We need two reasonable parties?

Well, of course we don't.
I am being rhetorical or maybe Socratic?*

While I don't minimize a need for dialogue on what reasonable is, it might make more sense to be facitious about what a party is, let alone American or thinker.

Yes, we need parties and different perspectives, but it is hard to pinpoint the reasonableness especially in light of the media's cherry picking.

NBC Nightly News tried to make an equivalence (see cherrry picking) in the back and forth, while only a portion of Rep. Schmidt's voicemail was used.** Also earlier, Dylan *** Radigan let stand a charge against MoveOn(5:05 in) and framed the Alinsky Model(5:50 in).

* we do need more reasonableness if not even more parties, but there is also a bit of diversity within each party (or is it without?)
** the reference to a gun seems "third person" if not defensive rather than direct
(not to condone the call)
*** (same reasonableness link) also SEIU charges being still confirmed

FOOTNOTES -two previous drafts- released today.
Question Marksists!
A funny think happened...
Premptive Crack.

Catching Up with US.

OR WATERLOGGED (Cause and Effect/Accountability)

Just why is bureaucracy so at fault when Bush or whoever is in charge (he apparently has to investigate that) added to it by bringing FEMA under Homeland Security?

Homeland Security, and Bush, are more at fault than FEMA, unless blame is only trickle down. (For some it is the people's fault while they serve at the will of the president.)

No wonder New Orleans is flooded. For the sake of millions of bucks passed (NOT), we need billions of buckets to bail out the trickle down.

Maybe there is some sort of "rhetorical" balance in this administration. A linguistic "Tao" of sorts, or that sorts it out. Money is passed up, and "the buck" is passed down. Now I get the schizophrenic partnership between the pillars of the Republican party that are falling upon this country. Religion and the Almighty Dollar do not need to be so close or frictional, but it appears that the dollar to them is meant to rise while the moral burden is for the masses.

Wait. Is this only rhetoric? A metaphor may be more accurate. But rhetoric like money and religion are just words that need to be given meaning by how they are connected to the living and dying. And before I waste more words, I will just say that the bureaucracy is a key in providing the connections to more than just two factors.

The blame does not go to religion, money or bureaucracy which will and must change, but the actors that need to change. The PROCESS must be a two way street of ACCOUNTABILITY between many factors, rather than just the high road and the low road of survival of the "fittest" or we will continue to revolve rather than evolve.

If there is "intelligent design" it may be that I could not make any PROGRESS with a pun about removing the R and replacing the D to improve our evolution. But it also may show the "cause and effect" which is ACCOUNTABILITY that neither party nor people can escape

Now we have come full circle: He trusts the people, not the government, and now everything is on them.

Footnote(Page 2) February 2013

2-4-13 "the birds": Back to "The One Thing?" (sc),  Waiting for [Calm Cast] (sc), DECEMBER 2012 FOOTNOTES (fn) PAGE, Where everyone needs to read... (sc),  In the begining..., Two Birds (sc),  The one thing? (sc), The Pacific? , FOOTNOTES FEBRUARY 2013,  Obtuseness? (sc), Quoth the...[_ _ _ _ _], We Need Ed, Waking up to a New Year., HiTetra! .
Published without comment 2-7-13.


2-11-13 *bracketeds* = pun, [!] or (sic). / / [*] lateM-bed ? ['n-Oh-particular order!]
(sic)= b.s. "ofor"" / / [*]= Plato's Theory of Forms, late= Choice v. Referendum, M= Under the Table?, bed= Health Care Summit (sc), ?= cart B4 horse?

2-12-13 Carpe Diem! SOTU NBC Politics * tetra heed run of sorts?  Photos, images etc.

2-13-13 (FP1):
grand =  (b.s.)"TOW": A.The Be All and End All? (sc){L}, B.A Shot in the Arm?, C.But for Obama.(sc), D. Obama Economy Town Hall (sc) , E.D or R (sc) F.Faux Campaign (sc) ,G.FAUX NEWS! (sc) , H.What the Beck? (sc), I.Betray US Report (sc) , J.October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain" (period)
{TO BE CONTINUED}(sc) un-hyperlinked need follow-up.
{AND all (b.s.) will not need all their "alphabet"}
picture = (b.s.)"ge+oh+me+try":
how = (b.s.) "trigger+no+metrics":
things = Lincoln on labor prior to capital.

