"Fair and Balanced" does not mean having an opinion and getting a reaction, and possibly having an answer. There is the second opinion and possibly a third, that is just the start of getting somewhere which is a fourth perspective. That place is where we are going, and where we are coming from encompasses how to get there. These are the minimum vectors which are not just quadrants, for any geometry of meaning also entails a geometry of purpose, which again must be approached from at least these points. The purpose for some may be the action, for others simply the reaction.
The possible purpose at this point is that having a plan that is bad, but does not require forming another to stop it. It also points to the problem of the first plan, being simply an action or a reaction, but more honestly a pre-action that had it‘s own points that need checking. The charge that there is no plan to replace the bad plan, does not mean that the latter must move forward or will ever move us forward. That is the loop that simple action, reaction or even pre-action will not solve, without work on more points and plans and even the end point.
Just in case anyone wonders, a good starting point, has been the constitution. The three branches form an equilateral triangle, the point being the law. The press being the light needed to see their actions and all points between. Some would say, "the truth will set us free", others just "shut out the light". The purpose is freedom and the powers need balancing or the point will be what we get.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query purpose. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query purpose. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Bully...
Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The Good Fight!
Thom Hartmann continues on the economy . Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter has evolved to the point of doing no good. Man and his government, that is, in neo-con hands or that of the truly free and amoral corporation. Evolution seems to have been demonstrated here, as well as the problem of will. For if man* determines his purpose he halts progress, for the survival of the fittest stops working as well, and corporations reach the top of the food chain. Will being, the freedom to choose between good and evil, with corporations having no responsibility.
*Not to be sexist, but just the reference is to the reality. Also the point here is that some men decide and others just need to survive, and let alone their freedom to decide.
[italics bold 6-1-07 edited and noted in next post]
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
*Not to be sexist, but just the reference is to the reality. Also the point here is that some men decide and others just need to survive, and let alone their freedom to decide.
[italics bold 6-1-07 edited and noted in next post]
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tolerance at the table?
People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...
[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]
[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]
[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...
[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]
[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]
[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]
Friday, June 01, 2007
Science Fiction Writers
Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.
But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".
Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.
If you don't go there here is the segment.
Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.
[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]
[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:
... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]
But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".
Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.
Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".
OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.
If you don't go there here is the segment.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.
[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]
[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:
One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:
More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.
... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Day the Tide Turned?
Not today but back when the U.S. Attorney scandal broke.
At least one departure has been due to the Democratic control of congress.
And this fits the pattern just dug up.
Not to mention the flip-flop of the bottom line.
Or the damage to the pinnacle of our purpose.
JUSTICE * The Rovian Touch
thanks to Center for American Progress
[* UPDATE OF SORT:
The bottom line? The people! The pinnacle? Justice!
My point? The Rovian Touch
IS THE LINK TO READ.
The flip-flop of principles, the basis of our constitution,
the three branches of government, its purpose?
A framework of justice for the people.]
[For My Touch.(short version)
and Smoking Gun.(long version)]
At least one departure has been due to the Democratic control of congress.
And this fits the pattern just dug up.
Not to mention the flip-flop of the bottom line.
Or the damage to the pinnacle of our purpose.
JUSTICE * The Rovian Touch
thanks to Center for American Progress
[* UPDATE OF SORT:
The bottom line? The people! The pinnacle? Justice!
My point? The Rovian Touch
IS THE LINK TO READ.
The flip-flop of principles, the basis of our constitution,
the three branches of government, its purpose?
A framework of justice for the people.]
[For My Touch.(short version)
and Smoking Gun.(long version)]
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Political Strings Pulled
Bush upcoming big speech.
McCain wants debate delay.
Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.
If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.
On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?
Maybe we are finally there.
White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.
Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."
How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.
Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.
McCain wants debate delay.
Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.
If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.
On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?
Maybe we are finally there.
White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.
Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."
How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.
Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Un-Exceptionalism
Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?
Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.
This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]
No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?
The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.
My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.
In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.
BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]
[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]
Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.
This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]
No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?
The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.
My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.
In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.
BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]
[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Report from Sabbatical
Not going so well...* [..but not a bad two weeks or so]
Posts in order:[Under Construction]
2-2-11 Black History Month
2-2-11 Sabbatical:
2-2-11 An Achronistic Post
2-3-11 ibid. No Comment
My Comment
Anachronism
[Above and below under review]
2-6-11 SUPER BOWL POST
2-7-11 Clash of the Titans...
