MUTUAL OR CONGENITAL?

Sent 9-2-04: [Speaking of timing, this has been sent to a local paper, but not likely to see print. I can see that it assumes that the reader is informed of too many things which I do not have room for in the limit of 250 words, which is what the paper suggests and I happened to have hit. But the previous post may be a useful on this measure. ]

One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.

But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.

More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.

South Carolina Debate Winner!

The Tie goes to Edwards.
Actually it was not a tie,
but I thought I might tie them together.

Yeah! That's what I meant.
Clinton-Obama barbs dominate debate
Early on, but Edwards closed in.
The exchange between Clinton and Obama seemed to go to Obama depending upon whether one can follow the flip-flop and nuance. Clinton attacked Obama for some "present" votes in the state legislature, although they were about 100 out of 4000, and he explained them as technical tactics that seem valid. Edwards brought up the issue again in a fairer way, and it all depends on whether he was giving him a second shot or another shot at explaining, and Obama did. So it depends on who was listening and who was following, but Edwards was not about the barbs, but hopefully tried to sort them a bit. So in my view he deflected them to Clinton, in a way that hopefully enough people caught, while using the issues well.

It is not necessarily that Clinton is a flip-flopper, but that she tries to paint Obama as one, and misses the nuance, either by choice or by filter. (Not only that but she has her own nuance to explain). She could also have a little more patience, in not trying to reply when it is being explained to her.

Voting Course Not Curse

[Submission to local paper: September 14th, 2004]

Michael Medved’s "Fringe party sickness…" brought a cringe and later pause for thought. From Bush’s imperfections as a reason to vote for him that indicates being "mature enough to understand the workings of the Republic" to the claim that conservatives "should cure themselves of the sick infatuation with pathetic fringe parties" it came together. There is concern that there are not more choices and that other parties act as spoiler, but maybe a rational look would include the Green factor in 2000. But it was the "Does any rational observer really believe President Bush is evil? That got me.

I hope for rational observers too, but does any one really believe President Bush period? They try to paint things "good and evil" and now they want nuance and rational. Bet that they know the workings of the Republic, but wonder and worry about the workings of democracy and freedom. The nuance is in choosing when to see the choice between "good and evil" as metaphor, and when you think something is real or when it is our only choice.

A vote for a fringe candidate is not a vote for Bush or Kerry. Understanding does not mean results. Voting is the only thing black and white. Voting fringe sends a message that it can’t get any worse but can have the opposite result. Vote nuance over being flippant and flopping all over the world without a map. Vote Bush for change without a course. Vote Kerry for understanding and working.

Ephedra Ban Instituted

It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?

[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]

The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?

The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.

But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.

Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?

This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.

Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?

One Take Over The Line

Sweet Lawrence,

One take over the line.

Pardon the pun on personalities and lyrics.

But Lawrence O'Donnell may have gone one take too far.

I think Ted Nugent may have walked the line of nuance better.

Lawrence filled in a "not so veiled suggestion" that Ted may have avoided. I am not defending hateful and ugly hyperbole or other extremely inaccurate characterizations made by Nugent, but he could have been implying that he could not bear to live under an Obama administration or would be persecuted for his speech. Not that he would commit suicide, I just hate to play with Nugent's cause and effect deficiency.

Maybe this is my version of Nuance Wars.

Or New Gent Wars.

ala: Fee Nance Seer

[Not to "Double Down" ! (or dream*)]

* Martin Bashir to be updated

(Romneys double down: pre-buttal)

Bane or Double Down, Or Boehner Double Down?]

Wall Street or Main Street

Reading between the lines?
The people spoke out 100 to 1 against the bailout.
Republicans voted against** the bill:

"Despite the changes made during an intense week of negotiations, the heart of the program remains President Bush's original idea: spend billions of taxpayer dollars to buy mortgage-backed securities whose value has plummeted."

This comment was from Sunday, seemingly mischaracterizing the progress made on a bipartisan basis. It seems to me that more accountability and more creativeness is needed to bring mainstreet along. But politically it will be difficult as Democrats will not go far enough, and Republicans want the market to fix itself, meaning more trickle down.

[Note that my caution on Palin, is reflected in the conflict of nuance between her comments and McCain policy.[*] It is my feeling that some of the punditry is missing the nuance and/or her uncomfortablness is manufactured intentionally or not by her handlers.]
* the irony is that the Palin/McCain rhetoric on Pakistan is the Obama policy. Or diplomacy is flip-flop and context, not to mention the media.

**Perfect Politics McCain is out of touch, misrepresenting that Obama's allies voted down the bill, when the reverse is true.

[Bush blames media and is right for once. Bailout not the right word and even a fix is not the right word. Unless it is that we are in a fix.]

No Teddy

No Bully* Pulpit.
Disagreement and innovations.

Main Stream Perspectives:
CBS
ABC
PBS
Huffington Post
Salon
Washington Post
YouTube
Boston Globe
"Contensions?"(sic**)
More Follow Up.

[Mean-while up date*** No Rapture.]

* Mika 1 Joe 0 Are you serious, Joe?

