Fooled and fooled again?

Or stolen and stolen again.
'00! -- '04 -- No More!
No news is good news.
Good news is bad news.
Bad news is not news.

SHOCK and Awe!

Shock to hear the anouncement by President Obama
that Osama bin Laden has been killed.
Awe at the amount[*] of celebrations[***] that have sprung up.

UPDATES AS DATED:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011

President Obama Announcement
Rachel Maddow , National Outpouring
Temporal Importance

[Daily KOS
The Telegraph McCain and Bush Too.]

Slate: How White House kept a secret.
MSNBC Pakistan "Double Game"
Today Show Yesterday Bin Laden is Dead!
Ed Schultz Fired Up!
the operation
Politics of death.
Executing the operation
Remembering the fallen.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ground Zero
Pakistan
Bi-Partisan Dinner
Rhetorical Coolness. Just Desserts.
The Rewrite.

Monday, May 02, 2011
President Obama, No Osama.
MSNBC
CNN
FOX
CBC
Let's MoveOn!
Mean While

Thanks to some friends of Facebook for some of these, and some I thankfully don't use.**

Huffington Post
You Tube
C-Span
Salon
[Think Progress]
[Center for American Progress]
[Center for America's Future]

In defense of FOX News, a caller to the Stephanie Miller Show, claimed that there was absolutely no mention of President Obama on their home page. That is not correct. He is noted 4 times. And the video and transcript of his announcement about bin Laden are one of those, the second is a generic label for "In The News", the third an All-Star Panel on his emergency response, and the last an expose on "the one" letter difference between Obama and Osama. (Now Six*)

Navigational hint: go to bold links for Presidential material.

Speaking of live blogging: FOX Ups the Anti.
KARL ROVE: After Bin Laden's Death, President Obama's Next ...

[*] appropriately inserted last
[**] or rather last... noting the FOX Terrorist Threat, I am reminded of some inconvenient unfinished sentences or unintended sends of my own(De NO RAH O'Donnell tweet), but I mean reAlly?

FYI:
The news broke to me in just the right manner, straight from President Obama on the late night news. But if I had been online... Or a tweeter?

[***] celebrations

[Parting Shot?: Thom Hartmann has Gareth Porter on for some history. The point(Porter's) is that President Bush had no plan or intent to get bin Laden, not necessarily embedded in these links. My point is that Osama bin Laden could have been old news in 2001 but for the grace of Bush. If we had had different Pre-9-11 thinking, we could have had more justice and less tragedy and cost.]

[Updates: Ledes, Links and Labels added]

Real News

Media Matters

Think Progress

Reality Comedy v. Faux News

Quick Comment On News or Quick Con [QCON]

At this point NBC is the only Major Network to air the "Hospital Drama".
GE: "They bring good things to light"
That is why: "No news is good news."

But you would think someone would pick up on a Hospital/Justice/"Slasher" * Reality Show.

*[May 30th, 2007 explaination may be needed as I am now hearing Thom Hartmann play the hospital scene, that the "Slasher" reference is to the constitution.]

FOX in Sheeps Clothing.

Actually sheep in shepherd's clothing.
Or The Sound and the Fury.[*]

Or is it fuzzy? I know that there are segments of news at FAUX News for a few seconds at a time, but the fury above does not hold to their motto:
"No Pundits, no discussion- just the news."
I am not sure if it is really from THE FOX REPORT, but it should be called JUST THE OPPOSITE (of the motto).

Speaking of "the speed of live", (the rest of the FAUX motto), I would love to see Bill Maher's humor live, as it has more news content. (Or Retro Laugh there.)
[Only in the light of wrong, is Shepard anywhere near right, but he is nowhere near left of wrong. "O, most lame and impotent news. Shak. (misQ "conclusion")]
[Speaking of sound... not the fuzzy.]

*[My original feeling of disgust has moderated toward admiring his "slippery slop" of (sic) journalism.(See comments for punctuation notes)]

[UPDATE: 8-13-09 Whine Country and smokin' rhetoric.**]
[** the latter is busted news.]