Obtuse Comment
Yikes! 3.0
Beyond Yikes!
Random Points
[Under Heading or Morphology]
Speaking of Breaks.I didn't hold my breath, but now it is official. Now could it be possible that Current TV could buy AOL? I am not serious there, as I don't know about the ownership, or their relative "larger purpose(s)". And I wonder where George Soros fits in? This is just speculation kabal here.(pun on cable only). More (or less) specs?
[*..but not a bad two weeks or so]
Posts in order:[Under Construction]
2-2-11 Black History Month
2-2-11 Sabbatical:
2-2-11 An Achronistic Post
2-3-11 ibid. No Comment
My Comment
Anachronism
[Above and below under review]
2-6-11 SUPER BOWL POST
2-7-11 Clash of the Titans...
Obtuse Comment
Yikes! 3.0
Beyond Yikes!
Random Points
[Under Heading or Morphology]
Speaking of Breaks.I didn't hold my breath, but now it is official. Now could it be possible that Current TV could buy AOL? I am not serious there, as I don't know about the ownership, or their relative "larger purpose(s)". And I wonder where George Soros fits in? This is just speculation kabal here.(pun on cable only). More (or less) specs?
[*..but not a bad two weeks or so]
Monday, January 29, 2007
MAD: formerly know as...
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION
now as MAINLY ACCEPTED DECEPTION:
[this material was sent out 1-19-07: link at bottom found today]
There are too many potential links to alert you to, but the above should hit the mark. The point is do we intend to move forward or are we going back? Nuclear Proliferation seems the height of counter productivity in the so called new world since 9-11. It is not just MAD but INSANE and that stands for nothing, but where we are headed. That may be the real point of their madness. Hit and Run, somebody wins but what?
But I high-lite more of my own links and my own model, which is not just the fanciful reconstruction of ancient thinkers but what has always been the project for debate and what power too naturally denies.
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2007/01/just-thought_17.html
"Just a thought" can be punctuated several ways, but "Just" is more, than just assuming that things are "old" or "new". Just is the purpose of our constitution, the only thing the president is sworn to defend. "Just" is the project our founding fathers settled on in it's words and even the preamble gets lost in the difference between needs and wants.
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2007/01/running-list-and-reference-links.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2007/01/hit-and-run-gang.html
These links bookend the long and short of it, and hopefully will be of help, but the point I will end on is how can we expect that a "War on Terrorism" will be at all successful if offense is not just the last resort, but their only plan to end it, while avoiding the law is their first and last concern?
now as MAINLY ACCEPTED DECEPTION:
[this material was sent out 1-19-07: link at bottom found today]
There are too many potential links to alert you to, but the above should hit the mark. The point is do we intend to move forward or are we going back? Nuclear Proliferation seems the height of counter productivity in the so called new world since 9-11. It is not just MAD but INSANE and that stands for nothing, but where we are headed. That may be the real point of their madness. Hit and Run, somebody wins but what?
But I high-lite more of my own links and my own model, which is not just the fanciful reconstruction of ancient thinkers but what has always been the project for debate and what power too naturally denies.
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2007/01/just-thought_17.html
"Just a thought" can be punctuated several ways, but "Just" is more, than just assuming that things are "old" or "new". Just is the purpose of our constitution, the only thing the president is sworn to defend. "Just" is the project our founding fathers settled on in it's words and even the preamble gets lost in the difference between needs and wants.
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2007/01/running-list-and-reference-links.html
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2007/01/hit-and-run-gang.html
These links bookend the long and short of it, and hopefully will be of help, but the point I will end on is how can we expect that a "War on Terrorism" will be at all successful if offense is not just the last resort, but their only plan to end it, while avoiding the law is their first and last concern?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
...promote the general...
Welfare(the 29th word in the Constitution).
Pre-Obama^, starker contrast.
And this is^^^ pre-Romney's Rough Road on MSNBC.
Jobs First? But not foremost. Running from politics.
His best defense is his cuff and hope he is phoney and fisher of men.
(I won't go there.) But the map is looking familiar.
Fixing News(pun on breaking news): Carney(Obama "we are in this together").
