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.]

THANK YOU DAVE ROSS!

For exposing the PVRHT act.
(Otherwise known as: H.R. 1955: for the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism)
OK, I left off(or spun off) the PA (prevention act)for its Patronizing Attitude and the quip that the act itself could fall under its own spell.
[Dave Ross interviewed Alicia Mundy (1) of the Seattle Times and Chip Berlet (2) of Political Research Associates.]

[If you read nothing further: read (1) and (2), above]

Bottom Line: The Senate should hold hearings on this act! Or have the guts to act as fast in rejecting this act as premature and ill advised based on the fear it was enacted under. One major failure of this piece is the appointment process which should be balanced in favor of the majority party. The other is the need to review current intelligence gathering and its use. That is what the committee should be limited to, if not extended to the suggestions contained here.

[OTHER COMMENTS]Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security "Boondoggle"
technocrati thought police? 3 tags
The Agonist "pointed at the Republican Party"
Video from the middle (link) 1st one Kennedy

Previous Posts:
Unity in Principle July 22nd, 2004
Intelligence for Commission
Bicameral Brain
Up The Filter August 2nd, 2004
CIA our job one November 17th, 2004
Slam Dunk to the Circular File!
The links that connect
"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike" August 26th, 2006
Caution merited? September 26th,2006

Lastly: The words of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 seems innocuous enough, but so do the words of the [Project for the New American Century] but it must be looked into. Recommendations for any new intelligence or laws must be put on hold until investigations of old intelligence and laws have been made, not to mention the Phase II.[Apparently done, yet...]
[For more radicalized research yet more conservative as in fiscally responsible consider what is already "out there" (I do not recommend you trust, but verify? YES!)

* Patronizing Attitudes may be the cause of radicalization and terrorism as spelled out in current research. Not to mention the problem of defining ideology and intelligence: having more of it, does not mean you have enough to handle it. The process is important and it must be considered what is being done to complicate the process by those who have no faith in the process, yet want to add to it.

Bonus hit: trust but verify

It may also be worthy to study the words of Thomas Jefferson under subheadings, When Revolution is the Only Answer, Consequences of Revolution, and Prospects for Reformation, and just before these The Need for Leadership:

"The moderation and virtue of a single character [i.e., George Washington] have probably prevented [the American] Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. ME 4:218, Papers 7:106

Speaking of "nuance" meaning nothing in this post should suggest violence is the answer, nonetheless I was surprised to find this, thinking I was reaching for something more "out there": from Goldwater

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Bottom line is the people, bottom line is your job. The political spectrum is not linear but needs ones own perspective and the realization that the answer is not limited to that linear spectrum either. This should be realized by the three branches of government and the light that intelligence should shine on the process as well as the "hard work" of all people.

FURTHER: Nothing is more important than the focus on activities not words, except for the law, as proper protest must have a line to cross and confidence that there is a line to stand on and the same one to cross to suffer the consequences. And that line must be applied up and down the process and its people. And a quick search of "laws, not people" found the fog of our ways, another act that needs following up to be certain congress has done the "hard work" spelled out in their job description .

[Long Story Short: Update from Slate found after my Pre-Empting Crimes.]

Yesterday was a nice round number: 02-04-08

Today is the day for the tide to turn.
For Change!
The day before was a Super Bowl,
today is a Super Tuesday!
The Giants beat the Patriots. Hmmm.
Post Prophetic? Or just luck?
It was "hard work", but they play by rules,
a season ends and another begins.

But today we can take this ground swell for change,
for the underdog, and for hard work
and work the force for change.
Freedom is not a force.
History does not blaze a trail.
People and leaders do,
by passing laws and making sure they are followed.
I knew I was going somewhere, I hope you can see now.

Let impeachment process begin
RICHARD W. BEHAN GUEST COLUMNIST
Seattle PI

The above link supports much of what I have noted in this blog in the last 7 years, and a few I missed. It follows a pattern of preemption that if leaked, actually caused a preemption cycle of its own. An important question is, how long has this been the policy of this ship of state, and how long has it been leaking. These are not mountains out of mole hills, but trickle down by passing the buck. Investigations must begin, while shoring up the process of accountability. It is not too early to begin the work of transition. But never too late to join a tide of change. And if this metophor seems to imply a washing away, or just another cycle... true. Things will wash a away, but people will still be the point, not the boats and the driftwood.

See link below, in particular.

The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government.