2-19-13 (FP1)... and field theories of matter. (Con temporary: @The Cycle "Beat the Press"!)

2-23-13: Accidents? $tar Buck$
[Bottomline: Do I have John Irving on a shelf(or in a box)?]

2-28-13 You Scroll or Click(sc) normally reserved for (b.s.) [Follow up on, or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road?] i.e. only the by is not a heading. It is the source of the photo. Speaking of by and buy.

True Ledership

No, that is not Leadership, it is the pinnacle of the process.

[9-29-11 Under review re: lede*** (does not require a follow-up as the link morphed) But I am trying to find the lost link This one.]

A lede*** requires a follow-up. Like the constitution has its first three articles or branches of the government, the tetrahedron has its base as a triangle and another dimension, and what is the point? That is political. There are the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary braches. But what is the point? Or rather the base*?

We the people...

of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

* Oh the humanity
[Another problem? Or anti-pragmatics? The narrative will evolve and involve: Highways or the Low(or No) way. Not to hop the Scotch or translations but...Lock Low Mond?]
["In a perfect world the president ought to wish"...[*]NOT! link(for quote) to be** provided later The Place for Politics.]

** Note: not that I have viewed all the links, but many provide the contrast between progress and anything butT-headism.
[Speaking of Process under-LedeRship.]

*** ledership is not always easy to link: Gunn takes Shot at Alley's Weight.

[Speaking Bane Or Analogies: if spending is the coke, then the debt that Reagan and Bush racked up are illegal debts that need not be paid. Explain that to the defense, healthecare and financial industries(the wealthy) that they need not be paid. In fact, that may actually help regarding the ledership and 2012, if the people realize who the dealers of debt are.]

Delta Dawn


Whose your Daddy?

Rolling Stone. The T[?] (Or the t[!])

[Sum of the some game: War is hard work and progress even more tricky, but a few want(scratch that need) a quick fix.]

[*] [9-21-11 Update: It is regretable that I cannot find the MSNBC segment for the quote above, but as for follow up, pandemonium may be embedded somewhere(not).]

Here We Go Again

GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz

I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.

In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.

In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?

[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]

[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]

[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]

* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...


...Financial News with a real anchor!)]

Everything is on the Table!

That's right!  Everything is on the individual's table, but that does not mean how.

Robert Reich counts
 8 Principles to Guide Democrats in the Fiscal Cliff Showdown.*

ONE: HOLD YOUR GROUND.

 

TWO: NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.

 

THREE: MAKE REPUBLICANS VOTE ON EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS JUST FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

FOUR: DEMAND HIGHER TAX RATES ON WEALTHY, NOT JUST LIMITS ON DEDUCTIONS.

 

FIVE: DON'T CUT SAFETY NETS.

 

SIX: DON'T CUT INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUTURE PRODUCTIVITY.

 

SEVEN: CUT SPENDING ON MILITARY AND CORPORATE WELFARE.

 

EIGHT: PUT JOBS BEFORE DEFICIT REDUCTION.

 

Number Five puts the Safety Net on the table. As in: DON'T CUT IT!
But it is not that simple. Medicare and Social Security do not need to be on the table at this time. That does not mean they need to be cut in the future. Addressing them is not just in the form of cutting them. Even so, if they address the top end or the bottom line, changes could be balanced in the tax code, not to hit those that need the safety net and even address the income gap.

 

* BOLDLY ENUMERATED taken directly from his post.

[Follow-down...I wouldn't go that far.  Despite quibbles with the terms of B.S. or F. C.  this is the kernel of the matter: 

Former Sen. Alan Simpson says ‘‘you have to have a blend’’ of revenue increases and spending cuts to achieve a deal to avoid the cliff.

Especially the bold below:

Simpson tells NBC’s ‘‘Today’’ show it’s ridiculous for Democrats and Republicans to speculate on which party would suffer more if no compromise agreement were achieved. He says, quote, ‘‘That’s like betting your country. There’s stupidity in that. This is big-time stuff.’’