Ari Melber is almost there where I haven't gotten yet. That is, what is actually taken from the paychecks of the middle class. Payroll tax. NOW Alex Wagner is almost there. Not only do the top 4%* get the same tax deductions and breaks as the bottom brackets(a. how many %) they get a break from the payroll tax from a second and third point. (b. over $97,500 c. capital gains )
[Now please take no offense at the significance of any Cretans.]
* 96% should be the Obama "entitle" R's [!]**
NOTE: Charts are being filled out here. See PAGES (right column)
NOTE: Charts of Sorts.( Tetra Heed Rons, and Wedges & Corny Copy Yeah)
** rough math but look at the right side of the second chart and see on the left that $250,000 -- and now John Sununu is doing the W'rithatic on Andrea Mitchell, but it goes to the arithmatic that is wrong -- it should be clear that the middle class is well below what Romney thinks it is and the President is for the bottom 96% well more than the 47% Romney thinks supports Obama.
^ missing link as to how I stumbled on this one (but there is a mixing of metaphors for horses and Teddy(Obama^^) Bulls.
^^
^^^ inserted post charts et al
[Last Word ? Yeah right ! Or Left ! Re: Cycle ? R ! Not !]
[Brilliance of Democracy.]
[Strategic Pause: News Nation: No, Time is not a-side ! ]
[What the heck is the point? It is the process and the purpose.]
Pre-Obama^, starker contrast.
And this is^^^ pre-Romney's Rough Road on MSNBC.
Jobs First? But not foremost. Running from politics.
His best defense is his cuff and hope he is phoney and fisher of men.
(I won't go there.) But the map is looking familiar.
Fixing News(pun on breaking news): Carney(Obama "we are in this together").
Ari Melber is almost there where I haven't gotten yet. That is, what is actually taken from the paychecks of the middle class. Payroll tax. NOW Alex Wagner is almost there. Not only do the top 4%* get the same tax deductions and breaks as the bottom brackets(a. how many %) they get a break from the payroll tax from a second and third point. (b. over $97,500 c. capital gains )
[Now please take no offense at the significance of any Cretans.]
* 96% should be the Obama "entitle" R's [!]**
NOTE: Charts are being filled out here. See PAGES (right column)
NOTE: Charts of Sorts.( Tetra Heed Rons, and Wedges & Corny Copy Yeah)
** rough math but look at the right side of the second chart and see on the left that $250,000 -- and now John Sununu is doing the W'rithatic on Andrea Mitchell, but it goes to the arithmatic that is wrong -- it should be clear that the middle class is well below what Romney thinks it is and the President is for the bottom 96% well more than the 47% Romney thinks supports Obama.
^ missing link as to how I stumbled on this one (but there is a mixing of metaphors for horses and Teddy(Obama^^) Bulls.
^^
^^^ inserted post charts et al
[Last Word ? Yeah right ! Or Left ! Re: Cycle ? R ! Not !]
[Brilliance of Democracy.]
[Strategic Pause: News Nation: No, Time is not a-side ! ]
[What the heck is the point? It is the process and the purpose.]
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Ghost Busters
Every thing is PC. (Politically Conceptual)
Politics is the 4th* dimention(sic) of nature.(FP1)
* FB posting 2-25 / recreating here 2-26-14
F'n anachronism: i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy
O W.
Politics is the 4th* dimention(sic) of nature.(FP1)
* FB posting 2-25 / recreating here 2-26-14
F'n anachronism: i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy
O W.
[anachronistic construction of this post, the indicated youtube(*) was not fully viewed at insert]
Tan gents ? STOP! These inserts are like judging a blog by my model. I have only viewed one of them. Or in computer lingo GOTO line one. Here I will jump to a missing link, not to practice*** quantum effects***. Dimensions are not dimentions without a perspective. (Un-M-String from Slice of Pi^)**
** hit pause @ 0:13(4M theory?)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Clause Wits
...war is politics by other means
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?
*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense
[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]
*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?
*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense
[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]
*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:
Clausewitz’s trinity comprises three specific elements. The identity of those elements is readily evident to anyone who actually reads the first paragraph of his description: It is "composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason...." (emphasis added). This set of elements is usually labeled "emotion/chance/reason"; sometimes "violence/chance & probability/rational calculation"; or, even more abstractly, "irrationality/nonrationality/rationality."It would seem that this creates our reality as opposed to an original intent begetting results, let alone values. Oh, but I guess it does. But some just have a different ge oh me try.