Cheney's place as "Angler" has now been disclosed in a four-part series in the Washington Post, where "understanding" is the key word.
[note that there is a lot of hard work here, by others *]

What does the Vice-President's claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch do to earlier claims of executive privilege? I think it would fall under Unitary theory that Cheney and Bush have whatever powers Cheney has decided for them and Bush understands only that, not that it puts Cheney in charge of the whole ball of wax.

A few earlier post of mine on the loop as long as we are into geometry.
The Truth Apparent: A Mobius Lap
Running with Rhetoric
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality
Original Intent

Sorry for my own little four-part review(much shorter than the WaPo though, of which only three are out yet, and I've only read a few paragraphs), but as opposed to the "Angler" who approaches "the levers of power obliquely, skirting orderly lines of debate he once enforced as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford.", I must brink up my ealier tangents that have already visited the subjects but only touch a point on a curve.


From Randi's cite:*
House Democrats to cut funds for VP from Executive Branch. Raw Story
Senate challenge understanding as well. NY Times
Bush thinking (see above) "the law"
Press conference on "non issue" of oversight
On wire-taps by Judge
CIA of the going back to Nixon Era released.
Condemned or chosen to repeat.
GITMO A & B
HALLIBURTON A & B
Prosecutor Purge
Vote Caging: speaking of returns and locked up.

And off of AM1090 Seattle cite:
Democracy Now has Rocky Anderson as guest on the impeachment process.

Thanks to Randi Rhodes for the real "hard work", which I have not done yet by reading these, but getting them together is a start, and for you to continue the "hard work" as well. Of which, the first post indicates that Bush does not read much of what he signs from Cheney.

* This stems from a few days ago when this broke(the first link) and I was probably listening to Randi Rhodes and I thought, that if there is an EO (executive order)that Bush has signed and given their pattern of behavior, it does probably not apply to the President or whomever he choose not to appy it to, and probably didn't need to include a signing statement on his own EO as his privileges include that only he knows what he means. If that. And that is another imagined out or bunker of their mind. (I believe David Bender or Ring of Fire or a guest deserves note for the last reference.)

Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 3rd.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

Wilbur Mann (EJ Dec. 3rd) in his letter to the editor, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Beyond the system Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology. These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner take all nature, allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in it's last two cycles, Mann typically chose to focus on a point so poorly supported it actually supported the piece by Kaul. Mann concludes, "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Sorting the contradictions contained in these sentences seems needless, since whether we eliminate the electors themselves or keep the process, Mann prefers a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida voters, Florida legislature, Florida judiciary, and Florida electors).

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas. It seems to me there are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

UPDATE ONLY?

Barack Obama gave the following speech
on March 18th, 2008
which has come to be know as:
"a more perfect union"? **
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U P D A T E . B E L O W (SEE BREAK)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A great speech which I challenge anyone with a heart to listen to.
And for those who prefer to read
the text: in his own words.
or my peremptory comments here.
Obama is right, now what will others write? Never mind.
[Obama Explains Wright, Will McCain Explain the Far Right? 3-18-08]

As far as The Day After... and speechless:
Five years ago that day the war began.
Honor the dead and fighting, by hard work.
But belated? another speech.
[The Day After...3-19-08]

[BTW: articulated throwing under the bus? No Joke: 11-8-02 not update but a back draft, whiffed at by Ed Schultz today. My further update in the next hour as far as going far enough: a caller wanted to move on from race because of her fears of the dialogue* and its circular nature, but that is why Obama should be heard over and over in order to get through to the herd that are only sheep. Thanks to Cheryl and the process.]

* she is right about the media that feeds the dialogue and the sheep, but the only food is the proper light to face it head on. A ram charger, not to dodge or forget the ewe.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
H A P P Y WholeEday: [3-26-08]
I will be on sabbatical and hope to limit my postings to here.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[UPDATE 3-22-08: Media Moment: Billed...]