[Howard Dean and Charlie McCarthyism (not to mention.)]

Arrow of Time

or Symmetry of Inheritance?
Thanks to Keith Olbermann and
FOX News for the
Trifecta of Bad Times.
An end to an error, and the flip-flop of freedom as not a force but a purpose that requires work. There will be no end to humor or force for humility, as it is no longer funny that Comedy Central has more News and more balance. With inspiration I acknowledge the difficulty in laying down the tools of sarcasm and satire, but I will try to remember more than just the hope in this day of transition.

And maybe Biden can even aspire with a nod to Sarah Palin
and even Dick Cheney, to work with congress.
As far as leadership, and OBAMA
the time has come for change.

[Approximate closing of this post: 10:20 BG (before google)]
[update: 10:45 no end to humor or force for humility (links added and seemingly proof of some sense or other)]
[Please note that I DID NOT find it funny that Chief Justice Roberts could not get the oath straight.]
[I originally misreported it as Trifecta of Bad News]

[Update 1-21-09] to be sure see above: There will be no end to humor or force for humility...links to video of original Obama oath and actual oath.
[Update 1-26-09: Colbert catches it.]

No. Newt

is good news. So is Old Newt.

A bad pun on, no news, but good news for Democrats.
Under meanings?

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!)]

...promote the general...

Welfare(the 29th word in the Constitution).



Pre-Obama^, starker contrast.

And this is^^^ pre-Romney's Rough Road on MSNBC.
Jobs First? But not foremost.  Running from politics. 
His best defense is his cuff and hope he is phoney and fisher of men.
(I won't go there.) But the map is looking familiar. 
Fixing News(pun on breaking news): Carney(Obama "we are in this together").

Ari Melber is almost there where I haven't gotten yet. That is, what is actually taken from the paychecks of the middle class.  Payroll tax. NOW Alex Wagner is almost there.  Not only do the top 4%* get the same tax deductions and breaks as the bottom brackets(a. how many %) they get a break from the payroll tax from a second and third point. (b. over $97,500  c. capital gains ) 






[Now please take no offense at the significance of any Cretans.]

* 96% should be the Obama "entitle" R's [!]**

NOTE: Charts are being filled out here. See PAGES (right column)
NOTE: Charts of Sorts.( Tetra Heed Rons, and Wedges & Corny Copy Yeah)

** rough math but look at the right side of the second chart and see on the left that $250,000 -- and now John Sununu is doing the W'rithatic on Andrea Mitchell, but it goes to the arithmatic that is wrong -- it should be clear that the middle class is well below what Romney thinks it is and the President is for the bottom 96% well more than the 47% Romney thinks supports Obama.

^ missing link as to how I stumbled on this one (but there is a mixing of metaphors for horses and Teddy(Obama^^) Bulls. 
^^

^^^ inserted post charts et al
[Last Word ? Yeah right ! Or Left ! Re: Cycle ? R ! Not !]
[Brilliance of Democracy.]

[Strategic Pause: News Nation: No, Time is not a-side ! ]

[What the heck is the point?  It is the process and the purpose.]

Fast Forward

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. […because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. http://www.msnbc.com/news/781783.asp

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/87582_will19.shtml

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]

FOOTNOTES (March 2013) Page Two

3-14-13 {?} A. Trivium B. Case Study (sc) C. Use of Labels , D. NO JOKE {really?}

3-20-13 Curve Balls? : Pythagorean: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#51197599 (Mitt at C-Pac)  or  Platonic  http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#51043481 (Jeb Bush on Nightly News)
*** (David) http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/49076540#50780562 

3-22-13: [Follow-up of sorts (FP2.]
(b.s.)Ge+Oh+Me+Try: In the begining... , b, C, D, E, F(f), G(g), H(h), I(i), J, K, L*(l), M(m), N(n), O(o), P(p).
(b.s.)Tetrahedron: The Tetrahedron Ramble* (sc), B, C, D, E, f-F, G, H, I, j, k, L, m, n.
*Ctrl F(leverage)&(b.s.) (FP3)

SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE)

Martin Bashir on Aid to Pakistan [To the President:]

So before he is tempted to cut all forms of funding, I would like to remind him of the wise words that he wrote back in 2006 in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Speaking about the circumstances in which terrorism can flourish, he highlighted failed states and poverty as the two most important factors.