I do not believe his "arithmatic" though.(in bold)

Speaking of Congress, Simpson says, in his words, ‘‘If you gave 90 percent of them a profit-loss statement in one hand and a balance sheet in the other, they wouldn’t know how to read it.’’

 It could not be that bad.]

What Obama can't say.

Chris Matthews says Obama must do something to show he gets it. But what really needs to happen is that the people need to get it. Get it?[***]
[As the show(Hardball) progressed.]

[11-12-10 We aren't even sure the Debt Panel gets it. Often we aren't even sure what (or who) it is to get, but a recent comment by Thom Hartmann spurred me to comment as he closed his show with: "we need to start making things." While that is partially correct, is it not a bit too into the "consumption racket"*? Why not say we need to start valuing things? Would that not shine the irony on our market system? Maybe I am being too subtle. Maybe I am being too idealistic. But both these shine the light on the complexity of reality. My point ends and begins in The Republic, and (regards the irony of)** Platonic Justice.
* "air quotes" added (not that anyone calls it that)
** (comment added): maybe (dynamics of) would be better.]
[*** change: too much(Obama) or not enough?(jobs)]
[Bingo? see * here not there]
[Breaking yet to read. But I will preemptively summarize what I feel is the Obama approach, broad brush change, that started with his domestic agenda, through diplomacy and security issues, ending in global support for change. Wow, when I start a broad brush, I really swath. But in particular I mean global monetary policy, and I forgot to note the issue of trade policy, in this step up the paint ladder.]

[Note: 4-26-11 Bold and Link added to The Republic: "Yeah, That's the Ticket"]

Maslow Search

Speaking of 'nOdd needs, I have posting issues.
But in regards to Maslow blog search, I also need a Need list.
As Maslow stands.
Need as found 12-16-11
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
XXI

Now I should note that "pop" quiz has never been graded, in terms of testing my G'Ribble, that there are changes to the search al gore rhythms. i.e. at a later date will the same search find the same sources. I know I have referenced Maslow but then maybe it was too embedded.  Here is a google find.

Canard Lines

Special thanks to Rachel Maddow for her word of the day.
Canard.
I would like to reserve passage on that bumper sticker,
as Straight Talk Express takes to the seas with Flip-Flopper Crafters: apparently if it looks like a duck...

I think that vets should be up in arms over use of the term Swiftboating for any sort of political campaign. Not literally, but then we should be careful with language. My point is that I guess it is fair game if you want to be gung ho about your truth, but it would be better to know nuance and the difference between being defensive and taking offense, not to mention being being straight or able to lead.

[7-2-08: Over the years, terms have been highjacked or meanings adapted but this takes the cake and bites. Speaking of irony (clad) will wonders never cease? My real point is that Swiftboaters should be honored for their service not for the Flip-Flopper Crafting of the truth. You see I had to be straight about it because the mixed metaphors are probably lost or just pull the triggers or push the buttons of those that have experienced real anecdotes while now being used for weapons of rhetoric. In fact if one wants to circle ones wagons, leave the women and children in and let the truth out. Pardon the antiquated terminology(non-PC-ness)*, it is hard to keep ahead of the curve of progress, but is better than getting ahead of history.]

[MSM **is a big part of this problem in contrast and conflict to: Clark In Context : Slamming Wesley Clark

* another canard, not that it can't be talked about

** Main Stream Media (see comments embedded on MSM) and note that I did not see the original exchange on Face the Nation but here is the closest I found after posting above, while I did hear actual snippets and Clark defending himself and making a good case for why questioning the use of a record is not dishonoring the service, despite what writers put in their headlines or teasers for attention.***]

*** these asterisks(**) need their own asterisks for the sake of closing a loop or the long story short, the MSM is part of the tent, not just the mess, now that the people feel the need for more involvement and there is need for more attention to the process. One can respect the service of more than just the military, but should also have more than faith in the three branches of government and the distinguished press.

[Today's word of the day? Pandering. Or bringing issues to the front.]

DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)

Thomas Barnett [***] YouTube presentation
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

A friend sent me this, very optimistic, and saw it as so non-political. Fine. How does this come about? How do we create a "New Leviathan" albeit, calling it "New Everything Else"? This is fine as long as we realize it is political or it is the same old thing, otherwise know as the battle between realism and idealism.