** UPDATE 3-24-08: Having updated this intro to the speech,(another link) I will encourage that it be read and reread or reviewed. And further that its title as it will come to be know by, will direct people in just that review of our history.
McSane Speech (Marjorie Cohn) or McSame BuSh (only worse)
The New Wave (see Wave LABEL)
The Ed Schultz Show and thanks to caller Jeff
for an inspiring speech in defense of pews on Where America comes to talk.
A Tribute to McCain: So Plain - - In Spain,
Raining McCain - - A Good Sense of Trickle Down.(And math and English "24/7" in particular 3-4-08?)
McCain gives response "to that heart felt statement"
of his and mine and the old GOP.
And tort reform from Hillary? Not exactly.
QCON: Working group a good idea,
but link of war to economy is key. Reform of system that puts investor profits and executive bailouts over failure of so-called free markets, may be a pincer attack that Obama and Clinton can perform on the trickle-down. Meanwhile as far as pressure to get out of Iraq, remembering who the commander-in-chief is, not that he should get his way, but his way of getting out may be hampered by who he and his crowd are. They could leave a disaster as bad as they believe it will be, because they can or rather because they are unwilling to do what might work. Putting the war on the books is a start. (Thanks to Rachell Maddow and David Bender for this QCON linking in my mind, and Fox for Hillary and The New York Times for Krugman)

[3-25-08: Till further notice all links will be completely read prior to inclusion unless noted. The previous two have now been read, and the linkage made seems supported. As to earlier links, I may be cherry picking, but I don't rip off the branch or chop down the tree, or push the pits.
(Seemingly apropos to the following already posted and read.) ]
[ Bush "comma" 4000, "Say Goodnight, Gracie" "Sadly.."
(hint: scroll over links, read "4000," first) ]
[ McCain: "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says.
I've seen the facts on the ground," (Period)?
And a look back: links not necessarily read - (nnr) . ]
(Note: new notation during this segue/sabbatical,
except for retroactive exception of Gracie link )
[Note: error found in post, 6-29-06 - link (nnr). ]

[3-26-08: Only link inserted above referencing Easter ]
[ Responsible Plan presented by Darcy Burner to Take Back America Conference ][also noted at Politickerwa.com ]
[ Five years is long enough: A week and The Day After....]

[3-27-08: Supreme Court Rules Bush Exceeded His Powers]
An odd light on the roots of law which
which need to feed the branches of Government.]

[3-28-08: Federal Judge: Michigan's Presidential Primary Law Unconstitutional -
NPR News: National Pentagon Radio? -
Lhasa Monks Accuse Beijing of Lying Over Unrest -
Process, Process, Process. ??? ]
[Political Intelligence Disclosure Act to open insider market influence? and other
Updates in a look back ]

Hope Floats.

There may be some hope, on the water. President Bush has awoken to his responsibilities:
"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

But it is already taking on water:
As for blunders in the federal response, "I'm not going to defend the process going in," Bush said. "I am going to defend the people saving lives."

I wonder if he will be attacking the process "going in" then. As far as the "people saving lives", are they really federal anyway and who is really attacking them?

Regardless, it is like thanking people for their "hard work" after you have made their work harder.

Not defending the process is just short of blaming it anyway, and not blaming the people that were not there still needs looking at. It seems like there is no shortage of fingers to go around.

Ideology and Process

[Printed in the Eastside Journal 12-16-02] Edited version of 12-6 post: IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
POLITICS
Voters too impatient

A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.

These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.

There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

Roger Larson

Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]

DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)

Thomas Barnett [***] YouTube presentation
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

A friend sent me this, very optimistic, and saw it as so non-political. Fine. How does this come about? How do we create a "New Leviathan" albeit, calling it "New Everything Else"? This is fine as long as we realize it is political or it is the same old thing, otherwise know as the battle between realism and idealism.

Transparency and secrecy do have their distinct applications,(especially in war and diplomacy) but accountability and rules are in the getting there. (Power is not good or evil only results are and even they are seen from more than one perspective.)

A-to-Z rules focused on dealing with everything? How does one get them? Of course that is not the idea. Excusing based on result, is that the excuse? Hmmm. He has some good metaphors. Networking force? Where does it start? Where does it end? Security? Funny?

I think that he has some good points, but it all could be hinged on a point the world would love to get to, and they would all love to be there, to be the decider. I do not minimize the need for something, and he points to many good ideas to separate expertise and responsibilities, but I would emphasize that there is much more to talk about that may need the same (or better) analysis. There is a "heckuva" lot of work getting the world to see that there is somehow going to be a "new world order", no matter who brings it about and what it is brought about for. And there is no denying the current balance of powers and just wishing or demanding or excusing them away.

This is a good approach for the military, the rest may be everything else. Including looking at how we came to learn this lesson and whether it was already plain to too few.

Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **

[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.