Not to raise any suspicions** but the mission has not been so clearly defined in original reports.

CIA Chief Leon Panetta, later Tuesday told NBC News, "The authorities(sic*) we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed."

But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.

Using stringent language, a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States."

This is clearly a nuanced not "stringent language". But if,(and I mean A BIG IF) Osama bin Laden has been hiding in this compound for six years, it is difficult for the Bush administration to take much credit for the success of this mission, (let alone waterboarding). And while President Obama has been clear on the issues of failed states and poverty being part of the security equation, it is hard to expect Pakistan to be totally free of corruption or political and intelligence intrigue, let alone competence***. It is much easier to speculate and develop tin foil conspiracies that may actually be based on some evidence, and to use them to destabilize, than it is to change things at home let alone for another country. As the right seems to paint themselves into the corner of hypocrisy, the President has the responsibility of being the cherry picker and decider-in-chief. And in connecting the dots of the likes of the latest Right, (remember A BIG IF) then there must be some logic that the Bush administration must be further scrutinized for their part in a $1.4 trillion escapade of terror. How can we hold other countries responsible for competentencies when ours (and often rightly so) are so political?

* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]

[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]

[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]

Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future

*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.

Media Whores*

Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:

[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]

Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.

It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.

* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.

* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]

[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...

Conn Grats!!

No Bracketed Excla(y)mations! But...
NO LABELS (all caps) BREAKING NEWS!

Seriously, there will be time enough to (fill in the blank) later.

But there is news on the Divided Government Front,
as well as the DFA,
or now AFA conn trast.
Bud ump bump.

Speakin of Scale or CAPS n' FONTS[!]
[reference dig or unM-bed of touchstone in today's NPR]
We have Try-furnation of the Bi-Cameral,
or N(for)nation of the Bifurcation.  

Vietnam Flip-Flop

It is bad enough that Bush has not used the original lessons he learned about Vietnam, but now has rewritten them.

Bush's selective lessons of Vietnam. Guardian Unlimited

Even worse is any comparison to Korea. Has anyone heard of "Exit Strategy"?

There is so much to google on this, but I will risk it and list the commonly heard three lessons. 1. a defined mission 2. overwhelming force 3. having an exit strategy. So now Bush not only wants to teach US how to win Vietnam, but apparently will fix [or work on] Korea? What next, China or Saudi Arabia? [politically]

(Having consulted an expert, some doubt is cast on these lessons and any parallel, but then to him, having an exit strategy was to win the war, and in Korea [it still is to] sign a peace treaty. So I guess Bush may be working on Korea and China. [economically] I don't know if that is good news or bad news, but there may be no parallel to either or Saudi Arabia. [Note: italics bracketed provide clarity from this consultation.])

Later Reading: (no comments)

Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal
Bush told he has drawn wrong lesson
Lesson of the Vietnam War
Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq

"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,

[8:46 AM Out of all these links, I have read only a few pages into the last one*. In it, Kissinger himself gives a nuanced lesson which flip flops a bit in passing credit and blame. A few comments came to mind which I hope to revisit, but one note that it "prevented Indonesia from falling to the Communism and probably preserved American presence in Asia." Oh the irony, that Indonesia is now a leading Muslim nation and there is possibly more to parallel or learn.]

* [ 9:06 Further note that the piece was only a few pages.]

Happy Earth Day!

The earth celebrates the 38th Earth Day. As a youth participant of the very first Earth Day 1970, I was out there in front of a local shopping center at a table as part of a class project, educating the public about various aspects of the environment. I was also excited to have been in attendance at a speech by R. Buckminster Fuller.