Transparency and secrecy do have their distinct applications,(especially in war and diplomacy) but accountability and rules are in the getting there. (Power is not good or evil only results are and even they are seen from more than one perspective.)

A-to-Z rules focused on dealing with everything? How does one get them? Of course that is not the idea. Excusing based on result, is that the excuse? Hmmm. He has some good metaphors. Networking force? Where does it start? Where does it end? Security? Funny?

I think that he has some good points, but it all could be hinged on a point the world would love to get to, and they would all love to be there, to be the decider. I do not minimize the need for something, and he points to many good ideas to separate expertise and responsibilities, but I would emphasize that there is much more to talk about that may need the same (or better) analysis. There is a "heckuva" lot of work getting the world to see that there is somehow going to be a "new world order", no matter who brings it about and what it is brought about for. And there is no denying the current balance of powers and just wishing or demanding or excusing them away.

This is a good approach for the military, the rest may be everything else. Including looking at how we came to learn this lesson and whether it was already plain to too few.

Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **

[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.

[***] earlier link to Barnett

Rough Draft or Quick Vent

Here is my reply yesterday, which I don't want to waste, and need to use as a preamble to other news.

Due to some maintanence problems, this post by Marjorie Cohn arrived in my email before I could get the rest of this posted.

REPLY RE: "Stuck on Stupid"

Please spare me such evil non-sequitors and I will spare you a useless reply.

However since men and women are dying for our freedoms, or "whatever" ( I know that they are mostly dying for their brothers and sisters and a cause they believe or believed) rather than get hung up on how a mother honors her dead or the living, we should all be honoring what I believe and I know many know they are fighting for, by using those freedoms for what we believe in.

[A LAST MINUTE INSERT: Cindy has more right and has done more to honor God, Flag, and Country of both the dead and living by practicing the freedoms that our military are fighting and dying for than the Commander in Thief has done by practicing his freedom from reality and checks and balances.]

Stuck on stupid should apply to anyone who says, "just get over it", when our constitution is being ignored, not only by the President, and many in Congress, but the so called "press". You may wonder why I left off the courts, well that is because they are divided into those that honor their job and those that have a philosophy, increasingly known as "the unitary executive". That is where the congress makes the laws, the president decides how to enforce them, and the justices have no cases since the president doesn't even need to veto a law if he doesn't have to follow it, and Republicans rubber stamp as much as they can get away with.

Hey, Democrats aren't exactly rocking the boat either, but believe it or not they are not in charge. Actually they got a lot of oars in the water and all the president does is make waves.

The president may understand one good point, that people can get away with whatever they can until they are caught, and he's a heckuva catcher.

Peace and Progress be with you, Roger

P.S.

One does not need to be a lawyer but should be able to read a full sentence even if they are sometimes paragraphs, to see how far the philosophy of "unitary executive" has violated whatever we are about.

FINALLY HOWEVER: The ABA investigates "Signing statements" and recommended full senate investigation of spying

Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?

[Sent to KC Journal, 2-21-03 in reply to upcoming column that had been in the NY Times.] [Link and bold added 8-2-10]

The Yes-But Parade, by William Safire was very good. He made the administration’s case as best it can be made. However if turned inside out, the argument is useful in demonstrating the reverse. It is better to be in the "Yes-but parade" than be following the Butt Head in the wrong direction leader who sees the choice as acting now or doing nothing. Sorry, it was just too tempting to put it in Bush diplomatic terms. It is easier to focus on what we label people than what they may mean. Safire takes the "yes but fellows" label that Franklin Roosevelt used for those who agreed with his goals but had reservations about moving forward in the manner he prescribed. Somehow this is equated with the multitude of questions that arise about the war with Iraq. One could easily turn his argument inside out if not for the need to answer these questions and more.

True, making up words does not deserve the ill repute Bushisms have attracted. However "yes-but fellow" does not really contain anything new. It is tempting, not to mention childish to resort to name calling. It is not a question of acting now or doing nothing, as possibly the strongest argument the administration has, suggests. It does alleviate me of the need to address the serious if not slightly distorted questions that Safire relies on heavily in his case since he simultaneously minimizes the need to answer them. He even simultaneously concludes that the same "yes but fellows" who supposedly share these common goals of the administration would be better off challenging those same goals.