[***] earlier link to Barnett

PC / Hypocrisy Round Table

My main PC is down, but Politically Correct is the term I mean. Spending the last several days on a trip to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park there is a lot that has piled up or slipped off the table.* Edwards. Greens. Economics. Gregoire. FBI investigation

It is a shame that Edwards has been potentially removed from further service to the country while greater problems hamper so few Republicans. I don't doubt he will continue to work hard. As for the next four links the thread is economics which needs further hard work.

Not to mention Georgia.
e.g.? Hypocrisy runs round it.
Who is Bush to tell Russia what to expect now? I won't touch that for now.

e.g. (note the other link's letters.) Except for F for potential follow up of failures. Don't forget the AAA link above.

Economics seems to trump all sense sometimes.
By George or Georgia, I believe I did it. (see trumps)

But these links do take a careful read to catch the nuance of my thread. And money not being the only factor or party to our equations, I urge participation in the process, and if you can't pick one of the two major parties, make sure that your vote counts, and know that it will, even if you waste it. Of course that is another story and ironically links to how the buck is passed.

* now I have piled on more than enough and hope to follow-up with other matters, speaking of PC; my computer and Politically Correct. The latter always requires context and is not always a con text, let alone a pre-text. And given the runaround that words can provide it may be sensible that there is no use for protext.(without a capital P)

True Ledership

No, that is not Leadership, it is the pinnacle of the process.

[9-29-11 Under review re: lede*** (does not require a follow-up as the link morphed) But I am trying to find the lost link This one.]

A lede*** requires a follow-up. Like the constitution has its first three articles or branches of the government, the tetrahedron has its base as a triangle and another dimension, and what is the point? That is political. There are the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary braches. But what is the point? Or rather the base*?

We the people...

of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

* Oh the humanity
[Another problem? Or anti-pragmatics? The narrative will evolve and involve: Highways or the Low(or No) way. Not to hop the Scotch or translations but...Lock Low Mond?]
["In a perfect world the president ought to wish"...[*]NOT! link(for quote) to be** provided later The Place for Politics.]

** Note: not that I have viewed all the links, but many provide the contrast between progress and anything butT-headism.
[Speaking of Process under-LedeRship.]

*** ledership is not always easy to link: Gunn takes Shot at Alley's Weight.

[Speaking Bane Or Analogies: if spending is the coke, then the debt that Reagan and Bush racked up are illegal debts that need not be paid. Explain that to the defense, healthecare and financial industries(the wealthy) that they need not be paid. In fact, that may actually help regarding the ledership and 2012, if the people realize who the dealers of debt are.]

Delta Dawn


Whose your Daddy?

Rolling Stone. The T[?] (Or the t[!])

[Sum of the some game: War is hard work and progress even more tricky, but a few want(scratch that need) a quick fix.]

[*] [9-21-11 Update: It is regretable that I cannot find the MSNBC segment for the quote above, but as for follow up, pandemonium may be embedded somewhere(not).]

Fearnauts

There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.

So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.

Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.

Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.

Dedicated to the Praxis Peace Institute

This poem was crafted just before the tragedy at Virginia Tech (The victims to which I also dedicate this)but it did not feel right to submit at the time, with the seeming implication of the first line, however there is no good and evil, but man's nature. (This is culturally precise(CP) given the view of women's nature)

I also dedicate this to the Great White line-up at the Republican debate last night. Not that there is anything wrong with power, but force is not the only power. If any of them are even half the Roosevelt who launched the Great White Fleet, they are the half that carried the "big stick" and only half understand the other Roosevelt and "the only thing we have to fear". They are no Roosevelt, not even half of either.

[5-10-07 reference back to link Council of Nice and a new link on Kant(as in The Liaison Report Between Common Sense and Kant
but reading it is hard work, so I will add- - what is wrong with faith
in reason and criticism and a process for progress ?]

Index 9-21-11 (B)

Note Anachronism:
(B-time=8:07)for flip flop of vision thing,
or perspective on index and archive sequence.
Link below indicates mo'real time.

The Team? or[!] [DBA]
Randi Rhodes
Lawrence[*] O'Donnell
Stephanie Miller
Thom Hartmann
Ed Schultz[Update 9-23-11]
Norman Gold-Man
Thom Hartmann

The Music?
ACTUALLY THE G'Ribble?(a test of search/index slash references)***
G'Ribble
Back to The "One Thing".
Place Holder?
Who needs Brackets?
The Honeymoon is Over?
What's so funny...
The Straw Bear
"Trust but Verify"
QCON:Truthout
Proof of Process
MOORE TRUTH IN MEDIA
The G'Ribble?
Actually I end in pun(Or rather Satire), but this was a text* of sorts(literally), of "G'Ribble" in the (Blogspot)Search Box in the upper left corner of this blog.

