tony Morello Axis of Justice .org]

This is a holding spot for a local progressive link, which will focus on how you can participate and how I will adjust the focus here. It should be obvious that this is mostly about politics, and mostly my context if not content. The following may evolve but for now, here is a spectrum of groups I have placed in some sense of order:

Northwest Progressive Institute:All Politics is LOCAL
Just Foreign Policy
Progressive States .org
Center for American Progress
FIREDOGLAKE / BLUE AMERICA: Umbrella

The sense is mine and I have hinted above, but the key perspectives or priorities are Local, Justice, States, National and the Goal. Now, the image that America is some semblance of a Democracy and a Republic, not just the parties, and the need for grass roots and an umbrella to protect us from the trickle down and improve what we power up.

LOCAL CONTEXT:[2:59 PM]
Senator Oemig's Bill
I'm Not a Lawyer but...
Ehren Watada's Case

LOCAL MEDIA: [3:01 PM]
Progressive Talk: AM1090
Local NPR: KUOW
Seattle Area Radio

LOCAL EVENTS: [3:05 PM]
CRABFEED

Don't forget to navigate labels. Explained a bit here.

LOCAL EXAMPLE: [4:03 PM] "gives reasons" Navigate comment as well below.

LeftyBlog?

I'm not on LeftyBlog because...
Maybe I don't like tests.
Or maybe only global tests of reality.
[FOR LOCAL CONTENT CLICK HERE : OR SEE LABEL LOCAL]
But a challenge?
This may be a work in progress.

[[BLOG LIST]]
[[LEFTYBLOG]]
[[WASHBLOG]]
[[Northwest Progressive Institute Blog]]
[[AMERICAinSOLIDARITY]]

If I label all my local material under the Local label, will that help? If I link and loop LeftyBlog to my post that helps the reader navigate, will that help?
Well this is not my usual rant, rave or ramble. Well yes it is, because I never know where I will go or end. But the challenge may be addressed by more questions answered by more questions?(see previous sentence)

Originally a look at the needs of LeftyBlog found this:

Remember, LeftyBlogs.com is for local progressive political blogs with original content. Some questions:

I did not mean to read it literally, I just did not include the questions in my cut and paste,(see un#d bullet point 4)of (a challenge) above , and then was so bold as to add bold to "connect the dots", where I will begin with the last first.[leap*] There I go again. (two tangents: not to read )
Then "all politics is local" and "politics is everything". Not to mention just not right.

OK, now I will go back and see if I can follow any of this.
LATER.

* I am tracking better, as I almost left off this quote by taking my tangent
[in the mean time, I put LEFTeBLOG at the top of my RIGHT list, where a typo fortuitously crept in]

[TheLiaisonReport - Between the mean and the out there.]
[Bottom Line: LOCAL CONTENT {UNDER CONSTRUCTION - more later}]

[[WE GOT ED!]]
[[Portland and Air America have Thom Hartmann]]

Unity '08

UPDATE:
Third party entering presidential raceNovember 6th, 2007
Build a new political platform - from the people on up September 30, 2007.
Uniting for 2008 November 12, 2007.

Ahead of the Curve?
Not Exactly.

Partisan Disclosure:
Unity '08 Poll Participant
Democratic Party Activist

Op-Ed Background:
the "uniter"
Back and Forth
"between the lines"
See Far Right Column "Help Navigate"

Two Clever by One Third?

Or both ends against the middle?

Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.

BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)

* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential this is as tricky a net, in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option) Up down before or after change, either now or in 2010. I would risk the now. I am unsure how the cloak filled rooms would navigate the choice. Could they pass a progressive bill and the Senate Bill and then let the Senate choose? But do not risk doing nothing and leveraging 2010. See Countdown Tonight 5, 4,... 1-20-2010.

[Psst...(Rachel) speaking of mythical beasts, I believe one of these links(Mathews) had Gibbs noting $4 billion or so in health care gains in the market today[*], although other reporting (Keith) shows a market loss overall, but at least Barney Frank got the mess- age. Hmmm?]{Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
[Psst...It should be kind of hard for "Republicans" to declare a win as that word is kind of absent from his website. The same almost goes for the "Democrats" taking any responsibility when it comes to party identification]

[*](1-21-10) possible anachronism,(see BTW: Ed(9:45).) at least anecdotal(different sectors, different days?)(See comment 2)

Water under the Bridge!

