The Supreme Court sent back to lower court the request to get documents from the Cheney Energy Panel. [SEE LINK >> QCON-Cheney Energy Panel]
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."
The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."
The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.
[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.
Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.
An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.
Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query quick comment. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query quick comment. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
QCON: Politics?
Yes! QCON: [Quick Comment On the News] or Question Con, or Question Context, Question Content.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Anyway: What a weekend! Oh and Question Connections.
"The politics of death", over the Mid-term elections. I don't recall at the moment who coined the term, but it was over the weekend politicization of Terri Schiavo’s future. I don’t recall where I get a lot that I might give credit for but I feel that I often filter it in some way. But I do not recall hearing the point of all this being obvious. The run up is that it is politics. The cliff hanger is that it is the Supreme Court.
Maybe it was Marc Maron on Morning Sedition this AM on Air America Radio who said that they did not understand why Bush would do something unless there was a chance to get the results he expected. Well the issue is that win or loose they will blame the Democrats. Win or lose they will blame the process and in the end they will probably blame the judges.
The Obvious: They want complete freedom to do what they want in every step of the process, without question, and if it is questioned, and when they question everything, the highest court in the land will be on their side.
Along the way, as soon as there are two people, two principles, two realities, we have politics. Politics is not the problem. But as soon as we have a word, the separation from meaning begins. I leave it hear for now, as it is no longer a quick comment.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Culture War
(Humorous side swipes.)
Bush is a character with probably a spit personality or other problem. But unfortunately the two characters are fictional. Captain Picard and Larry the cable guy. He flip flops from "Make it so" to "Get 'er done".
Of this Neo-Con administration they are certainly no borg.*
Note: Hit and Run (Label) is similar to QCON label meaning Quick Comment On the News.
Comment Two: On potential Newt Gingrich candidacy and comment by Randi Rhodes about him not getting the support of Neo-Cons or the Bush backers... He is the natural heir to the policy of Hit and Run, his comments are carefully crafted to seem to be critical yet stay the course of the War of Terror.
* [5-23-07]Just like Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy... but borg is a Startrek reference to a Being Organized or Best Organization at least in my understanding if not in the creators intentions. Now Q was another being.
Bush is a character with probably a spit personality or other problem. But unfortunately the two characters are fictional. Captain Picard and Larry the cable guy. He flip flops from "Make it so" to "Get 'er done".
Of this Neo-Con administration they are certainly no borg.*
Note: Hit and Run (Label) is similar to QCON label meaning Quick Comment On the News.
Comment Two: On potential Newt Gingrich candidacy and comment by Randi Rhodes about him not getting the support of Neo-Cons or the Bush backers... He is the natural heir to the policy of Hit and Run, his comments are carefully crafted to seem to be critical yet stay the course of the War of Terror.
* [5-23-07]Just like Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy... but borg is a Startrek reference to a Being Organized or Best Organization at least in my understanding if not in the creators intentions. Now Q was another being.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
QCON: Or JUST Quick Rant?
(Quick Comment On News)
Paraphrasing President Bush: the troops deserve unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory.
My comment: These are both fine, but out of order and missing much more. The commitment to the mission should come after a clear strategy which cannot come before the recognition of facts as well as the reality of cause and effect.
Given the emphasis on repeating propaganda and forcing not balancing wills, not to mention the fog of accountability that is the chain of command, we are a far cry from the troops getting the commitment they deserve which should come in more than just words. Words that if you look at them are more about the mission than the troops. And are more about words than actual support for the troops.
It seems a vicious cycle which of course should end, but they in so many of their own words recognize it will not. Noting this, the only answer is for the vicious cycle to return to the "hard work" cycle that others were doing before the vicious cycle thinkers took charge. Given their choice that others will do the hard work, we would think they should agree that others take the cycle back to better support the troops, let alone the people.
[Sorry only link is below]
Paraphrasing President Bush: the troops deserve unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory.
My comment: These are both fine, but out of order and missing much more. The commitment to the mission should come after a clear strategy which cannot come before the recognition of facts as well as the reality of cause and effect.
Given the emphasis on repeating propaganda and forcing not balancing wills, not to mention the fog of accountability that is the chain of command, we are a far cry from the troops getting the commitment they deserve which should come in more than just words. Words that if you look at them are more about the mission than the troops. And are more about words than actual support for the troops.
It seems a vicious cycle which of course should end, but they in so many of their own words recognize it will not. Noting this, the only answer is for the vicious cycle to return to the "hard work" cycle that others were doing before the vicious cycle thinkers took charge. Given their choice that others will do the hard work, we would think they should agree that others take the cycle back to better support the troops, let alone the people.
[Sorry only link is below]
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
QCON: TruthOut
Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.
While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.
For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.
What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.