It was a test in two ways. To see if there is any reliability of the search engine over time. Of course editing would influence that accuracy. But also to see if there was any mess age above and beyond the search, in the calm pend I um**.

*(sp!) typo/ra test [?]ra=read as[!]
** see test/text/time/tangent not to mention T(t)ruth.
*** Grand Ribble: Whereas D'Ribble might be obvious, it is not so simple. It might be a de-ribble or an un-ribble, or a Democratic Ribble, which seems like hard work, now that I think about it, but never(that I can tell) just trickle-down.

[*]bingo "that's not smart, it's not right"

MAY 2013 FOOTNOTE PAGE ONE

5-1-13 Happy May Day!: Bad Footnote Day. If you can scroll over while reading you MIGHT have a better shot at my gist [!] [Poetic Justice, Justice? (s.c. ), Technical Difficulties!, Pass the Trillion.]  [FP2]
Note: (s.c.) = scroll click flip-flop resulting from blog search algorithm(May B?)
Brook No Truck ?[!] : I think I have been clear enough but here are blog searched(b.s.) references under 'twain.[(A, B, c, d, E, f, G, H, I, J, K, L, M(m), N(n), O(o), P(p), Q (q).]

5-6-13: Having read the Non-Sense links, there seems intentional wiggle room. Ctrl F "telegraph+blows":  Rebublican Obstruction? / GOLEFT TV (sc), Rope a dope. (sc), BIG TENT v. MESS TENT, FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK.

5-7-13: (b.s.) Fear and Running, Out Foxed?, Who Are They Calling Elitist?, Is Tea Party Beck?
[(b.s.)  THE COUNCIL OF NICE(s.c.), DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)(s.c.), (c), Fearnauts(s.c.), The Mess Age is the Message!(s.c.).] [[(b.s. ) USE THE PROCESS OR LOSE IT*.( s.c. ), Try Lemmings , Kidding Goats ?]] *

5-8-13: David Sirota's piece is the focus of the caution or heading.

5-10-13 (Spoiler alert under Penzance here.). Spinning off on the ad-HOC Chair.  The Issa's committee hearings seem purely partisan politics and a mockery of checks and balances and any comparison to Watergate, except from a parodical hysterical perspective: the modern inquisitional.   [Not to Al Gore Rythm.]

5-15-13: Not too Mitt Flop [!].  Journalists fume over DOJ raid on AP, Stewart Slams Obama Again: You Can’t Keep Saying You Found Out About News At The Same Time As Us!,  Connecting the Cheese Heads. Hint: hyperlinks Too Fudgin' Ridiculous & (s.c.)(b.s.)

5-17-13: another a maizing field trip ?!

5-29-13: move from to read ( ?/10 [!]) [11?]

5-30-13:  (hard work)= Ambivalence on Syria? ,  (without going)= Transparent Reactionaries ,  (heading or mangling )  "Hotheads" and Frank on Banks :  Par don e moi ?

Seattle Viaduct Ballot: 4 results? Way to go!

Ironically not just a ploy for local content, I was reading up on the Viaduct plan even though I am an eastside resident and noted the phrase You win some, you lose some there are now more ways to go. [TOWN HALL VIADUCT FORUM 7PM THURSDAY]

The important thing is that Republicans can never say Democrats don't have any plans. We may have too many, and that is just where it starts. There are needless to say Democrats as the state, county and local levels and then there are the interests of the people as they see them whether they live in the city or even travel there, or not. The mixed message or results are explained by one word: Democracy. While it ain't pretty, it is better than most alternatives, which are usually some version of tyranny or anarchy, either of individuals or groups, combined with a lack of respect for any structure or rule of law or process.

It is only natural that with two options on the ballot, there could still be a problem if neither win, both win or they split the ticket and not the fare. There are valuable opinions at every level and the people are a part in sorting things out. Politics and economics are likely to still be on the table where there can still be trouble or more hard work which Democrats will be glad to do while Republicans will likely reap the fallout for their political and economic coffers.

PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES

TO THE RIGHT?
MY LIST OF LINKS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED.

PRESIDENTIAL PROFILES - LINK
HAS BEEN ADDED
AND
LOCAL POLITICS

AND

LOCAL MEDIA
ARE NEW TITLES.