Not Exactly!


Meanwhile: Questions for Trump!

Will you provide all citizens a silver-spoon in their mouth at birth? 


How is your marriage and bankruptcy record an asset in your transition from business to governing?
We know it was not personal bankruptcy, but neither is the government budget operated like a family budget.  How would you navigate these discrepancies?


7-30-15
[Seg(~)Way?]  Buchanan / Chomski

I Told You So.

NO... a lot of Frackin' People told us so.
[See CAUTION below]
In particular Aristotle and his physics not supplanted till Newton.

Just where am I coming from and where am I going? Good question, but for the moment I accidently clicked on a number of years ago and hit upon examples of the ongoing interpretation. [Interpretations and rules of power.(Or Not)]

[BTW: I have a few labels to catch up on, but I will make another connection. Prior to the earthquake, with the passing of David Broder, it occurred to me that one should not feel a loss, based on which side of the political spectrum(or geography) one is on. Not that it does not matter to many people. After the earthquake it is still all about how it effects us, not about how it impacts those that were closer to the problem.* But it is not wrong to politically learn from tragedy, or just plain expect be the cause. Not that I connect the cause, but there are laws, and always time for pause.]

* not to minimize nor distract from the Japan suffering, but it is very ironic that Ronald Reagan a product of GE, had his nine most dangerous words ("I'm from the government and I'm here to help.") and then his namesake USS Ronald Reagan has to navigate the perils of radiation from a product of GE.
[CAUTION: Some these links may be sensitive or insensitive** depending on you're own perspective, but I will add that some may be sufficient just to scroll over or click on for a hint of mine, and look forward to parsing or bolding some for better focus.]

** Lewis Black On Broadway? Frackin' or Bleepin' not employed, it will be the real deal(meaning not deleteds).

Try Angle

Here are a few pieces that intersect.
Re-Rights,
Checks,
And Balances. [^^^]

How? Well, we have the Judiary, Congress, and the Executive perspectives.
The bottom line is account ability. Yes, that is two words under three branches.
We have the accounting of Bush v. Gore, trickle down, and the slippery slope. Juctices can't count, economics does, and they all matter. I will try not fall into the trap of the previous post with technical difficulties arising from the burden of
tangents and links, or whatever the problem*** is, but it is a matter of looking back** at where we were and how we got there, with Bush the Decider, the current economic climate of understanding Trickle-Down and Slippery-Slopes, and the Executive we are lucky to have in the face of mythical* obstructionism and obfuscation. In fact, again I have only read the first and glanced a bit at the others but they are almost a protractor or other instrument of our graphic nature and the geometry of purpose that some have. i.e. It was not my original intent but maybe there is some intelligent design, in that it is about Re-Writing our social architecture. Re-writing checks and balances, economics is the bottomline and whether there is Bane or Change, and I don't mean Bain or Boehner.

* mythical: as in monstrously huge if not fantastical.
** well they did arise so there! I mean here:
and see Lord of markets,
and values politics. Economics is not without politics and values.***

*** "convenient" link see placement(^) of asterisk "the problem" re: positive/normative "dispute" or die-manics of dynamics.

(^) (more ttdl: footnote search own comment(^^) re: economics being engineering. ...?)

(^^) [3-13-12 update: my ttdl(temp tech difficulty linking) is now corrected, also found my comments on economics being a field of social engineering. Featured caricature? Herbert Spencer. ALSO RE : Politics ]

[ Unrelated: if war were not related to economics.(NFRY) Also too bad.]

[^^^ Tag tomorrow : From the original Try Angle we have the 3 branches as we navigate the world of economics and power relations.]

Local Content

See Labels: Local(at bottom of this post)
or LABELS
INDEX
TO DIGEST
HELP NAVIGATE
Or THE GAME(I have consolidated from the right collumn.)

HERE IS THE LOCAL CONTENT INDEX (Incomplete).
King County Executive Race

Local Radio
Thank you Dave Ross
Lefty Blog
"Thank you Veterans" Day
NW Progressive Convention
Northwest Perspective Update
Home Economics
Eastside Democratic Dinner
Attorney General Gonzales Retreats
Perfect Presidents or Perfect Politicians?
Happy Subpoenas Day
Happy Earth Day
Presidential Profiles
Fare Market Ideas
Face The Music!
Legislative District Townhall Meeting
What's going on?
SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal
All Politics Is Local?