The most important question is why can’t we do something, without ignoring all the questions? Just to point out the emptiness of such labeling for purposes of thinking, is there really any constituency, or consensus, or poll numbers for doing nothing? Is there really a do nothing group we can label? Only in the minds of the schizophrenic Butt Heads, (childish, patriarchal if not abusive parents) who maintain it is my way or the highway, or I want things my way or I’m taking my toys and going home. If only it were so simple.

I am no psychiatrist but this may be an analogy that can be followed, that is more similar than divergent. Both parent and child have their way. They want to get it. They may not be going in the same directions. Being on the path may be better than not going somewhere, but you better know where you are going and how you are going to get there. And making a move is not in and of itself better than not. One fault in the analogy, is that Nations and their leaders or diplomats are neither parent nor child. However it is further useful that they may want to be, and often behave like both.

It may be reasonable to see how carrying a big stick and being on a bully pulpit can be confusing, not to mention from a different Roosevelt. For the plain spoken, it is easy to see the case they make for violence as a means, if they don’t have to answer the questions on the end or the means.

The cost, not to mention the courage, it takes to answer these questions may indeed be high, but we can’t even begin to compare it to not answering them, let alone acting before we do. Safire may be right that there are "yes but fellows", but it can go both ways. He just sides with the yes but head in the wrong direction (away from questions) crowd. Sure "acting now" has not exactly been rushing it, but where has the delay come from in answering more of the questions?

Maybe alternate analogies are more useful. Progress may be in their mind too. But are we really moving in a new direction? Are we really using any new means? Only more questions are arising to confront, confound or run with.

Can we change?

Yes We Can!
Will they? Leaders need followers,
but we all need follow up.

"inevitably" ?

It needs more than just a tune and inspiring words.
[Is this so far afield? Academically?.]

Warnings On Al-Qaeda

Over There? and
Over Here?
Gut-coded.

I hope to review these later, but it does not seem to be a good sign for the "so-called" war on terror. If it is political hype it contributes to the fear, if it is a reliable fear, then...

After struggling for ways to express the concern in a proper non-partisan manner, it then struck me. Maybe there will be the terrorist attack that is all we need *for nay sayer to come around on Bush.

* see facetious, more important see irony of Link "all we need". More than the non-partisan attempt I was making was the untwisting of the irony in the coming around.

Child's Play

Freak Show vs. Bogeyman:

The Lyin' King?

While my original intent was the feeling that this is getting old, or rather childish. Then to see the nature of the exchange on Morning Joe, it takes some perspectivising.* Martin Bashir covers another aspect of the picture show. Back to the future, I mean Morning Joe, who is in the drivers seat? Mika or Joe? The image of President Obama getting into a car at an auto show. Who is in the drivers seat? Politically the President is. But it is like one of those drivers-ed cars with a second wheel and brakes on the passenger side, and congress is in that seat. But with Batman, I mean Bashir on West, Republicans would have no message if they did not have imagined monsters: "equality of achievement", "economic dependency"and "enslaving".

So...bottom line, Political is a double-edged sword. There is the race and there is the economy. Congress plays a role in both, and negative is not just ugly, it can have actual facts. So Mika can say that Obama is behind the wheel. And Joe can say he is not. Now you may see that the president is not the only one in the car, with a hand on the wheel.

* not that I take the Mediaite perspective (Donny Deutsch made a reasonable point, see negative/ugly/facts.)

[Not to call it a hatefest, just a hecuvafest.]

[Not to rob Peter to pay Paul. See Freudian/Austrian. Lit-urgeical hint]

[Couched Analogy?]

[not to leap fest** but I am missing a piece on certainty***.]

[Action item: FEC apointments & expired terms]

** tba: no pun on SBA, but to be arranged

*** dba? a pun/myst on the "free market" need(see drives-ed car) for certainty

[BTW: if you need GPS, why not Ctrl F frackin' fudgin"? Pun with acronyms, not to mention initialism. Speaking of caricatures and labelism.]

"hair of the dog"

Alan Shrugged
by Marty Kaplan The Huffington Post

Slang for Morning Joe** or not* your cup of tea. OK, I mixed metaphors or drinks, implying a wake-up. Actually I may have something here, as the bailout, or rescue has not yet reached a full intervention, and will it?