[* 3:12 PM UPDATE: What I believe: Obama
and the Republicans need a Link like Presidential Profiles: HERE IS MSNBC'S THE CONTENDERS
But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the parties actually get things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner take all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]

The Point Blank Dance

To Bush: Take it or leave it.

'nuff said?

Since the president bashes politics while playing it to the hilt, the above position must be considered. But one final olive branch, and the tree has it's own history which may be nil, or out-Right dead on the war front.

Negotiations over the final bill are in the hands of the appropriations committee, to smooth out the differences with the house version. If and when Bush vetos it, the matter could be dead. Congress could leave it there. The president will then be playing politics and sacrificing the troops if not washing his hands of his responsibilities, if he ever had them in his hands.

There are many fronts where "hard work" is needed. If the Emergency Supplimental gets nowhere, the next step could be completely on another front. Not to mention more politics, which is the biggest front on which he must be faced or the whole process is an affront.

One suggestion may be to see if we would still cobble together the votes needed, by quickly separating the issues. Emergency Supplemental: Iraq / Domestic
Then leave a potential veto at the feet of the Republicans.

Unity 08 / Bloomberg

NOT!

But not necessarily a NEW third party or Unity '08. Even though it depends on how the party actually gets things done, it could be just another "Third Way" which is just the middle of what we got and will get more of the same. The winner-take-all construction of the whole process mitigates against a third party, except as a broker or a spoiler. Forces of good, rather than unity, should pick a side and influence it, but even that has pragmatic problems in that the good is divided. On the other hand: upon further "hard work" they may be able to be just that broker. So rather than the spread of Second Lives, maybe a Fourth Way, is upon us, but it will depend upon the actions/reactions of candidates as well.]

[The above is an edited version from my earlier post and I will add that the action/reactions of the candidates is a reference to not just the major party candidates, but those that choose to wander.

Of course Bloomberg was the topic of the last post. Here are a few random notes. Unity 08 has an opinion on the New York Mayor's run from the Republican party.

Local: Progressive blogging at Horsesass.org gives a perspective on Washington State issues.

National: Huffingtonpost.com must also be noted. And some media studies matter at Mediamatters.org

Hit and Run or Quick Comment on the news.
Tag! You're it.

BU--SH-- v. Legalese

The previous post needs more filtering or at least a few more words. It may be just ironic that the links contained too many words and you had to do the “hard work” that the Center for American Progress did in their filtering of the following words.

Scott McClellan, 3/21/05:
"The legislation he [Bush] signed is consistent with his views.... The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."

Texas Law, Section 166.046, Subsection (e):
“If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment.... The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day.”

Having yet to fully read both of the previous links, it would be like sorting out Bu--Sh-- and Legalese.

Great Segue!

After Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention,
my first comments are:
So far, so good!
"No way! No how! No McCain!" Now that is a flip-flop.

Seriously...
From "Faint Praise/Criticism" to Progressive Narratives.
Not to mention pragmatism...

but I would like to note belated congratulations
to Rachel Maddow (nfry*) on getting her new show on MSNBC. Rachel refers to herself as a liberal not a partisan. Righteously so.[*] It is really hard to criticize Rachel, but she is the perfect flip-flop of Pat Buchanan. He is sometimes valid in his criticism of Republicans and praise or suggestions for Democrats, only the better to eat you my dear. Said the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. While Rachel may be the same for Democrats, only the better for the country.** (Embedded in these asterisks are references to their work. Earlier encounters with Howard Kurtz, long time agitation by Pat Buchanan and recent enthusiasm tempered with caution for Rachel. Let me just say that her liberal enthusiasm and hopes may be cast as negative shadows on the pragmatism needed for progress.*** But criticism of Democrats and our process, taken in the right light, can be good for all.)

*The segue is filled with the likes of Howard Kurtz, and Patrick Buchanan.
** not a perfect flip-flop, the Democrats not the country.
*** it might have helped, yet it might not have, to remember the particular comment that I had a problem with, but it was only a comment on the progress of the convention or one of the speakers that caused me to wonder about her perspective as she makes progress. Had it changed or is it what got her where she is?

[A regressive update, meaning only a thought that I had when Biden was announced: That he should well vet humor and plagiarism. Now that is a well contained line. Of attack, for us, and by us, not necessarily of us. And depending upon McCain's VP a wonder of the Republican vetting process.]
[John McCain: An Experience We Don't Need! Thanks to Thom Hartmann.]{Not to mention: Breaking the Yalta Conspiracy}

[* 9-3-08 Update link]