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]
Monday, June 09, 2008
Parsed (& Partied) Political Process
Debate!
(the rest I needed)
OK, I have some catching up to do,
but will probably not.
(rocking the boat ain't bad,
but not Gilligan's Island)
OK, I was out of touch for the weekend.
As far as the vote and third parties,
I feel that more competition will help the debate.
As long as people realize where their vote will lead.
Triangulation may be the change we can believe in * ,
but not the leader. My hope is that indepedents from the left or the right, (say Nader and Barr) will be included in the debate, where triangulation is a form of navigation based on principles, but also where practicality hits the road. Give the poor track record of the media, and the bifurcation -(Red and Blue America)- of the internet(unfiltered), expanded participation may better focus the dialogue, but don't forget the green.
[Nader, Barr, and Green?]
[I leave you and Green to search and speak for your selves.]
[*: under Geometry of Purpose: related efforts, links no longer appear, but my point was by contrast to Bill O'Reilly, and definitely not to agree with the parable nor what is still found at American Thinker.]
(the rest I needed)
OK, I have some catching up to do,
but will probably not.
(rocking the boat ain't bad,
but not Gilligan's Island)
OK, I was out of touch for the weekend.
As far as the vote and third parties,
I feel that more competition will help the debate.
As long as people realize where their vote will lead.
Triangulation may be the change we can believe in * ,
but not the leader. My hope is that indepedents from the left or the right, (say Nader and Barr) will be included in the debate, where triangulation is a form of navigation based on principles, but also where practicality hits the road. Give the poor track record of the media, and the bifurcation -(Red and Blue America)- of the internet(unfiltered), expanded participation may better focus the dialogue, but don't forget the green.
[Nader, Barr, and Green?]
[I leave you and Green to search and speak for your selves.]
[*: under Geometry of Purpose: related efforts, links no longer appear, but my point was by contrast to Bill O'Reilly, and definitely not to agree with the parable nor what is still found at American Thinker.]
Friday, June 10, 2011
No Frackin' Way
Nuclear power is one thing*, but Frackin' with our water?
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
Sunday, July 26, 2015
CPA or DBA
The Uber-Kents?
Now this is hyperbolically preemptive or supremely not fully read...but one of them might be...
and I may have already fare[!] and balanced the rhetoric, but in Nietzschean fashion be the Uber-Kent. Or hyper-nuanced mild-mannered American Reporters for the daily schlub.
Now fully read, it was much ado about just that.
[When one presumes, one may pre-S out of U or me.]
( Take Back the American Dream )
(b.s.): Poetic Justice , Geometry of Purpose [~]
[BTW~pre~schlub...]
Now this is hyperbolically preemptive or supremely not fully read...but one of them might be...
and I may have already fare[!] and balanced the rhetoric, but in Nietzschean fashion be the Uber-Kent. Or hyper-nuanced mild-mannered American Reporters for the daily schlub.
Now fully read, it was much ado about just that.
[When one presumes, one may pre-S out of U or me.]
( Take Back the American Dream )
(b.s.): Poetic Justice , Geometry of Purpose [~]
[BTW~pre~schlub...]
Sunday, June 01, 2014
Footnotes Page One JUNE 2014
Note to self: Check Labels.
6-3-14 (c-note above 'n Re: Hegel Popper) and reference Epicyclical Poet Tree , Bury the lede?
Knot to mention 4th die men shun. Perpendicularity, Time and Space? OW: Geometry of Purpose
6-4-14: C-note Re-self. (slide to 6-1) (& rest of FP labels)
Redux: A Long Season of ... , Inconvenient Recall? , Location, location, location. , Reality is the 4D.
Re:b.s.[!] (FP2)
6-3-14 (c-note above 'n Re: Hegel Popper) and reference Epicyclical Poet Tree , Bury the lede?
Knot to mention 4th die men shun. Perpendicularity, Time and Space? OW: Geometry of Purpose
6-4-14: C-note Re-self. (slide to 6-1) (& rest of FP labels)
Redux: A Long Season of ... , Inconvenient Recall? , Location, location, location. , Reality is the 4D.
