FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013

4-1-13 April * 1st. Big Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.

4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]

4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.

4-4-13  (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
 [FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)]  Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]

4-5-13 TGIF *NFR  Not Fully Read.

4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...

Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)

4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos.  Bottom line is funny.  Not !  X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.

4-15-13:  insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?

4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits.  Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack

4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read".  Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]

4-18-13: As to two "too"[!]  Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail.  Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.

4-22-13 Math is next 2...?

4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor".  Nor to pun  on 4F or broaden the base.

4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark.  Second line lede or ship!

4-25-13  Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT),  Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13:  ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?

4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )

Counter Intelligence

Not really ... or type-O ?

Before I cast aspersions we might be reminded of curve ball and other manipulations for political gain or loss. 

People can be told anything, confirming it or counting on it are another thing, not to mention protecting sources**, let alone foreign and domestic consumption of intelligence. 

5-15-15 Dimentions(~)* of Speculation
QCON, NFRY, NFR, and a number more labels. 
Quick Comment on News
Not Fully Read Yet
Not Fully Read
# more?

*or labels or magnitudes of exposure to "intelligence community"
(~) alternate sarcasm punctuation or (sic) for spelling intended
** not to advocate misleading but international relations, national security and truth as the first casualty of war and Clause~wits are a factor in considering sources.

Priority of Read is another asterisk(or read through the nuance).
Charles Pierce(really) reviews Seymor Hersh's (or) while Huffington(I) reviews the New York Times aspersions and Bergen's(cast)  is unembedded from Charles Pierce's piece.

Technical Difficulties

Anomalies or Synchronicities? By definition they are hard to explain. But there was first the missing link that I referenced here and then the Eli Pariser "bubble" context. Then there is the Wrap(5***) problem* and follow up **.

* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]

Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).

Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.

Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:

Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Government
Also see prior ** not fully read yet but gives context right off the bat***
Lance Taylor: Maynard's Revenge
Reforming the Macroeconomic Framework: Sushil Wadhwani
IMF Calls for New Economic Thinking: Or Does It?

Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.

*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)

[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]

Bush the United

Bush the Unitary*

The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.

A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).

It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.

* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.

(i) = intentionally construed.

** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.

*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.

Following results.

Having finally read, Democracy in Transition, I find the error in the missing gap. Maybe under the cushions of the SOFA -
- Having Now Fully Read (NFR) as opposed to earlier (nfr) - not fully read -

[My original tangent (or somewhat subsequent) was based on a true convergence error, by actually melding two links that I did not later see (but have now fixed) as two. It may have been my original convergence that there was some link between Thanksgiving and Xmas of native form and anacronism if not shopping or fitting the bill.]

The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) is a possible transition piece that also leaves a flexible and democratic if not constitutional way forward. It may be just a piece that is expected to assure a legacy of passing the buck, but that is just what is needed until there is a leader who is willing to follow...

As far as time tables go- (I make up for the muddle by pulling only two segments together from the SOFA.)
"Should the Iraqi government decide to cancel the pact after the referendum it would have to give Washington one year's notice, meaning that troops would be allowed to remain in the country only until the summer of 2010."

"The international agreement will be binding on US president-elect Barack Obama when he assumes office next year, but he could also unilaterally cancel the pact with a year's notice or withdraw all US troops at any time."

Given the room for democracy otherwise known as process, there is also room for interpretation with oversight.

As far as Democracy in Transition: Congress should reclaim their power in the United States with a "signing statement resolution" as Iraq is still forming their constitutional process.
"Such a resolution, which would still allow Congress to fund the agreement if they feel compelled by the Obama administration to do so, could be passed by both the House and the Senate the week of December 8," Fox said. "If congressional leaders cannot bring themselves to take that one minor step, then the damage to their institution may be irreversible."

In conclusion, it may be that this is the best thing that the current administration has ever done. Not that it was their intent, but the best they could hope for, and would not have been possible without the pressure of some form of daylight, albeit not here yet.- diplomacy - ]

Too Random...

...Righty[!]

Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud? 
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead? 
A stopped clock is right... 
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left. 


* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over


**

knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?

But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem. 
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.



12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed

** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)

Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1.  The Difficulty with Hegel
2.  Hegel or Anti-Hegel

Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."

