D-google:
I reference this indirectly** in terms of how* I get here***.
*Ctrl F "ananchronist"
** ouch (practical stiob?)
*** "stiob"
(The "stiob" of practical*the link* is more a tan/gent shall.)
[Not to pun on more asterisks, but the dimentionalism might be.^]
^ [or (fn) IS! ]
[ submitted for yo/re consideration ? / ! ... ]
[12-21-12: Project Salon Pause^^ ... Not !]
Also note that (fn) *link* was inserted on this date.
^^ (Ce ne pas, pax) Politics is something/everything paradox.(ouch)
(the last *^^* was paradox placement)
[Speaking of trilogies, trolls and toll-keens, my stumble upon "stiob" was via Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (Or American Exceptionalism: Too Point Oh!)]
[A fellow tangent?(rise over run)]
[ SO ? ]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query practical. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query practical. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Monday, February 09, 2009
hmmm?
New Thinking on the Economy
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
also Beat the Press
[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)
The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.
How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.
It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]
* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.
** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)
[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]
[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]
[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
also Beat the Press
[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)
The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.
How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.
It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]
* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.
** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)
[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]
[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]
[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]
Monday, May 23, 2011
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.
[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.]
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.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)]
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]
[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.]
Monday, September 13, 2010
Bane(Or) Change
[11-17-11 Update Labels]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.
There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.
Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.
*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]
** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.
There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.
Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.
*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]
** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Para~graph Three!
Endo-terror~cism?
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”view , now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Two Points
Please note that just because someone endorses the priciples of a movement, that does not mean they endorse any of their tactics. Obama has been accused of distancing himself from OWS, and the 99%, but I think that is only in terms of some of their behavior and some of their demands.
Who am I to suggest what might work for Occupy Wall Street, but it could be strategic to give them the park back and MoveOn[*] (pardon the Irony)! While I have associated with MoveOn, DFA, and a # of other acronyms and parties(individual and organizational) I think that their message can evolve and be more dimensional.
[Belated Jack Sparrow]
[* 11-4-11 link description added: Ron Suskind on The Rachel Maddow Show, discusses the Financial Transaction Tax And on a related issue, replacing Tim Geitner. The man, any man is not the issue. The policy is the issue. But replacing any individual in the face of Republican obstructionism is problematic.]
[11-4-11 My comment on Left Business Observer is "awaiting moderation". Maybe it is actually awaiting radicalization, but I realize the practical difficulities of moving from Zuccotti Park.(Packing up, needing a place to go, but with the opportunity to return, unless the police occupy Zuccotti Park.) I just mean to take success from the fact that there are so many "Occupy Places" around the country and around the world, not to diminish the value of general assemblies, and the logistical need for occupying some space. Meanwhile here are some other perspectives:
Marc Ash Anarchy v. Non-Violence, The Movement Is Tested
Michael Moore on "Occupy Oakland"
Bill Moyers America Occupies Wall Street Because Wall Street Occupies America
Noam Chomsky Occupy the World
Robert Reich The Occupiers' Responsive Chord
[More Maddow, Cain and Perry and more.]
[A gestalt? Jon Stewart asks about OWS, North Dakota and Syria.
Walk like an...Obama?(up/date plank**)]
** See **B here with follow up.
[And Buffet sages. Note that this is likely the root of Obamanomics(Robert Reich) as I found it, and the root of our problems as Obama and Buffet found it.
More followup. [See deter/mined and Sat Ire.(Buffet v. Trump)]
[Three Points: A. B. C.]
Who am I to suggest what might work for Occupy Wall Street, but it could be strategic to give them the park back and MoveOn[*] (pardon the Irony)! While I have associated with MoveOn, DFA, and a # of other acronyms and parties(individual and organizational) I think that their message can evolve and be more dimensional.
[Belated Jack Sparrow]
[* 11-4-11 link description added: Ron Suskind on The Rachel Maddow Show, discusses the Financial Transaction Tax And on a related issue, replacing Tim Geitner. The man, any man is not the issue. The policy is the issue. But replacing any individual in the face of Republican obstructionism is problematic.]
[11-4-11 My comment on Left Business Observer is "awaiting moderation". Maybe it is actually awaiting radicalization, but I realize the practical difficulities of moving from Zuccotti Park.(Packing up, needing a place to go, but with the opportunity to return, unless the police occupy Zuccotti Park.) I just mean to take success from the fact that there are so many "Occupy Places" around the country and around the world, not to diminish the value of general assemblies, and the logistical need for occupying some space. Meanwhile here are some other perspectives:
Marc Ash Anarchy v. Non-Violence, The Movement Is Tested
Michael Moore on "Occupy Oakland"
Bill Moyers America Occupies Wall Street Because Wall Street Occupies America
Noam Chomsky Occupy the World
Robert Reich The Occupiers' Responsive Chord
[More Maddow, Cain and Perry and more.]
[A gestalt? Jon Stewart asks about OWS, North Dakota and Syria.