I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.
In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial
McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]
[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Debate: Take One
Iraq Question
[The Debate]
Rated
Gravel / Kucinich / Richardson
Obama / Dodd / Edwards
Clinton / Biden
These are pretty much the order of my impression on this question as to how they should be listened to on this matter. The three tiers present a bit of a gap on the issue as to their history and their suggestions now.
Other QCON: McCain on Gonzalez And somewhere (WeGotEd) Senator Leahy GO SENATOR! said he is after the puppet master not the puppets, where he places the U.S. Attorney issue above the concern for the disaster which is the Iraq war. That is the proper level of concern.
QCON RETREAD:
GO SENATOR REID: (Follow up comment on Senator Reid on The Ed Schultz Show: On the Supplemental Bill, I would suggest that this was a compromise and that any new bills (DEMO PLAN B) represent more restrictions on the president, but one last compromise that would truly address one of the president's concerns and the only half way legitimate one, is on the domestic "pork". To compromise, simply split the supplemental so that the president may choose to veto them separately.(Military and Domestic) Congress would also have a choice to override them separately or follow up with plan B. That would be the most political thing to do. Politics is not wrong, it is the choice between tyranny and anarchy. It is what happens in a democracy.
My apologies for the loopiness of the last post. It will be the only one that is truly evolving if I return to it. QCON is short for Quick Comment On the News, and/or Questioning the Con. The Retread refers to the GO SENATORS and the WE GOT ED materials and comments.
[The Debate]
Rated
Gravel / Kucinich / Richardson
Obama / Dodd / Edwards
Clinton / Biden
These are pretty much the order of my impression on this question as to how they should be listened to on this matter. The three tiers present a bit of a gap on the issue as to their history and their suggestions now.
Other QCON: McCain on Gonzalez And somewhere (WeGotEd) Senator Leahy GO SENATOR! said he is after the puppet master not the puppets, where he places the U.S. Attorney issue above the concern for the disaster which is the Iraq war. That is the proper level of concern.
QCON RETREAD:
GO SENATOR REID: (Follow up comment on Senator Reid on The Ed Schultz Show: On the Supplemental Bill, I would suggest that this was a compromise and that any new bills (DEMO PLAN B) represent more restrictions on the president, but one last compromise that would truly address one of the president's concerns and the only half way legitimate one, is on the domestic "pork". To compromise, simply split the supplemental so that the president may choose to veto them separately.(Military and Domestic) Congress would also have a choice to override them separately or follow up with plan B. That would be the most political thing to do. Politics is not wrong, it is the choice between tyranny and anarchy. It is what happens in a democracy.
My apologies for the loopiness of the last post. It will be the only one that is truly evolving if I return to it. QCON is short for Quick Comment On the News, and/or Questioning the Con. The Retread refers to the GO SENATORS and the WE GOT ED materials and comments.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
QCON* - JERRY FALWELL OPENS LAW SCHOOL
His Liberty University will open its law school next month and AP http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-falwell18.html quoted him as saying "We’ll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left".It has been in the works for some time, http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/15_Falwell.html and here is an example of the style of debate that will be their focus http://www.nljonline.com/fc/comp_homo.html .
Actually he may have a few points that on facts actually could be and were overturned. But the concept that programs on diversity and anti-discrimination should allow contrary views to be expressed based on diversity and anti-discrimination let alone free speech is beyond me and apparently him.
Actually my comment was going to be even quicker before I searched for more information than the local paper had, which is likely the AP source above. It seems that conservatives need to pick and choose their facts and have preemptive conclusions to mold them to, so it would be hard to imagine they could be any match for those that must deal with a diversity of facts and have the freedom to use them. But I can sympathize, as it is easier if I limit my facts to even a few they use and even easier if you can dictate the facts.
* QCON stands for Quick Comment On News or Questioning CONservatives
Actually he may have a few points that on facts actually could be and were overturned. But the concept that programs on diversity and anti-discrimination should allow contrary views to be expressed based on diversity and anti-discrimination let alone free speech is beyond me and apparently him.
Actually my comment was going to be even quicker before I searched for more information than the local paper had, which is likely the AP source above. It seems that conservatives need to pick and choose their facts and have preemptive conclusions to mold them to, so it would be hard to imagine they could be any match for those that must deal with a diversity of facts and have the freedom to use them. But I can sympathize, as it is easier if I limit my facts to even a few they use and even easier if you can dictate the facts.
* QCON stands for Quick Comment On News or Questioning CONservatives
Friday, May 18, 2007
Real News
Media Matters
Think Progress
Reality Comedy v. Faux News
Quick Comment On News or Quick Con [QCON]
At this point NBC is the only Major Network to air the "Hospital Drama".
GE: "They bring good things to light"
That is why: "No news is good news."
