"The irony..."

(in turning pages)

...is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families-- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. * The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world than we inherited.

(in three paragraphs ...we... can agree) but he continues.

The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in.

It is not fair of me to pick on "a few" words that bring up age, since it is valid as well, that Obama is young, but not that he has bought in to what is old, but maybe what works. And McCain has bought in to change, but who has bought in to him? It is good that attitude is brought up as well as faith, not to mention the people. But it is not these words that must be brought up, but the forces of history that must be held up to scrutiny and evaluation.

* "for too long" we have let Bushisms outrun our media filters(them and us). Have they been vetted enough to not get used to this? [...this run around? and I just caught a mis-embedded link, bottom lined**, that fits. The Bush exit strategy may be a good example of a Catch-44. Where is McCain? [Let me make perfectly clear,*** the above block quotes are direct from McCain's speech and three paragraphs in the gap are commendable] Where will the Democrats be? And where have they and Republicans been in "your government". I was going to say the bold was on me, but it also on you and on them (?).

** previous post bottom link
*** bonus hint

[final comment: "The irony" is that McCain's words start a paragraph here as well as a serious tone, while it is ironic that I saw any humor (not) in age earlier.]

A lot of Revisiting of 9/11

May we now turn the tide? Many have commemorated with new words, and I will only go back to my words in the first few hours until I digest the ones that revisit it today.

Here they are: September 11th, 2001

AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.

The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.

A Uniter in Illusion.
(Just my perspective on the Speech.)

The President’s State of the Union speech was obviously much more than a report on the country or even an outline of goals, it was a stand-up sit-down fight, fight, fight, song and dance. Of course expecting partisanship to be missing is not realistic, nor ever really lacking in the past, no matter what party was in charge. However for a uniter not a divider?

Some candidates have been accused of being lackluster in the past and now some are revealing too much emotion, but does it really compare to the smirks, and half-winks as the president presents the state of the union. Of course this is just my characterization of it.

But was there not a record amount of standing ovations? Some were certainly over the obvious and non-partisan, like a tribute and thanks to our fighting and dying men and women in arms. There were more occasions where the Republicans would rise as if on cue, and they probably did have some sort of cheerleader or choreographer. Or at least they should have as some in the crowd could have used some directions, as they even seemed perturbed or curious about their reason or whether it was their move.

The positive reaction to the president’s statement that the "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year" was expected by the Democrats. But his emphasis almost with glee that "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule" brought unusually rousing applause and glee from the other side. Were they really listening or just unthinking?

Late in the speech another rousing ovation also followed his statement that "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." He went on to explain: "The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." But this last bit must have been confusing for some or they were morally tired, as they seemed to almost forget to clap or see that that was a very good line. It is interesting that he even mentioned a debate.

Is my characterization of smirks and winks unfair? What about the choice the president brings up barely into his speech:

"We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare, or we can turn back to old policies and old divisions. "

Who casts illusions, let alone divisions? The emphasis, partisanship and divisiveness are sickening.

State of Politics

Speaking of Johnsons*,
CAD(Culturally Aided Designs)
Objective/Subjective
Ge-oh-me-try!
The Presidents Club









The origins of this club in Hoover and Truman, harken back to mark a distinct difference in the act of presidential transitions, from the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush, George W. Bush/ Barack Obama turnovers.  Is it fair to mark the common factor, when congressional partisanship also plays a part? Or is it fair to ask if Hoover could change, what change will Romney bring?  Do we want to change course** or is it still our turn?  [Ctrl F "still"]

*Andrea Mitchell interviews author(The Presidents Club)
** NOW with Alex Wagner (need^ update)
[Polling Seg Way*** ? See AM* Gimmickry or plans ?]
*** WOE (and Bashir)
[Must search for Manichean links(or leaps) of punderous pondering and other posts for Ant and Grasshopper and "render unto Caesar".]

^ color of change?
(see CAD: cause affect difficiency)

[4-24-12 link inserted@ ^ update, not ]

CAD (Culturally Aided Design)

That was not my original insult.  I mean intent.
Nor the original CAD or (under)mine,
speaking of Cause Affect Deficiency: (updated Cause Affect Disorder)

I feel like Ann Romney, with an early Birthday present.(ala CNN and the Hilary Rosen War) Yesterday someone tossed an expletive at my Obama bumper sticker. Speaking of CAD, Ted Nugent is a Raw Money reincarnation of the Swift Boaters. Only he needs a vet for his Cat Scratch Fever. More on CAD, it is not computer-aided design, it is cause and affect deficiency. 


BTW: it is still our turn,(thanks Ann) if Bush could get a second one in the middle of a war, no matter who started it.


CAD-2.0: more or less

[Not to demonize or capitalize on catholic and deficiencies*, but if government is a business and corporations are people, what is bankruptcy, let alone where is the death penalty?]

*not to decapitalize

[Clue to the G'Ribble.]
[update decapitalize: Huffington Post throws journalism in the pit.]

UPDATE 4-24-12 (images)

Regime Rhetoric Reply

[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?

There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).

Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.

There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?

If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.

Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.

I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
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. [Unable to locate]

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".]