Walk like an...Obama?(up/date plank**)]
** See **B here with follow up.
[And Buffet sages. Note that this is likely the root of Obamanomics(Robert Reich) as I found it, and the root of our problems as Obama and Buffet found it.
More followup. [See deter/mined and Sat Ire.(Buffet v. Trump)]
[Three Points: A. B. C.]
Friday, November 15, 2013
To be determined*
Characterizing Progress.
* lede or ship ?
[Yeah, Right. M P I. Message Practical Incremental.]
[Akin to Rand or legitimate nuance?]
[White House proposal on "ACA" cancellations]
11-16-13 Guide to Struggles.
11-17-13 Alternate Realities [?] [!]
* lede or ship ?
[Yeah, Right. M P I. Message Practical Incremental.]
[Akin to Rand or legitimate nuance?]
[White House proposal on "ACA" cancellations]
11-16-13 Guide to Struggles.
11-17-13 Alternate Realities [?] [!]
Thursday, July 22, 2010
C Sick?
CNN may be a cup o'tea.
C Wave... Ouch!
See sea et al...& new careers.
Lawrence O'Donnell (LO Low and behold)
[My original intent was in the LO and behold.]
[... on the other hand, sitting in for Chris is Chuck!(See hosts.)]
[Speaking of Left Behind*]
* I was unable to find the Hardball link which referred to "Left Behind" but the "Left" above is a backlash from the Sherrod "lesson".
[7-23-10 bolds added and note: I am complimenting CNN's coverage of the Sherrod situation, and comparing/contrasting the latest Rangel reaction, as well as Chuck Todd(for Chris Matthews) hosting a conversation. Update "lesson".]
[There may be a silver lining to a Rangel ethics trial, it is about transparency and justice, and politics. Congress can hold their own accountable and demonstrate the hypocrisy of fair and balanced ethics, let alone justice. Some are suggesting he be removed post haste, and that would not serve justice or transparency.]
[Compare and Contrast(no comma)Pragmatism**.]
** to be relinked to later report on extending tax cuts or reform.[Meanwhile*** on the more practical than political.]
*** also breaking: needed link to Dylan Ratigan w/Chris Kofinis on change of business as usual.
C Wave... Ouch!
See sea et al...& new careers.
Lawrence O'Donnell (LO Low and behold)
[My original intent was in the LO and behold.]
[... on the other hand, sitting in for Chris is Chuck!(See hosts.)]
[Speaking of Left Behind*]
* I was unable to find the Hardball link which referred to "Left Behind" but the "Left" above is a backlash from the Sherrod "lesson".
[7-23-10 bolds added and note: I am complimenting CNN's coverage of the Sherrod situation, and comparing/contrasting the latest Rangel reaction, as well as Chuck Todd(for Chris Matthews) hosting a conversation. Update "lesson".]
[There may be a silver lining to a Rangel ethics trial, it is about transparency and justice, and politics. Congress can hold their own accountable and demonstrate the hypocrisy of fair and balanced ethics, let alone justice. Some are suggesting he be removed post haste, and that would not serve justice or transparency.]
[Compare and Contrast(no comma)Pragmatism**.]
** to be relinked to later report on extending tax cuts or reform.[Meanwhile*** on the more practical than political.]
*** also breaking: needed link to Dylan Ratigan w/Chris Kofinis on change of business as usual.
Wednesday, December 16, 1970
Dimentions
[update: 8/23/2023 (I tried to recover the date of this post, but wanted to note I could not figure out when I originally posted it. As for the label, I probably planned to add more but wanted to have this near the beginning for some reason. I can't promise to carry-on with the same intent but I am reviewing the work. One reason might be to organize the topics or labels over-all.)
1. cognitive/rational
2. intuitive?
3. practical
4. ethical
5. aesthetic [!]
6. adaptive
7. time sensitive
8. balanced
Not necessarily dimensions.
(fp!)
Supreme Court Jest Ice?
FOOTNOTES PAGE DECEMBER 2013
HiTetra!
[~...~] b. C#PO(correction) C3PO , c. Ouroboros , d. Walking the Plank[!] e. Too Cubed =(viii)
Pen tag on [ ! ].
PoliticsNation: from Vlad to worse ?
too
two
Cubed?
Heir-archy of Image[!]
Monday, April 01, 2013
FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013
4-1-13 April * 1st. Big
Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]
4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.
4-4-13 (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
[FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)] Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]
4-5-13 TGIF *NFR Not Fully Read.
4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...
Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)
4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos. Bottom line is funny. Not ! X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.
4-15-13: insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?
4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits. Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack
4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read". Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]
4-18-13: As to two "too"[!] Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail. Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.
4-22-13 Math is next 2...?
4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor". Nor to pun on 4F or broaden the base.
4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark. Second line lede or ship!
4-25-13 Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT), Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13: ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?
4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Blame to go around?
Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!
Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*
Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.
That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.
And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."
[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]
* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]
NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.
** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]
Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*
Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.
That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.
And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."
[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]
* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]
NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.
** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)