*On a lark I looked up Morning Read which you need not, nor dig up Slang Note: bold link is the read for the day.
** I don't catch the show but would recommend Rachel Maddow getting another 2 hours.

[Evening update: the way this comment weaves I might refer to the navigation link. Meanwhile another link: I need to unembed or consider the table.
In particular:
a list of economists I had intended to sort as progressives, Noted in the article - Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein. Not noted - Paul Krugman, Ravi Batra: Meanwhile: Kudos to Krugman. Speaking of Laffer and Elixirs ]

FP5-August-13

Page V i.e. 8-5-13: (b.s.) A.Recent Letters., B.Red Labeling!, C.Swift Reading!, D.No Drama & E. Live From New York: Saturday Night Live 

A* for August need to ReVamp Heading
*or % for 5 / 8 for August {see brackets next}

8- 9 -13 : { ! )  a.(Image of Original In Tent), b.(We need Ed!), c.(Economics...), d.(Monkey Business) (OW somewhere in the FP below, and not necessarily to the point or red yet[!])

8-22-13: hope and changey thing.

Toning Down the Lines.

Just in case it was not clear, my Waiting for [Calm Cast] was not just a metaphor, and Comcast did arrive to increase my signal strength by toning down my lines. Hmmm. That works. But what I also wish to make clear is that while some may rightly argue the wisdom of another involvement in military action that the tone and approach are totally different than recent actions. If Congress wishes[*] to have a different view, they may need to take certain measures to make clear where military action is appropriate, until that time the Commander in Chief is responsible (for) foreign policy, upholding international treaties and the U.N. charter. Now I also need to sort out a few of these links, but my point is that this time our action is only as a leader of a united concern that is a bit clearer than recent actions, and those with veto power in the U.N. did not use their vetos. Of course actions may evolved based on certain reactions, but that is the nature of putting things clear or on the table.

[*] bolds and (for) added 3-22-11

Pay Dirt / Tax Mud

Rachel Maddow rakes over Senator Kyl for his not intending to make "factual statements" shovel.*
He never actually said X, but effectively and economically, Y is the same thing. Except when it is for the 99%. Tax cuts for the 1% do not need to be paid for. Also not extending the Bush tax cuts, is a tax increase. But tax cuts for the 99%, those need to be paid for, and not extending them are not a tax increase.

I think the slogan "NO NEW TAXES" is very Democratic, give us the old taxes. And a new Texas might not hurt.



*12-1-11 bold and link added: X-mass L[!] & Google** of the day***.
** if capitalized, I give credit where due, if not, then it is like clean-X, or ex-finity? And there is always the upper-L search box.
***LSM Clinton[/](Lewinsky)Scandal MoveOn (Truly[*iv] Never Never Land)
*iv: see 3 minutes in till you google, Republicans say raise taxes(po lls ).
[* Follow-up]

[X= "I have never said that all tax cuts always pay for themselves."
Y= "You should never have to off-set the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans..."
Senator Kyl is not lying about what he has never said, literally, but see chart, and how tax cuts pay for themselves. But there is a two fold problem here. One, following my words in the equation. Two, following the chart. But it seems to me that actually, in the Permanent Tax Cuts category, it would be even harder to say. But it does seem to show a relative benefit to old tax rates mixed with Obama tax rates, and flip-flopping the Republican tax policy, as we have virtual mud from the trickle-down. And we even have pun with the bank and the cave.]

XIV: allegory of the cave (a,b,c,d,e)
or singular(a,b, c ,d,e,f,g,h,i,j)

[hint C.3: MoveOn / GPS]
[Last UL Search (a,b,c,d)]
Speaking of mud. RM Glitch host.

Update: Rice and Turn Over...

[[ UPDATED * 04-04-08 WOW! & this item on Rice
& UPDATED non-denial she does not "do politics"
MY TAKE? What was she doing with The Americans for Tax Reform, as Secretary of State? ]]

Turn Over? Just bringing it up here:
Speaking of bringing it to the table or Seeds of Compassion I think I need to turn over a new leaf at the Green Festival.

* no need to visit previous post, as I bring up relevant portions (Featured Articles) here.