"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."

References to 3D/4M@.  English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.

I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's.  But is Popper properly popped?  Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression.  The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before.  I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)

In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point.  I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points. 
^ & ~ must be reviewed.  "Dates~" note time of encounter.

12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]

12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?



But to tilt at swans?

12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough. 

12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ? 

Speaking of timing

Or counting (or FOX)and follow-up(I could swear there are 6 legs unless it is on the other hand*.)
{italics not fully read yet but it is the point of departure}
{the point of arrival is not always originally intended, or that is the question.}
{note on labels, Navigation is regarding the blog, Navigation II is regarding our course changes. Maybe I should add Navigation III(a combo?).}
(Oh, and a leed change is also a challenge...to read)
* Third Way is point of tangent
[Maybe Thom Hartmann(AM1090) is coming to a realization, which I just missed(taking a call) regarding the power of Obama and his base and secondary potential thread. My points here are: Obama's base is not the liberal left. The Right's loss is the Left's loss, but the middle's gain.(I just coined** that.) My original metaphor*** was, as Republicans lose voters, they become more concentrated, while as Democrats gain voters they are diluted. ]
** critics please pick a better word for this new paraphrase of my original concept, other than coined, is in not that it is not making money for me, but I am just not sure that you coin a phrase. "turned" may suffice.
*** actually a metaphor would have a concept like Lemonade or Kool-aid as an ingredient, which apparently I have previously avoided saying directly at least.
[Still needing to read the italics link, Thom Hartmann and callers are still frustrated, and discuss the Marxist concept that things have to fail first. I am uncertain that is technically a valid name for it, but my point is that dynamically it will not work that way on two counts. It would take people who want it to fail(whatever it is) and it would take people giving up on changing it. That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again.]
[Post-Pre-emptive Comment: or rather footnote regarding bubbles and cliffs and easing the wall down. Post Hartmann comment: one of my tangents was inspired by the concept of not enough mentionalism, a pun on the dimension of perspectives and whether there are two parties, or three or four or whether the labels matter. But the more the merrier or at least the more the discussion and the bigger the table.]
[Post Building on Change update: "That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again." Bold added above, but link back provided as promised here.]
[Just in...Breaking or rather Re-Creating the mold: and I am only up to the word "defecit" in Steve Clemons question but I am having a feeling it relates to my just bolded and repeated quote in last bracket, and to wrap this up before it is too diffuse I seems to build upon earlier comments if not leeds.]

Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)

Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.

Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.

In memoriam.

* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.

** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.

*** maybe him but not here

Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]

P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.

FOOTNOTES PAGE DECEMBER 2013

Begun 12-3-13

12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ? 

rtd 12-3-13

Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality // trinity/body  Headings and^ Leadership*. (dynamics)
  ^    of/or 8:  Snooze/Dream(4,6) *prof(it)C? (7,8) Bane or Right?  [Not to blog both ends against the middle.]
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. /  The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote 
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy  Try Ad of Caution?  (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics)  OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD


12-23-13 (4) A.  Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed  g, What's good for the goose...

12-27-13 
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?^] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9  // 10 / 11
^ insert a - h
12-29-13 - Original 5 links.  A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?,  2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix  ///
12-30  F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5.  , G.notes^ -1. 2.Heuristic Concurrence and  3.My Respects to Those who Celebrate. (re-search*) , H.math^^ - 1. Too Random... , 2., 3.Bury the lede?, 4. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] . *(under the case of not fully read yet, but back to math... why now 16?  too cubed by two? Speculation that the 5th perspective is from apart too pun? The three-body problem regards intitial circumstances from within or without. R 1st 3 models different than recently added.  The pow#r of i(V)?

Building On Change

Obama cares about change, it was not necessarily his plan or our plan, but what congress thought we could get. But it is only a building block of change. This is a preemptive comment of sorts based on the facts in the leed, although now I am mid-read. Facts in other states are different, but the main point is the economic sense that "adverse selection*" costs someone. Here I have read it fully, though not necessarily able to relate it fully, the changes may also take adverse tracks. i.e. No mandate? Other more direct "interference ".
(italics not fully read)
* not buying insurance until you need to, and insurances required to sell it.
[Breaking Under the Radar or Flying over the Top? Basically preemptively , Republicans blame the government for the rising housing prices and the crash on not continuing support from government.]
[12-17-10 Obama cares(above bold added for original intent a pun)

Parsing Systems

P.S.  Are we Charlie?  Or why aren't we French? 
It is a shame that fame comes under such horrible circumstances.