Today I heard that one of the original co-chairs of that event has finally seen the light and registered as a Democrat. Unfortunately as I am posting this just under the wire, I can not dig up his name. That's my excuse, but I don't know why it is not on the link above.

Also today I would like to note the upcoming 25th anniversary of Newsweek On Air. Today's show was particularly good in contrast to (well it may not be fair to contrast such a weekly collaboration with something else) but the recent "firestorm" of events came to mind.

Lastly I would like to note contrasting links: HorsesAss.org The only local "liberal" talk radio, and Sightline.org a "progressive" think tank. Well, balancing links may be a more proper way of putting them, and the liberal "quotation marks" are his, the "progressive" marks are mine, as just a short hand reference to my original intent to contrast or balance ala The Liaison Report's intent as well.

I hope to get back to improve this post, but may be continuing my sabbatical,it went so well last time...* (April 3rd to April 10th) April 5th was an exception to the ruler.

* [Saved April 3rd, 2007 - not used till post-April 11th.]

To whom it may concern- - The FCC or applicable congressional committee

Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

Above, Below and Betwix the Filter

Good News!
Warning: slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Iraq and Iran
Rice on Iraq:

"worth the investment"

Rice on N. Korea:

"They’re signed on to denuclearization," in an agreement last year that was never implemented. "We’ll see whether or not they follow through," Rice said.

Rice on Iran:

She said she is confident all U.N. members will enforce the sanctions once passed, no matter how they voted.

I filtered the grains of Rice that reflected some hope or catch. On Iraq it is just the choice of the word "investment", not what they actually invest. On North Korea it is "whether or not they follow through", and on Iran it hinges on "sanctions once passed".

North Korea

Here the grain is at the bottom of the filter:

American and North Korean experts had separate talks on the financial issue this week in Beijing, but made no breakthroughs and were tentatively set to meet in the United States next month.

Here is the best news for Bush yet.

Seriously.

Hu's news? "There he goes again."

Hu’s news, "agree to disagree" and regrets.

Leaders may be followed no matter if what they mean can be verified or even understood.
Translation aside, "as friends" do they trust or will they even bother to verify?
Regrets of protest a shock that it takes a foreign leader’s appearance to demonstrate freedom of speech but at least the method of dealing with it is understood and appreciated.

Fog of preemption aside or tangentially let us hope that the intention to "cooperate more closely on trade and nuclear tensions over Iran and North Korea" is followed and bring desired results whether we can verify even the intentions or not. The point is that if war can preempt even intentions where does one start to stop them? Or is there any intention to blow off the fog of intention, contention or pretension.

A wink and a nod to Reagan, from the "Great Communicator" to "I'm the Decider", here we go again the hard work of deciding who will cross the road or control the trickling downers that democracy eggs or growed.

THE GRIDDLE:
Just when and what did who decide and when did who know it?
Thanks Woodward and Bernstein.

[Note: the link below implies no indication that I have or intend to read the book(not uncommon), but while one should not judge a book by it's cover, one may discern meaning from a title and give it credit if you get it, unless you have already decided.]

Neo-Perspectivism

It is hard to say which niche this arises from.**
Neo-Nuanced is one trigger.***
Even if retro actively.
No silver bullet.
(Or Lone Ranger)
(I, II, III, IV, Not nor note.)
(Far From It)

Less embedded:
It is not just to Pop Culture but social engineering.
If that is an aphorism, you have one hint.(ouch)
But Freud and Hitler were both Austrian,
but the latter-day Austrians are economic transcendentalists.*
(Emerson, Niche& Rand?)
Some credit may be due to "Plato Not Prozac."

[Just in.]

***

Notes to Asterisk Readers:
It may help the flow if one reads the asterisks in order and after a full read of this piece, but scrolling over links as one goes will be useful.
* no Emerson
** last link inserted: Maybe way too much of a D'Ribble or G'Ribble?
[Apologies for Neo-Euphemism.]

