Primary Boogeyman

Rule to the Exception.
Freedom / Hardball
Mitt Romney wins, Paul 2nd, Huntsman 3rd.
Gingrich and South Carolina next.
Huntsman ticket to ride or flavor of moment?

Yeah that's the ticket, but here is even more.

There is the old adage "divide and conquer",
but then there is the exception that proves the rule.
If Republican political calculus is anything, it is attack strength.
Economic Freedom is the key.
What it means, is the meme.
Absolutism may be the red flag of the Teddy Bull,
but the cape* of the progressive.

*Ctrl F "Nietzsche"

[Romney indeed made history as the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, but given recent history, Fukuyama and the Neo-cons, it seems to fit the Primary Boogeyman frame, not to mention unprecedented Bush the Uniter.]

[1-11-12 CBS Christie Does Cynical Well, "Jersey-Style" **
CBS Poll Romney beats Obama,
Michelle Beats Anger.]
[My original intent here yesterday, was a Primary Colors reference, and a pun on Exception to Rule, not The Rule, but don't step on my blue suede shoes. (Reference post-**)]

[** I mean the Governor of New Jersey does "lame" well, if as Romney's "hit man" he is accusing Obama of not doing anger well.  Is that Neo-Boogeyman?  A flip-flop of the Doom and Gloom, and more of the Fear and Smear.  Governor Christie is the Sarah Palin with Lip Schtick.  Ouch, that was not to imply that he is a VP choice, but given the frame maybe.  When I use Hyperlink, I use Hyperlink. ]

[4a continued:  Freedom is not a tool***, but an end that doesn't justify economics.  This is my riff off of only the 1st paragraph of The Economist, on Economic blogs and "A less dismal debate." After reading it more fully(see ***) a funny thing happened on the way to the for 'em.  Actually it only hinges on the "tool" concept and the nature of "innovation" and the nature of economic debates.  Not that I have more than glanced at the debate example, but it also hinges on the nature of people as well as material or ideological forms.]
*** again note anacronism of 4m (see asterisks and bracketeds) as I evolved the post comma segment.[being in magazine 4m another one of the 4a.] (Note technical difficulties, uncertain if any threads or hyperlinks are lost, but I close in the middle of reading Marginal Revolutionaries in hard copy.)]


< previous post >

Hard Work? Sludge this!

Was it Buzzflash?
Was it a Bush speech?
Or this sludge* from The Drudge Report? Of course, it may not link, but it got the ball rolling. And Obama's reaction. Lost or not found yet, in this is where the story came from or rather how it came to the Drudge Report, apparently a Clinton volunteer.
The "volunteer":

"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

The "manager":

Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

All I can say is, "Lame!" to both of them.

AND RESORTING TO THIS:
[moments after the "moments later": Is this better context "Obamba in Muslim Garb" or is this a redress "The Meaning of Obama's Robes.", as in the real addressing of the issue?. And to "the volunteer" from me: Apparently your question is as hard to address as the Health care issue, since it would be in so many places if HRC were to dress as a nomadic man, but not so many apparently as a "Muslim" woman? Again more hard work may be needed to flesh this out, but that is a horrid choice of words, yet not intended to be indelicate on my part. In this case more research as to whether there are apples and oranges being compared and whether reliable sources can tell a Muslim from a nomad.]
[moments later: Not read yet! Is Nader any better at the hard work that should be sorting the issues out? I will tackle Nader after the issues are settle about the Democratic candidate, I have before.]

* It just rhymes, but the muck is in the follow through, which if you look at the images which along with the difficulty in finding the Drudge that started this, were apparently added later, may have put better original context to the irony, and which I did not sort out in an even manner either.

Coordinary

What^ is life? 

An *un-coordinary* chemical relationship with the environment with potential to replicate itself and adapt to change or find a niche but not without risk of changing it[!]

* "It's alive." ... actually this asterisk expresses a nature(RNA)^^ of sorts[?] to the evolution of purpose. In the original intent two asterisks bracket (to be continued)...  the word.  The missing link revolves around the magazine Philosophy Now and a Philosophy of History con text.