** counter intuitive: Bully Pulpit is a good thing, like American Exceptionalism, unlike the link or the namesake.
*** and I did not see the Herman Cain link before my Teddy reference and there is no relation between my pen name LeRoy-Rogers and the therogersinsitute, nor Newt's middle name (Leroy).
[See ** "Are" yes I may be. Apologies for the multi-dimentionalism again, but in regards to Newt and Libertarianism, I think that it could be called Tea Party Nuance, and Ginrich is attempting to be the Obama of the Right(or the No Labels of the Right), while I am somewhere not between Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz.]
[Profits verses Prophets(Chris Hedges) and more.

[The square of the esoteric.

Strauss on reading In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing, commonly understood to advance the argument that some philosophers write esoterically in order to avoid persecution by political or religious authorities. A few readers of Strauss suggest esoteric writing may also seek to protect politics from political philosophy -- the explosive reasoning of which might well shatter fragile opinions undergirding the political order. Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus), Strauss proposed that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning. As Socrates says in the Phaedrus, writing does not respond when questioned, but invites a dialogue with the reader, thereby reducing the problems of the written word. One political danger Strauss pointed to was the acceptance of dangerous ideas too quickly by students. This was perhaps also relevant in the trial of Socrates, where his relationship with Alcibiades was used against him.

Ultimately, Strauss believed that philosophers offered both an "exoteric" or salutary teaching and an "esoteric" or true teaching, which was concealed from the general reader. For maintaining this distinction, Strauss is often accused of having written esoterically himself. Moreover he also emphasized that writers often left contradictions and other excuses to encourage the more careful examination of the writing. Leo Strauss's favourite novelist was Jane Austen.[5]

This spin off is from actually reading the previous bold "and more" but is relevant to the Gingrich "Exceptionalism" and Obama practical and incremental. And Platonic Dialogue.(sic)]
[Spell Check Gingrich: left Ginrich for link & search purposes: but note Strauss to Chomsky philosophical dynamism(Wittgenstein) via esoteric Tea Party Gingrich attempt at nuance.]

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

PC of Mini-Me

Press conference, that is!(*)
Presidential press conference on Syria Us and Con Gress.
Not to Maddow(2) or that's the ticket, but a diplomacy of preemption and word wars, not a red line of nuance.

* * * Labels PC(pre-conference) * * *
Foreign Policy
Diplomacy
Globalization
Obama Doctrine

(*) heading triggered by Hardball's Chris Matthews
No Grand Bargain nor Mini-Morph but Share 'n Angle

      ( *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *)      
First Question: Syria / Game Changer
2nd?Q: Bengazi B.S. Headline Generator
Self-Radicalizing?  Old Hats Diehard?
Mark (twain) Paul Jones?
           *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Guantanamo Dilemma and the Taliban Party.
Domestic Justice Exceptionalism and Community Divergence.
Chicken Little   State Rights
               *        *        *
(asterisk bracketed to sequester other asterisks as genre shifts)
(9*'s): press conference begins
(7*'s): genre or nuance shift [?] ! [(**)]

                  *          *(1)
[Self Radicalization and Boot Straps(3)]
(1) label added inserted "and" 
(2) Maddow
(1): anachronistically (2 too)
(2): a, B(b),C(c)
(b.s.): A, B(b), C(c)
(3) A, B(b), C(c), D!
[In time for Now!(Ann-Marie Slaughter/Tango) THE THIN RED LINE! Self Radicalization links inserted]
[PCR? Published Chemical Reaction? See Now with Alex Wagner.]
[(B S) Boot Straps (FP1) ]

[(**) all links this line inserted post-4Fp's]
[Update: Top-line links inserted and font change 5-3-13]

Earlier Rant or Ramble (and back)

Better to flip-flop than to completely flip or flop.

Judge and re-judge thyself,
lest thee be Re-judged and De-judged.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(The links were added as after thoughts, or post script. I now find a core theme for these seemingly out of the blue thoughts. Bold inserted hypocrisy -(?) and thanks to GoLeft.TV below.)

Compelled* or expelled ** for flip-flop, my point is that it turns on politics.

*to go on... stated plainly flip-flop is explained by nuances and if nuance is not applied will be hypocrisy or just flip-flop. Long story short: Nuance is just flip-flop, while flip-flop can be just hypocrisy. But justice is not just _ _ _ _ ! (fill-in or leave blank)

But underlying this duality, is that politics is not a dirty word! No more than is power or money, but it is about having a choice and better than choosing between tyranny and anarchy. Using it or loosing it may have bearing, but will not indicate ones bearings.

A careful look at Barack Obama's bearing, as well as his choice of words and their meaning will highlight what will be found in the dictionary under bearing(s) [especially the 8th]. There is no reference to age or marbles or balls except as in page, carriage, heritage and language, unless one digs into heraldry and a likely escutcheon but as a pilot McCain should know better and not be so touchy and defensive. Or is it just offensive?