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. 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 driver's seat.

"It's my turn"[!]

...is what came to mind as I saw Romney frame the race as a decision between the three winners of the last three contests. That's what Ron Paul(8:45) should say. Or maybe Herman Cain or Stephen Colbert should say it**. I am in the process of watching last night's debate on CNN and Rick Santorum (9:10)kicked off the debate with a thread that crosses another thought I had during the introductions, "We are a country of laws".* Actually Ron Paul had already started a few threads in his introduction, we are not nation builders. Romney(15:58) stands up to a Gingrich charge or rather a question on rhetoric and deals with it in legal terms. My original thought had to do with the irony of the conservative nature, but Gingrich is almost a false flag of rhetoric.

* quoting Santorum, not my thought or thread which I may have lost, but laws are the thread of building our nation

BTW- Not necessarily the missing thought: but in regards to Romney's financial reporting, does it bode well for his credit as a business leader, let alone maker of laws? I mean the mis-reporting, and his math regarding taxes and charitable contributions adding up at times to 40 to 45%?

[related irony (slash) update: what I thought was a churned media book event, may turn out to be good for the debate. What can we learn from Arizona? Will we take her up on it? Will the NAACP take Newt up on his charge? Just how do we demand paychecks*** over food stamps? Is it as easy as rhetoric?]

[1-28-12 In defense of PolitiFact... c4*]

[** 1-28-12 link added, Keep Paul Alive! (Courtesy of Buddy Roemer via Bill Maher.)

*** link added]

[c4* I have used as many asterisks as I intend but I would like to connect two pieces(or 3) which relate to the PolitiFact wordplay. Facts are facts and economics and politics everything else. (i.e. context and con text.) But more specifically The Economist has a perspective.]

No Bearing?

Good! The president's words have no bearing on the 2008 race.

[In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."]

Last read? (nfry)

[Embarassing is a reference or interesting usage in the top link here: "ABC News' White House troops point out..."]

[Embedded and unembedded, but pulled up? See inserted block quote above.]

Flash Back

[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]

*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *

[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.

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".]

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. 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, but uncertain of original location.]

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]
** temp link

The New Compendium

NOT!
Really...probably not.
But it sounds like an epoch
and not quite an anthology,
but hopefully not an achronism.

THE POINT?
A cover page of sorts.
Yeah that's the ticket!
...the dynamics of progress,

Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:

1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy.

[Mis-click of the mouse of the day]
Slash Segue(Aristotellian)[A]
Maybe you had to be there.
The Bill Thing.
The Frackin' Thing.
The Club of Construction.[ B ]
The King Tut of Rhetoric
Not to mention Divagation.

BTW: Going Egypt depends on who you ask, and I am not asking Stephen or Steve King***. And Going Wisconsin should not mean Going Cheesehead*. But I will tie this up with a preamble. If I may paraphrase and extend the remarks of a caller to the Norman Goldman Show: If you are not for "a more perfect Union" you may be Un-American. If you are not willing "to promote the General Welfare" you may be militant against "the Blessings of Liberty", but one can take words (and rhetoric or puns) too far. I suggest the word militant not be used, and that nowwhere near the tactics be used in political protests** but just who expects whom to turn the other cheek? There seems to be a slippery slope in the free speech zone.

* my original intent was a pun on Ed Head, which is not a Soft Head, but then there may be a lede to leader in the eventual link.[I believe it was a caller to the Ed Schultz Show that lead me to independently think that the failure of unions in Wisconsin would put a whole new spin on the name Cheeseheads.]

** the right to protest and any intent to break the law, includes the right to be arrested but not beaten, though we should understand that resistence is not futile but few put up with it well

*** see previous clause "divagation" link and prior line "Tut" for the two Kings.

[A,B updates]
[2-18-11 Blank(updated)Network- Parallel Channel(See The Pair o' Lax View ) Updates under construction. SERIOUSLY these are a serious sorting of views.]

[See Follow Up]

[Note Jumping the Gun Again! i.e breaking in-box of (news) sorts (AKA: sports metaphor not target or weapon analogy) Meaning the CPAC divide regarding the Islamophia section of The Progress Report is hint at the LAME O' PHOBIA of Platonic Dialogue not to mention a cave[of irony] of or con tent... or CAP]

Live From New York: Saturday Night Live

[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.

Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.

Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.

The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.

Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?

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]

The Nightmare Act

I didn't plan this.

The Challenge to America...and any independents or disappointed moderates or liberals who are considering sending a message* that will result in Republicans or Tea-Party candidates replacing a Democrat, because that is what will happen if you don't vote, and don't read the Pledge to America and ask, what's new. (Fwhew, deep breath)-
Really now, I don't want to read it all by my lonesome, but I will give everyone a head start. And when you are reading it, ask what is new, has it worked in the past, is it not at least part of the current solution, and do we really need more in that direction or another. This questioning of the dynamics is hard work. Keeping in mind that tax cuts raise debt unless cuts match them. Spending cuts, cut services and risk jobs and infrastructure. Keep in mind that in more successful times in our history we had higher taxes and paid for wars, while cutting taxes and not paying for them have increased the debt and lost jobs. Then there is the war on terror and global concerns such as they are... Is the Pledge to American really new, or are they just wanting their hands back on the steering wheel to turn us back over the bridges they burned? You read, you decide.

