Now Dat's...

what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.

Here it is:

Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.

[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.

Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.

BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.

*strains: on another thread elsewhere

Running Joke

Guilt by association, innocent my label.
Well rather*, she runs...innocent by no association with reality.

Upon first hearing of the Christine O'Donnell victory, my first reaction was hmmm, a new and improved Sarah Palin. But in all actuality, for an English major? She is rather loose with her labels. She attended Phoenix Institute which rented space at an Oxford campus, and she attended Claremont Instute which she labeled "Claremont Graduate University". And apparently her English major might be actually English Literature, but she may have made up for any deficiencies. Her employment record seems to be heavily reliant on her academic studies[**], not that she has recorded much income or communicated clearly. But if it was not her who communicated these errors, just who was paid to commit them? My point is...that problem is solved.
[Bottom line: She studied Constitutional Government under a graduate fellowship at a conservative think tank. QED: by degree in lipstick.]

* original paraphrase: Some run with "Guilt by association, but are guilty of (& innocent by) no association with reality". (But I often evolve mid-sentence, or mid-their revolution.)
[**] Zoominfo updated link.

Post Inserted

Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)[*]

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.

We got it!

We got the Nobel Prize!
Having been startled by the announcement, I thought oh no!
But that is only in terms of where the likes of "just a guy"* might take it.

ANACHRONISTIC SEGUE [***]
"Some are guilty by association and some are innocent by no association, with thinking." I had employed this phrase in reply to a buddy who is "just a guy"**, and victim of the Rand Illusion.

But seriously, the Nobel committee recognizes the power of hope and more importantly, people being at the table, let alone who gets it in the end.

* Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly agree: Glenn Beck is "just a guy"
** ironically a veteran and anesthesiologist

[Teddy, Woodrow, Jimmy, and Barack : Just Guys! ]

***there is a bit of preemption in the links and context but on the other hand it does just flow as read.

[Just a digg, the Barack link was originally RealClearPolitics.com which did not present [Correction:no longer presents] Obama's comments but was live.]

[10-13-09 8 Most Outrageous Attacks on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize ]

[update: 10-21-09 Joan got it and anachronisitically I clarify the segue at *** where I had just listed the [Just Guys]just before Obama held his press conference.]

The Jig is Up?

Metaphors aside the Debt Ceiling "negotiations" may require a short-term vote.

[Cut, Cap and Balance: Cutting Jobs, Capping Responsibility, and Balancing on Disaster. That is a not only a non-starter it is a nation ender. Spending is not the problem, Congressional responsibility is, and we know which party. The House sets the budget, with the approval of the Senate and with only a veto threat by the President. A balanced budget amendment with a cap on percentage of GDP is a form of capping the mechanisms of government to get anything done.]

[The President addresses the nation.]

[7-26-11 Misledership: Cut Cap and Balance - The Whine and Teas
for the American P-ease-
Hook, line and sinker.]

[7-27-11: Reel Time*? Blank Check? Bounced check for previous Republican administrations(See Chart).]

[Respected Sources: Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnell. Ezra Klein. Norman Goldman (7-28). ]


[Disrespected Sources: Whiner of the House.]
[Debt Picture 101: or cut, cap and balance.]

* Lawrence O'Donnell, Howard Fineman, polls and results.

[7-28-11: Down Riggers and Reel Leders set the bait. There are apparently three options: something that will pass the senate without the presidents veto, a clean bill or no bill. And no bill (to mix metaphors) is a punch to the tackle box. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment(see bait) not only is the right solution, as the debt ceiling is probably not constitutional. It makes no sense to pass budgets that are not paid for, let alone put the present administration on the hook for earlier non-sense.]
[7-29 Thom Hartmann , Rerun O'Donnell- Nancy Pelosi and Grand Bargain: Leg 101.
Stephanie Miller: Leg 102., Debt 201. NG 7-29. N.G. Prophesied: Two weeks for John Boehner as Speaker, since he cannot control his people. I don't think they want to control their people, so he may remain. It leaves a bit of denial to the party, or would be a total association with them if they replaced him with someone who could.]
[7-30 I'm conflicted or caught in a net, is it deal or bounced check? If you can expect a deal why not a clean bill? How about a no bumber stickers or banners and slogans, pledge? But get a deal done or the president will have the biggest line item veto any Republican could wish for. Or invoke the 14th Amendment, impeach and MoveOn. Clean deal or no deal?]