^  1-13-14 apologies for not noticing subscription requirement.
^^ related news to be updated


*no* not that it came from Mars, but that it is not fully read yet or linked.

Phosphat-Ion.svg

Phosphate-3D-balls.png

 

Space filling?

Speaking of not fully red.
OW !

 

OW!!  ^^^ Frau Neitzsche **

** There is no ^^^ !!
O W ? !  c-red?

Hint: *asymmetrical underlining?* ... knot to insult or dis-pare(or re-pair)age. {?}
Alternate aphorism? Art is Litter Ally chemical.

The Irony of the Message

The Politics of Fear[*] was not on the cover.
One has to open the magazine and I presume read.
They even might like you to buy the New Yorker.
There is one irony. The reader who already gets it, probably gets it and will read the articles. The reader who doesn't get it, might not get to the articles, let alone get them. Maybe that is the satire.

Here are some I might not get to:
Politics of Fear (2005)
The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear (2006)
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)

Speaking of "caricatures and satire:

witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift

Not exactly Swift or Swift Boating, but can we count on certain believers in McCain to know the difference or do they believe in Lilliputians? (and pardon me I am a bit dingy today, not that you'd notice)

Lost in the message?

[7-16-08 And Characters "my friends", By George...
Uncuruious & ...George of the Jungle.]
[No Teddy: No Pragmatist: Is talking to Iran a ploy? Advice should be Speak clearly and stop waving the stick.]

[*] 4-13-09: link substituted Hint: It was the title of the art work.
[Bonus search: stuck on stupid]

The links that connect

The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine

...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.

Maybe I heard something like this:

In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]

Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]

Or maybe what I failed to say:

This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]

* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.

In Balance

In a recent conversation with a rather critical* or independent Democrat(i.e. moderate or typical American) the issue of why the Democrats might lose in the mid-term elections came up. I don't think he used the word populism, but he did note that something should be done about jobs, or rather outsourcing/imports and addressing it dramatically with some sort of tariff. The discussion revolved around doing something, even if it was not the effective thing; it would be what the people want and it would show that the Democrats were doing something. One of the tangents took off on the Arizona immigration laws, as an example of the states doing something because the federal government wasn't. And fighting them in court was wrong, because it went against what the people wanted. i.e. do something about China and imports because it looked right, not necessarily that it would be most effective.

Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**

*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]

Humpty Dumpty...

Sat* on a wall, and the yoke is on us.

[THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN: Tikkun Magazine Man/June 2009]

[Saved in draft 6-16-11, redated as published with addendum, The Daily Rant on The Dylan Ratigan Show(Mark Ames: Exiled No More: IPO for America**). Where are the tin-foil hats now? If only this were only Fable TV.(To be clear, I am not suggesting second amendment solutions, but there is a difference between Sharon Angle exploiting fear for the sake of exploiting the people and the media, and a Ted Rall expounding upon and exploiting his solutions. Then there is a third tier, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow(and Dylan Radigan) exploiting and expounding upon the issues for ratings and our consideration.)]

[I had no idea this*** might be the e pit o'me (2).]


* William Grieder under Humpty Dumpty

** please excuse the "bat frackin'" language

*** or this
[footnote? [!] Draining the swamp, versus raising 'gators.]

6-19-11 High8US[!]
6-20-11 Bib Leo File Roar[!]Reread: THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN: Tikkun Magazine Man/June 2009 The Wall? [!] "dark sarcasm"

PIT Spot?

Meta-cystical point or so duh?


Not to pump the mess anger or dis-road improvements. 


i.e. change of(4) course


At this point, I will refrain from inserting links to confound or unfuse the above.
My O.I. is in the Lab3ls [!]


A.  NFRY
B.  Meta-slash
C.  Ribble
4.  P.C.




RSN: Smallest Font- Unread, Normal Font- Read, Small Font (or bold)- of special interest
Nicholas Kristof New York Times, Agence France-Presse,  David Remnick, The New Yorker, Jason Rosenbaum, National Public Radio, (...under construction)   Frank Rich, New York Magazine
TO: (...Under Construction)   .Yana Kunichoff, Truthout | Interview..


Spoiler alert?  The Last Word, Howard Dean ? IBT: wps