Re:b.s.[!] (FP2)
Friday, September 17, 2010
Under the Radar
Tangent-Ribble-Insert*
Updates [Under-Construction]**
*(fighting back)in regards to media slant and projections
**Off the Charts Aye of Newt/Stay the Comity
[Just in, NOT* to mention]
* see comments and Roving
[Buried Lede]
[Adjacent comment: The Bailout was Bush's, and all spending/borrowing is not stimulus, some is to recover from deregulation and others to recover the infrasture not invested in, both of which fit into a jobs picture and making up for Reaganomics.]
[Big government is not the problem. Big corporations are not the problem. Special interests are not the problem. Balance with purpose is the project.]
Updates [Under-Construction]**
*(fighting back)in regards to media slant and projections
**Off the Charts Aye of Newt/Stay the Comity
[Just in, NOT* to mention]
* see comments and Roving
[Buried Lede]
[Adjacent comment: The Bailout was Bush's, and all spending/borrowing is not stimulus, some is to recover from deregulation and others to recover the infrasture not invested in, both of which fit into a jobs picture and making up for Reaganomics.]
[Big government is not the problem. Big corporations are not the problem. Special interests are not the problem. Balance with purpose is the project.]
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Arrow of Time
or Symmetry of Inheritance?
Thanks to Keith Olbermann and
FOX News for the
Trifecta of Bad Times.
An end to an error, and the flip-flop of freedom as not a force but a purpose that requires work. There will be no end to humor or force for humility, as it is no longer funny that Comedy Central has more News and more balance. With inspiration I acknowledge the difficulty in laying down the tools of sarcasm and satire, but I will try to remember more than just the hope in this day of transition.
And maybe Biden can even aspire with a nod to Sarah Palin
and even Dick Cheney, to work with congress.
As far as leadership, and OBAMA
the time has come for change.
[Approximate closing of this post: 10:20 BG (before google)]
[update: 10:45 no end to humor or force for humility (links added and seemingly proof of some sense or other)]
[Please note that I DID NOT find it funny that Chief Justice Roberts could not get the oath straight.]
[I originally misreported it as Trifecta of Bad News]
[Update 1-21-09] to be sure see above: There will be no end to humor or force for humility...links to video of original Obama oath and actual oath.
[Update 1-26-09: Colbert catches it.]
Thanks to Keith Olbermann and
FOX News for the
Trifecta of Bad Times.
An end to an error, and the flip-flop of freedom as not a force but a purpose that requires work. There will be no end to humor or force for humility, as it is no longer funny that Comedy Central has more News and more balance. With inspiration I acknowledge the difficulty in laying down the tools of sarcasm and satire, but I will try to remember more than just the hope in this day of transition.
And maybe Biden can even aspire with a nod to Sarah Palin
and even Dick Cheney, to work with congress.
As far as leadership, and OBAMA
the time has come for change.
[Approximate closing of this post: 10:20 BG (before google)]
[update: 10:45 no end to humor or force for humility (links added and seemingly proof of some sense or other)]
[Please note that I DID NOT find it funny that Chief Justice Roberts could not get the oath straight.]
[I originally misreported it as Trifecta of Bad News]
[Update 1-21-09] to be sure see above: There will be no end to humor or force for humility...links to video of original Obama oath and actual oath.
[Update 1-26-09: Colbert catches it.]
Friday, March 20, 2009
Commander-in-Chief Obama
[UPDATE 3-24-09: President Barack Obama on the Federal Budget: Four Principles ]
[Speaking of Battles: The real authoritarian v. populist.
The Battle Over the A.I.G. Bonuses: Class War in the Media ]
I never really did follow up on viewing or reading the bottom link at my Off The Cliff post, but used it as an allegorical leap. But here is a good point someone found regarding the Buffet comment.
From which I snip the point:
My point was the economics of the War on Terror where I said:
* and since what confused me about the Buffet report was his call for clarity, I have edited my grammar for that purpose here.
[Speaking of Battles: The real authoritarian v. populist.
The Battle Over the A.I.G. Bonuses: Class War in the Media ]
I never really did follow up on viewing or reading the bottom link at my Off The Cliff post, but used it as an allegorical leap. But here is a good point someone found regarding the Buffet comment.
From which I snip the point:
"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.Commander-in-Chief? Where have we heard that before?
My point was the economics of the War on Terror where I said:
The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than declare, a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients which do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.Now the bottom line is what is pre-emptive.And should be a uniter not a divider.
* and since what confused me about the Buffet report was his call for clarity, I have edited my grammar for that purpose here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)