Not to bury the lede in nuance or labels, but I intend to more heavily edit** insertion of links for the time being.  Unfortunately I may have now buried more nonsense*.  I am not Forbes, The Atlantic or Slate.  Not that I have placed then in any order of sense.  My point was to review any prior use elsewhere that I have yet to place in context~. 

*not that I have parsed the nonsense, be it the Daily Caller, the New York Times, David Brooks or any of their words.

** carefully filter

*~* I am not a Paper Bird! 
Je ne pax The String! 
Nor Car Tunist. 
R we all sat-irists?

RFD? ?[?]  Not to withdraw weapons.



1-13-15 The vig ? ** not fully read IRONY!

I am not Forbes ~!~  Context:  This is a difficult read.  Is it really necessary to disseminate examples to determine that the killings are not justified? Maybe we are more French than we might like[!]  Further context:  Images and cartoons in reaction to the massacre are not comparable to the images or cartoons that Charlie Hebdo publishes.  Not that I have avoided either, I just wished to review my m-beds.  i.e. links I have yet to parse or deconstruct
 
(Now, Romney? The Reid Report, pre-The Cycle. Un-parsed: -)

It is hard to say Herman means anything literally.

Or actually?

He did not say "I'm a leader not a reader",
nor did the Schwarzenegger.
It is about lede'er ship[!]

[11-21-11: As "A Wonder..." is held in draft, I am processing a Revolution. Speaking of Calm Cast, I didn't mean to forcast.]
[As for weather[!], recent Republican interference in presidential foreign policy* is dangerous** stuff, and further muddles the mess age and message. I don't know if anyone can ever be a Nixon to China after this administration, or a Cain to business.]

* recent event references not noted in link
** a,b
[note: [!] = (sic)or sarcasm/irony Also "A Wonder..." under construction.]
[Segue: good for?(sic?) NOT!]
[Just to be clear*** I am not opposed to six sigma or cuts, but there is a food chain, or some hierarchy which is bubble up. Incidentally, it is a lot like the cycle of life and climate change. The segue or root here is the cost effectiveness, not trickle down. Money is not the root of all evil, nor is any tool or process, necessarily.]

*** the NOT! is not fully read yet(NFRY)
[Speaking of not read yet, the point is in the lede, or prelede. It is easier to debunk, than bunker up. MORNING MESSAGE: America's Affluent and the New Bunker Down, literally(!?)]

Give 'em a break!

New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan

He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.

Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.

A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong

Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.

* Their work, not these pieces.

Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.

EMP

Experience Message Project
Not Experience Mitt Project

In Seattle there is Paul Allen's Experience Music Project but last night (or as I hit snooze this AM) while it has escaped me now, my project was more "fair and balanced".  Something about red, blue and purple, not to joke* about dreams. Experienced Medium Project was not what I was going for, but may be the way I roll.**

*Ctrl F "green"
** Roman Numberal Pages (label added).
[Scroll over for hints, Nav &*** need updates.]

[ Re: Cycle ? The Cycle (undated?)]

7-17-12 Perspectiv-ism  (Not fully read yet.)
Dog Whistles ! Not (Nerdlandy Exceptionalism) So Cheap Trick [!] ? [!] (Or the Blue Badge of Courage.)[Raw Money and Pawlenty?]
[ The Real(B) Smoking Gun(A) ?  CNBC guest and host, don't get America, Obama or English.  "That" is not "it"! Obama did not say that they did not build thier businesses, they did not build the roads.  Well, they did but, we paid for them. And today Romney showed that 75%(or plays down 94%) of the Chamber of Commerce don't get economics either.]
[A. Maria Bartiromo and her guest cannot be so obtuse or are they deliberately distorting what the President said. "That" is not "it", means that the President meant they did not build the infrastructure not their businesses. B.  And former Senator Sununu is really blowing smoke, the better his message not be seen for how wrong it is.]