Red Labeling!

Maybe I need to point out the irony in A Wonderful Conversation.
Baiting Obama [*]demonstrates the tactic of fear mongering.
The Republicans who label themselves the Grand Old Party really are the Red Labelers by relying on Good Old Phobias of labels.

They utilize guilt by association, but run guilty of no association. It is really fear of any meaning. FDR in his first inaugural said:

...first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

I will point out that this was in the depth of the depression, and he points out:

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things.

Now it is said about FDR, that little was know of his plans. So do not take that as any swap at or comparison to the current candidates, Democratic at least. And of course Republican plans have been shown to mean little anyway. Bush in this blog, and McCain in his Flip-Flopper-Krafting, it is plain as the red on their faces. And the only thing green is the buck which is past and the envy behind their angry red labels.

[There is nothing humorous about the situation, except that humor does present an approach which should be investigated as a cover for anger. I presented a perspective that Swift Boaters have sunk the good name of a branch of the military-- Swift Boat Veterans-- (not so directly), in The New Wave, but Andy Borowitz (thanks to Thom Hartmann) takes it to the delta.]
[*] Henceforth the bold links will be the featured article I will be sure to read fully.

Association vs. Responsibility

Free speech: How much is there, if people who want to get their perspective out, have to sacrifice their principles by association with a host to get on the air while those who control the airwaves use free speech to be less responsible for the sake of their principle of the bottom line?

On The Most, a good exchange just occurred that reinforces my earlier joke.

I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.

Actually, I guess that "reality" is too harsh, responsibility is what I was stretching for. Also in regards to my definition of "whores" in the earlier post, principles should be called into question. I wonder if generosity or charity by someone who is raking it in is really any way to determine if someone is a "good person"? It is probably something even Imus may be calling into question.

Another comment: What is the attraction of Don Imus, the personality? I am not a regular viewer of any cable shows, but MSNBC seems to have had a better impression than the other cable networks. But I have not been impressed with his casual mumbling approach whose attraction may be that anyone could seem to do his job. His added attraction may be the adolescent attitude that many may wish to have in their 60's.

No Hold's Maher-ed is a very interesting clip. While I agree with some of Maher's comments, I disagree with certain premises. He ackowledges a valid double standard in terms of which race is using which words, but in terms of jobs there is also a valid double standard. I think that Maher and Scarborough should switch jobs. Then the likes* of Scarborough and Imus could use their "free speech" and be guests and face a host who is more up front and humorous about their perspectives.

* the likes: I hope is more sensitive than Scarborough's "people like you" to Joan Walsh. This clip "reflects" that he is on the wrong side of the desk...

Hierarchy of Hypocrisy

Hating to generalize I note my potential logical fallacy in the following. Nevertheless, between the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment, there seems a hierarchy for some. From Right to Bear Arms to Citizenship Rights where does the 1st amendment fit in? (*)

A. There is no hierarchy in constitutional amendments.
B. There are Supreme Court rulings that influence their dynamics.
C. So many blogs are moot points. (GOTO 1st sentence)

Of course maybe my posts are just moot or problematic. Problematic in generalizing and leaping. Unfortunately you must read, to decide. In generalizing there may be some association between the authors of certain events but not necessarily relevant. In the above case I simply point to fact that removal of citizenship is being considered for some but not their guns, while free speech is an element that might be fringe but relative. Meanwhile in an earlier and adjacent thought, some of this new found legislative fury seem like WMD.** Weapons of Mass Distraction. It would seem that all this populist rancor is really keeping Homeland Securiy busy. And while I support all rights reasonably used, I cannot help but feel that it really is a burden on our security. A bit more responsible reporting and responsible associating might help, but then how one goes about that...almost makes me long for a unitary executive. BTW: the dot, dot, dot was a rhetorical segue or moot question.

