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.]

2-20-11 Under consideration

Navigation / Divagation and Stochasticism...
-----
From :

[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]
-----

UNDER CONSTRUCTION:What conservatives really want. By George Lakoff (good read)
Find NY Times article on Egypt
and improve Aristotellian, Rand and Fourth Law of Logic connections, regarding Parallax View (the perspective, not the movie) relates to Pair o'Lax Views, A & B. Not to mention BTW: Going Egypt or Cheesehead. Let alone Ike.

[NOTE: see labels below, and note date of posting will remain in heading(lede) as this post may be relocated, but never without notation. Also except in this case which is under construction, the bottom links (after a certain date) connect to the immediately prior posts.]

Biff Boom Bam

Platonic Dialogue.

[BTW:(2.0) Scroll down 4 my own See4 bin Laden.]

Current Media and
Super Heroes or C-Quells.

Note: blogspot is having technical difficulties intefering with the previous post being available at this time
(Churned Media makes me... C...(sic) hopes to be available soon, if not, I already have some sequels in the can.)
No pun intended, there is a missing link. Honestly the guildportal link was not heard of or googled prior to my lede, and I had no pow in tension.

NOTE 2.0: Sum Links are anachronistic some are re-runs.

BTW: Not to suggest another sabbatical, but this may be a good calm pend E um.

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]

Scatmonger?

I am not going to say, I saw it coming,
nor take responsibility for the May day of Ed,but there may be a silver lining.

Hint: Platonic Dialogue under Bat Cave.
It's not a quid pro quo for turning or tipping the tables
and it's not all that.

Antithesis of Nuance.

That is the fair and balanced look at name-calling scatmongers. In the spirit of Platonic dialogue it is a potential*** pettifogger, and difficult to be untergiversating. Name calling or labels are subtly different but often the lazy route to understanding. This does nothing to justify misogyny, but it is often in the eye or ear of the beholder**. Not to defend the use of the "s" word (slut nor scat) or even comment on the use of the "r" word (Republican?) but to maybe note the lack of better words not to mention (PC) proper context*.

* "name-calling scatmongers"
** as it is wielded
*** embedded obliquity
[Non Sequitor? Or at least less Ad Hominem.]
[OUCH! Remember: context, context, context, and then there is still another perspectivism. Note: in fact my FB comment was lost in the act of seeking context. Something about, "playfully provocative" is in the eye of the beholder...]

Follow-up

And post insert.[Update]

Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform

Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.

A calling of Blues and Jazz?

Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.

P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.

[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]

[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels

[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]

*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?