[Related comments, reviews and concerns or other sources]

The C Word.

Clever?
[Saved in draft for unknown reason, unedited*
i.e. written date above, posted 11-9-10 AM]
Toure's Turn? Do me a Favre and remember, government and politics are not football.
Except maybe for the commercialization with make me think of the Gecko and Aff Quack. But explain to me how the House, the Senate and the President, not to mention the two parties not being teams play into it.
Fair Game? Well that may be a separate rant. "Life is not fair..." that is why society evolved and gave us our founding documents. Freedom is not a force. But I'll give you something to cry about.[Mixed aphorisms or patronizing jingles.] There's no crying in baseball, is there in football?
* due to possible construction distraction and grapes of whine or patronizing refs.

Genre Clash

or Mutation?

FOK'rs (Friends of Keith'rs) were noted on the...STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW, along with a rumor from above. Un...like the fabled "unexpressed thought".*





* not to make fun of dog killers, only the forum of Tucker's in second video
[and I did not mean to rhyme]
[and for "some people", genre refers to the medium(& mutation) of the mess age.]
[for others...]
[ and back to the future...express]***

*** this is an overpass to the "turn" spike [With the parsing of the great genre in Keith, the rise of the Young Turks, Matthews is the Oddball in my book. Too cute by half, but not these haves.

[Afternoon update, from my Oddball book, aka Edutainment and speculation, from Ed Schultz the President Obama's 5 year "in non-security, discretionary spending" budget freeze: actually the speculation is mine that many things can be on the table as security and many others are not as discretionary. But it may be a Peter, Paul and Robin' hood scenario. AKA a spin on our past presidents. But seriously or rather flippantly, the book is also about false equivalents. Rachel is no Jon Stewart, Olbermann is no Glenn Beck, Matthews is no "fair and balanced", and Ed Schultz is no Rush, though he does get flush at times. It is about the dialogue, even if it is grand sitting at times.]
[And an earlier crack at the table...aka footnotes of pre-ignition.**]

** and this is an achronistic asterisk i.e. just have to make sure that there are three, and to note that the Mutation link and all that follows was based on only seeing the first few minutes of The Daily Show. [Achronistic is timely in a third way as the third asterisk is placed earlier and regards another post. Not this one though. (At least in toto and one sitting.)]
[Parting asterisks of "past presidents" I like Teddy. Oh Bear Man?]

[1-28-11 Update]

The other ground game...

<*>

I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.

I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12

*  Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality?  OUCH.  I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least.  And while I might read more, I might not have more to say.  It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics.  BTW:  Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.  

OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.*** 

** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
***  To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.)   Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious.  Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing.  Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.  
    
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*

Fine Tuning.

THE GAME (Slightly updated: bold Stay the Course - job->search) The topic is our job which is to help navigate embedded with a link to help you navigate. Not to mention bottom links that brings some news to light if you go there, or sometimes just a previous connection as below.

In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.

Change (vs.) the Issues

Yes, I was not dreaming. John McCain did accept the nomination for President of the United States. Is he real yet? And yes. I did find that he did say: "I wasn't my own man anymore; I was my country's." So despite the story that this happened while he was a prisoner of war, as late as the last year, several reports to the contrary are out there. So it must be legitimate to ask what kind of change is he talking about?

In his speech he claimed: "I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us." So he actually changed after his internment, and it seems he fought his party, that needed change. Has he won yet? So he is a party man, who fights for a party. Has it changed or has he changed again? Remember he was his countries man at one point, but you know?* I think I'm going to get lost.

OK, maybe I am not the only one. Maybe McCain can tell us how we are lost, maybe: "We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington." For a pilot, I would think he should know which way history is, but I am not even sure what "do business" might mean. So, I turn back to look for change in his speech, and being a bit of a gambler, but not as much of a Maverick as McCain. I would lay a solid bet on McCain's one line: "Change is coming". But I would not bet, he knows how to get there. In fact, I believe he has shown "That's not change we can believe in."

* [I wonder if he even knows he is leading his party yet. But it should show in any change that may be appearing any day now. And as far as lost goes, I really almost detect some nuance in his words, but then I literally feel the flip-flop.]

The Billy Club...

needs some explaining.

---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---

(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence

It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).

I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.

But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.

* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)

** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.

[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]

[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]

Cheer Leaders[!]

[!] = tongue in cheek

Responsibility is a three-way turn* not for weigh stop [!^].

* pun on street
^ cheese block or east wing ?^

La state c'est tu [ ! ] ?~**

~? pardon my(*) French(not tu translate)
(*) (by google/search engine) et tu 

** The state is you! 

OK, I mixed or morphed metaphors.  The three-way street that I allude to is not just between wall street and main street, or the responsibility for self or others but to the game and the branches of our establishment.  Akin to the math, linguistics and arts of living.   

^  cam m bear ?
or munster ?
and Cheesetrain ?

 

Go Hawks !
 

 



















Mmmm

[ ! :] James Fallows Late Inserts.