[Breaking News:  Herman Cain will give an "unconventional Endorsement just prior to the South Carolina Primary. (Ctrl F "best" under vent) I hope it is not another one of his tours or projects, but if it is not a third party run or candidate it might be someone from out of the blue if not a write-in.  Huntsman or Bachmann also come to mind.]

***  The irony of taxes, GDP and debt. Is it in the charts?

> Previous Post <

Speaking of Makeup

Rachel Maddow has the right stuff*...
for MSNBC.

As Olbermann's audience grew to rival, though not quite equal, that of longtime ratings king Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC gained an unwanted reputation as an emergent liberal version of Fox News--a view that became more prevalent after Maddow's show was announced.

Not exactly "Fair and Balanced".

Meanwhile Republican and former Congressman Joe Scarborough has a three-hour program every morning--more airtime than Maddow and Olbermann have combined. While MSNBC is experimenting with a block of liberal programming, as a network that shares offices with NBC News, it can't afford to be seen as having an ideological bias. The network recently bowed to conservative critics by moving Matthews and Olbermann, both seen as sympathetic to Barack Obama, out of the anchor chairs for live political events.

The only reason MSNBC should have resisted "conservative critics" is if they wanted to be the perfect counter-balance to FOX NEWS. If only they could find anchors without opinions or curiosity or personality, it might be a reasonable excuse. But I find it part of the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" of "do as I say, not as I do". Or part of their whiner nature, could it be "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"? No wonder the Straight Talk Express seems to have a rattle and need a pacifier.**


*intelligence + temperment

** double what?

[Update: I want to caution against too much ridicule of the way Governor Palin relates to foreign policy and economic issues. She is does a pretty good job of spinning up the trickle down. Meaning she is describing them in ways that obscure under sensible principles policies that will not achieve them. In other words she does a brilliant job of defending policies which are indefensible, yet fits the old pattern of what they think will work. But then I could just be too easy on her, or sexist, in an affirmative action sort of way.]

WATERBOARDING THE LAW

Mukasey Rx Gumbo "Goodbye Democracy, and All That..."

"Lawbreaker in Chief"

One Too Many Cooks: Rx LAW

Thank Kerry

and or Whitehouse?:
"Legislation Banning ‘Caging Lists’ Introduced in Senate" Daily KOS
Belated fixes for CAGING? Not to mention my comment on the "Mukasey Rx Gumbo" (firstlink.) *


MY COMMENT OF SEVERAL DAYS AGO:

Senators:[Democrats on the Judiciary]

The Mukasey nomination must be opposed. He refuses to answer a question on a crime that is in the Military Code of Justice as well as International Law, and Bush excuses because the nominee has not been briefed and if that were required in a time of war, then no nominees could be confirmed. By this form of logic, Bush has no accountability and Congress has no role of oversight in a time of war.

The Guardian "It's not fair..."

Bush says nominee cannot answer a question if something is illegal, even if the administration is not doing it?

This must be investigated and the president held accountable for lying on this count, if anything counts.
There should also be an investigation on the scrap of paper quote.

Capitol Hill Blue
Bush swears

Scraps? Worse. Bush swears at the constitution rather than upholding it. Are you?

[While I was very impressed with the reasoning of Senator Feinstein
in this
IT DOES NOT MITIGATE MY CONCERN!
Just how can we expect Kyl-Lieberman
to hold Iran accountable,
when we cannot hold our own.]

[Finally after not necessarily reading all of the above, I DID READ THESE:
How Schumer & Feinstein May Blow the Best Chance in Years to Stop Torture,
Stoptorture The Harvard Anti-Torture Coalition

and
Mukasey's testimony raises question: Is the president above the law?
Dan Rather Hearst Newspaper ]

[ALSO See this Grim News IMPEACH CHENEY! Register your support at www.CallCongress.org ]

* What is mentioned in the constitution is the press, and here is what is left of it.