** Mocumentary and stranger yet later and more, and surfing the net.

[5-14-08: In trying to shore up a weak link (one of the above did not connect) I found a stronger link to what started this offensive narrative(McCain claiming Hamas endorses Obaba). Stated more correctly McCain endorses Bin Laden in his argument for his bearing down on Iraq. Of course this is just a trick of words, but the emphasis is on the trick and the focus should be on the meaning, and the tack. (A midcourse correction saved me from a tactical(no technical)error with tact) Specifically of course it is about our course and the choice between A. Obama's tact and B. McCain's tack and how we deal with attacks or a tact.]

[ 5-14-08: Since this originally seemed out of the blue, here is one out of the red (nfry) to be "fair and balanced". ]

(?) 5-14-08: even I can't recall the reason for the "bold insertion" reference unless I'm lost in italics but hypocrisy is noted in the out of the red above. And now I add a spin for the ages titled E Pluribus Nixon and a note on "positive polarization" and find irony in having a bearing without a (w)hole or a shaft to spin on.

Negative ads and apologies

Please do not mistake my humor for gloating, but it is a tool of communications. The difference between Republican and Democratic ads or communications is that Democrats have so much more material. Candidates can talk about themselves and their opponents, but there is so much more negative when Democrats do this in a balanced way, but Republicans have to start with their opponents to take it off the talk about themselves. Nuance is not necessarily any more beneficial in humor than politics, but at least it minimizes my apologies.

Here I will only apologize for my haste and nuance in the last few posts, after the few prior being more well developed. The connection is that I pledge will not change them, but add to them a bit and note when I do so.
* * *

Bush Legacy?

A NEW TACK WITH TACT

Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.

Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.

Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".

This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.

We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.

ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.

[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}

"so you don't have to"

Read? Watch Fox? Jump to conclusions?
That's the ticket. I don't. Well maybe the last one,
but with reason. You should verify.
Military.com "Ruining America"
LA Times/Truthout "Not America's Man in Iraq."

Reality is a lot of flip-flop. Especially near elections, and it depends who and where you are speaking. But normally, a closer read will explain there is nuance.
There is a difference between timetables and benchmarks, even though they are both furniture that can be moved later.

And being someone's man, is not what freedom or progress is about.

It would seem that the leader in Iraq cannot be seen tied too close to the U.S. in Iraq for him to be successful, yet the whole divide represents the dillemma that there is flip flop for political consumption and we are dining on an international menu. This does not excuse flip flop, but putting the blame on nuance is why we got where we are.

Jumping to conclusions so I don't have to read,
you may just trust, or you can verify too.
[Note: links may or may not have been read by me or never even used before.]

They started it.

See same link... I say they started it. Two realities? Rumsfeld himself said facts change as noted here before I started providing links. You can check the archives around the time you think he may have said that. Reason enough for flip-flop. But a second reason as Cheney hit it, is mutual, sort of. Since they don't do nuance everything they can't understand has flip-flop potential. They do do French as in "pardon my French" as Cheney has been caught on a podium and the senate floor referring to a journalist and later a Senator.
Well if nuance is French, then pardon my Cheney. You would think that English is Greek to them but I won't go there. No I am not being vulgar just over my head academically.

DEMOCRACY IN A REPUBLIC IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.

Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.

A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.

But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?

If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]

Hi Noon?

Reforming Wall Street
(Meet the Press)

[Lo nuance. Or More of the Same?]

[Chalk up a win.]

First Sources

It is a beautiful Monday, Stephanie Miller is on the radio. France attempts a turn from austerity.^^
[Really... Click on in"F"ables(see**) at your own risk.]
Guest Eric Boehler of Media Matters and other* in"F"ables.**
President Obama takes his gloves off*** and Ron Paul is another matter.
Not[!][?]

*killing 2brds with one asterisk (the "other" link has nothing to do with Stephanie Miller)
But the next link is not for the Right thinking.
** More than you might want to hear by Live Free Funny or Die.
Scroll over for insufficient warning.
*** First Read (two videos) Framing 2012

Note [?] @Not[!] = Churned Media
[Winning?  Backward? Mitt-Flop ?  (see two videos ***)]
[Not^ the bottom line! (see comments/hints)NFRY]

^confidence fairies ?

[Not such a large leap?!] Knot! Really it is.
^^ L8 link

Update: 5-8-12 Martin Bashir
Ed Schultz on Mitt Flop [!][?] Really! Really? And Lastly.

5-9-12 Charles Johnson
One person's Mitt-Flop ~ is another's Physics~ of Nuance.
~ Duality / Noncausality

Red Line?

Non-Sense:  It never was that clear a red line. 

Diplomatic Nuance and Change Theory ? 
Having read the "Non-Sense" links, there seems* intentional wiggle room**.

*note dates and actually read/redux
**revisited

[To read later. Actually red sooner.]

5-7-13:  THE LAST WORD?

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.

Digging Up and Digging In.

Or Digging Out...

As I paused to reflect on the appropriateness of the connections above, the third popped into place. But it is a grave matter, this journalism*.

The field of meta4; one, two, three, strikes yer out. The Metaphysical Meta-for.

[Further digs to read or Dickens of a future, past and present. ]
[And one more shovel or scoop of apathy.**

*Health Care
** intended link
*** (future link: see comment) Nuance of polls and evolution of the word
[Update: the word]