This may be a lame local link as it only references a local reporter, but it is also at issue that local papers may be bought out by conglomerations. Far from lame though I almost missed (in this update) the other link thereSpecial to the Times by someone I know and is even more local. Thank You, Donald Smith.

FOOTNOTE PAGE FOUR

2-12-13 See*FP3*: ^
(b.s.) "stay+course" Who Are They Calling Elitist?, It's Obama's Turn, Spare the Rodney!, PHASE II: We need some movement! , FP?  Stay the Comity of Course , Are We "IN" Yet?, Stay the Comity* What's going on? , I'm not a lawyer but..., Out of Line? "Hogwash", *knot*, ...what about the damage to your Presidency?,  The other ground game..., Tony Baloney, Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart , Off the Cuff?, GO OBAMA!*(note2) Weeeee! or Fb?

(b.s.) "navigate"  Fine Tuning. OW2*3, Borrowed Comment!, All Politics is Local? , Try Angle,C-weeeee*, I Told You So.yeah(sc)right, Two Clever by One Third? , ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years, Unity '08 (pOW), Local Content , LeftyBlog? , Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm, **

Note: problematic to LABEL at this time.[[?]] [^^] 
* (sc) [F&progress?]or *knot*
** note on progress in regard to this blog 'n case studies re:CAD) (fn)

(fn) TBA? CAD (Culturally Aided Design), CAD (2 out of 3 be bad), CAD (To be or not 3d), State of Politics, "you people..."? 

^ see more than one level of problematic aster risking and design.  Which should be revisited from the top line down, with focus on Labels, all annotations marks, PAGES and *FN* heading, and TBA laters.

[^^] 2-13-13 [Do I have to return to *legend*
[!] = pun, satire, etc.  [[?]] could mean later question mark inserted. Of course most puns are a matter of timing and sometime anachronistic.  
BUT BACK TO TODAY'S (FP4) Here: Not that I intended to hit(A.) on (B.) the anachronism.
(b.s.) "articulated+bus"= A. NO JOKE , B. UPDATE ONLY? KNOT[!]  [**] {L}

ABA Retracts "Lawyer" of the Years

two posts back I note the "award" by the ABA to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, which has now been renamed Newsmaker of the Year.

Much ado about nothing? [*]
ABA statement
New Headline

[*] Not if you read the full articles or at least review the runners-ups. In particular and Previously noted. And Deeper.

QCON: The "much ado about nothing" is over the idea that we/they are quibbling about definitions or headlines while if one reads full articles, they (the article) might be understood. If one can rely on others to jump to conclusions, one need not even get that far. But this is progress in getting lawyers to improve their reporting. Not to mention their foresight.

See Link thanks to GoLeft.TV
See Help Navigate

Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm

This could be referring to the trilogy of wars, but it is more about the times needed to read the article about the Google of Intelligence.[not a number]

To be more direct, the three wars I don’t mean are; Terrorism, Iraq and Iran; the final yet to be. I would have said Afghanistan, but it was more legit. Not that the war on terror is not legit, just that the definitions and terminology still need to be fought. But I did read the link three times, with some distractions, but it really does smell like a rerun.

My point is that the purpose for which the State Department sought intelligence was to prepare a list of individuals and organizations for sanctions, without providing any real link to intelligence.

Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

The bonus feature may be that if they provided the link, it may show that there is not enough to go on. So to avoid the previous problem of "flawed intelligence", the solution is to not provide any, but approve other’s intelligence which do not have a direct link.

None of the 12 Iranians that the State Department eventually singled out for potential bans on international travel and business dealings is believed by the CIA to be directly connected to Iran's most suspicious nuclear activities.

"There is nothing that proves involvement in a clandestine weapons program, and there is very little out there at all that even connects people to a clandestine weapons program," said one official familiar with the intelligence on Iran. Like others interviewed for this story, the official insisted on anonymity when discussing the use of intelligence.

The irony is that there was plenty of "open source" intelligence available before this disasterous course unfolded, much of it filtered here.

One connected dot further: intentions, preemption and their denial are the greatest hazzards to navigate, but one thing is certain, they may be connected, but they can change, and one side always knows the truth, whether it is your's or not.

Now I know it is not just me that can't be direct, but that has no bearing on the reality.