My potential obtuseness was not an attempt to be excedingly careful***, yet the cause and effect might be anachronistic(i.e. flip-flopped). The links to previous word choices were not intentionally designed to be more than a search for my previous usage, but they do seem to bring up some previous associations which show the importance of the process and progress, not to mention providing hope.

(*) an alternative link.
(**) not that early: My first referencing of Weapon of Mass Distraction.
(***) but maybe an antidote to some talk show hosts that muddle the search for terrorist

[Oh, and I do not vouch for the legal analysis or terminology in my ABC's. And had not intended to close with the SCOTUS link when I set out. Let alone the less than inflammable association with security. But it does seem that it is wierd that flammable and moot have similar usage issues as does the roots or branches of Faust, let alone Devil's Advocates. But no, that is the legal process, not to mention political, and word and world modifying dynamics, or as I have stumbled out(or coined) "dymanics". I will conclude with the issue that there was some Beckian confusion in the topic of a National Prayer Day in regard to what was canceled and what is being fought and by whom. But the ideas which Thom Hartmann yesterday contrasted was a National Day of Reason to share and balance the National Day of Prayer. While I suggested a National Day of Faith. But would that be legal? Not without debate, moot and inflammable or not.]

Broken News.

Imus is history on MSNBC?
That reminds me of a joke I came up with about those that fail to learn from history, repeating it. President Bush should have repeated English and math as well. OK!
Is humor the topic? Well Imus claimed his context as close to an excuse after being relatively up front in his apology.

I almost feel sorry for Imus, seeing what he has going down the drain. But that is the difference in perspectives. There is free speech and personal conduct, but that does not mean it has a right or need to be distributed and at a profit no less. And there is a difference between having an opinion and using it to describe individuals compared to describing one's perspective on history and raising questions that could and should be addressed.

Maybe advertisers will consider more carefully their own opinion on what controversial means. It seems that advertisers may be slightly disingenuous or just woke up to the idea that there may a problem profiting from controversy, not that there is anything wrong with that.

I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.

The Club of Association

Or Dis Member* meant, and not just another excuse to MoveOn,
but the last two links in the *** segment,the club of association) refer to some efforts at dealing in a more pragmatic and incremental way. It is still a rhetorical and organizational Heckuva Kitchen counter. Speaking of Moxy.
It is sometimes an awkward counter.

* again violence to the language and rhetoric only, yet definitely Marxist if you check my meaning or scroll over

[Correction and 2nd link added]
[More on the alphabet soup of the Network Theory: ABC, Anti-Billy Club... maybe that poses legal problems, especially for a network. Before I continue with my thinking an in liu of not giving it away, maybe I will develop this legally off line. Till that happens there is no harm in continuing to list the...(careful now) R and D under Research and Development. R's will be the likes of Bills or Wills on the Right(Research) and D's will be the likes of Bills and Wills of the Left. Now just like Republicans may be linked to the Tea Party for better or worse(and that is for whom to say/), the Development side will be more inclusive and may not be as sensitive about labels.]

Turning the page (On Humor)?

[For orginal post go here]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)

Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)

But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)

[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.

Turning the Page (2.0)

Turning the page (On Humor)?
[The following is the clean version(original)[*] : meaning I intend to clutter the above link]
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battle field),
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front,
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes.

But communications* is a tricky field.
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry.

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue and
used it as a weapon himself? Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?- [*]OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[*] -left behind - reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[*] except for speech links