Amazing Precedence

Not really, I occasionally agree with a Republican. Senator Richard Lugar(Republican) challenges Democrats to hold the vote on the "Trust but Verify". And I would say to all Democrats "call their bluff". But there is a bit of false equivalence*, in staying the course.[**]
[Breaking Related]
[Speaking of Breaking.]
* news and democracy

[Not[***] to mention, or include irony and fair and balanced.]

[The Wave In Balance: Act]
[Belated Ribble: actually the ribble is not late, but the importance of a new START? Without a treaty and the respect for law, it only leaves disrespect for politics, the tyranny of anarchy, and the terrorism of preemption.]
[** Ripple in the pond or splash?]
[*** it is not about replacing Obama, nor about finding a Karl Rove for the Left, it is about politicians and media doing their jobs, and both fighting for the people and changing the process.]

Today is a good day for...

...STEPHANIE MILLER.
Something about having to laugh or you'd (might) cry. I had a hunch this would start something, or end somewhere.

Speaking of Ribbles...
Multiple "Choice" Questions
The Fourth Law of Logic
Something to Ponder
Math is next to Ge Oh Me Try.
God is Good[*]with a missing Oh.

Actually this was a tangent from my original intent.(NOT) (or pond during)

But seriously(as if I am not): there were also three links from Stephanie Miller.(not to mention)
[* 3-11-11] today I note that at the time I was aware of the irony or maybe the need for a comma, or was it too vain an attempt, as an "o" really is needed to have the "oh", yet it revolves around "Something to Ponder".

Through the Looking Glass?

Benifer?
The Bard(Will?)
Ah, there's the Ribble.
On my journey to find my first coinage of "ribble" I fell off in a google.
Speaking of pondering on the mean(ing?)

[7-27-10 king link inserted]

Deep Thoughts

Still Processing ...*





*not so punderous ponderings [~]

( Manichean  TryUnism )


7-12-15
Similar Reading in Progress.
[Exploding the being paradigm. post~temporality "~"]


No Teddy ("~)' ^
Hegelian Rationality?
Bin(un)Jun'Go
Neo-changian?
Relemma'n Leo
Esoteric Relemma[!]


^ accidental perspectivism
(sub-narrative: still processing)
[tangent~"political theorist" & the calling.]

Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors

Addressing the "fishing expedition" in his March 20th, 2007"Press Conference":
BUSH QUOTE:

But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.

And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see.

If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.

DOES THIS NOT INDICATE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HIS OWN "REASONABLE PROPOSAL" ?
If there are not a lot of Dean screams going around the press corps, something is wrong. The big fish is at his pleasure with an empty pond apparently.

[Additional Comment: 9:30 PM]
White House Counsel's Proposal:

Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a Member or limited number of Members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.

BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT:

Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

The bold and italics combo are mine, but it appears I have misunderestimated Bush in his brilliant navigation of his proposal.

Side Tracks

Note to self at a forum last night.
There are right decisions not to vote for right legislation because the right exists.
This could be obtuse but it could be the nature of progress. It is at least how our government works.

I wish I could paraphrase my contribution to the dialogue, or even recapture the sentiment, but I will add that sometimes progress is a result of mistakes, and Boy George have we learned. And in context add that all politics is local, but it takes a... well at least four. Thanks Hillary.

And now an allusive leap:
I don't believe in if anymore by Roger Wittaker
If by Rudyard Kipling
(inadvertent proof of...) by David Sirota
Our plight?

[Back to local fireworks and our side of the pond, there as a bit of good cop, bad humor dynamics that is not all about spatial or heirarchical orientation but potentially an ingredient in our evolution. Note the * irony Graham at the 15:40 of *]

New York Times

Safire Search Context,
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]

In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.

It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.

After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.

[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]