But you would think someone would pick up on a Hospital/Justice/"Slasher" * Reality Show.
*[May 30th, 2007 explaination may be needed as I am now hearing Thom Hartmann play the hospital scene, that the "Slasher" reference is to the constitution.]
Think Progress
Reality Comedy v. Faux News
Quick Comment On News or Quick Con [QCON]
At this point NBC is the only Major Network to air the "Hospital Drama".
GE: "They bring good things to light"
That is why: "No news is good news."
But you would think someone would pick up on a Hospital/Justice/"Slasher" * Reality Show.
*[May 30th, 2007 explaination may be needed as I am now hearing Thom Hartmann play the hospital scene, that the "Slasher" reference is to the constitution.]
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Major Deal of Minor Gotchas
A matter of direction and degree.[a matter of reading and trust]
Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.
But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."
Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.
A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.
[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]
*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.
Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.
But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."
Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.
A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.
[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]
*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Biden- Off Course.
Well, it was really my oops: as I said to someone this morning that he would not last long.
That is not the oops. As he opened his bid with poorly chosen words on Obama.
The oops, was my quick comment on the news, that I thought I was already right, as I heard the teaser on the Ed Schultz Show.
[Running List 08]
That is not the oops. As he opened his bid with poorly chosen words on Obama.
The oops, was my quick comment on the news, that I thought I was already right, as I heard the teaser on the Ed Schultz Show.
[Running List 08]
Friday, June 05, 2015
File of sorts.
Not exactly the proverbial round file, but I have resorted to NFRY's or QCON's where often the T'wain shall meet. Stop.
1. Not fully read yet.
2. Quick comment on news.
4. wane
3. tan gent
a. b. c. d. (...) thru ?
a2 Dark Matter, Anti-Matter (...) r2
a3 Mitt's BO*Son , d3 Bring It On!
The point being, that there is reading between the lines and there is lede or ship.
1.g Try Lemmings, j Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!, m ANN, h2 Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.
2. Lemon Ship
Then there is (sc)[scroll/or/click] of share 'n angle or* lemon plank.
A, Breaking Trojan Goat* Leaks B.Fight On!, C, D Leaking Intelligence, E. Odyssey Dawn, F. Seconds, G. Roger That "V"
* of/or
Mean while ...
3. a. Future Bubble?, b. Skipping Geometry, c. Un-Hyper Links, d. Bricks and stones, e. Unspinning Charlotte!,
...Rubi'O's** Cube? Oops, I mean Walker's run.
** OW
[ThinkProgress, OurFuture.Com ]
1. Not fully read yet.
2. Quick comment on news.
4. wane
3. tan gent
a. b. c. d. (...) thru ?
a2 Dark Matter, Anti-Matter (...) r2
a3 Mitt's BO*Son , d3 Bring It On!
The point being, that there is reading between the lines and there is lede or ship.
1.g Try Lemmings, j Jeb Bush is full of Cow Pie!, m ANN, h2 Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.
2. Lemon Ship
Then there is (sc)[scroll/or/click] of share 'n angle or* lemon plank.
A, Breaking Trojan Goat* Leaks B.Fight On!, C, D Leaking Intelligence, E. Odyssey Dawn, F. Seconds, G. Roger That "V"
* of/or
Mean while ...
3. a. Future Bubble?, b. Skipping Geometry, c. Un-Hyper Links, d. Bricks and stones, e. Unspinning Charlotte!,
...Rubi'O's** Cube? Oops, I mean Walker's run.
** OW
[ThinkProgress, OurFuture.Com ]
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Who needs brackets?
Maybe a Turn a Meant.
I am not taking the Fifth but there is a sixth line in the countdown. Keith Olbermann recently added a new quick comment format. He is welcome to call it QCON. And weirdly enough I recently tweaked my own labels, not to mention Ribble*.
* my use of labels is inconsistent not to mention following up with the answers to my Ribbles, let alone defining the mixed punderstanding of nuance.
(Riddle: Ribble: Ripple) Now that is spin.
I am not taking the Fifth but there is a sixth line in the countdown. Keith Olbermann recently added a new quick comment format. He is welcome to call it QCON. And weirdly enough I recently tweaked my own labels, not to mention Ribble*.
* my use of labels is inconsistent not to mention following up with the answers to my Ribbles, let alone defining the mixed punderstanding of nuance.
(Riddle: Ribble: Ripple) Now that is spin.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
QCON and Flip-Flop: AN IRAN OUT
This is a quick comment on the news and a flip-flop on myself.
On Bush and Iran, there is hope **** that progress can be made.
It is all up to what Bush will accept and what Iran will agree to.
We could possibly "Trust but Verify" and any sort of solution depends on others
trusting what we can agree to. While any so-called enemy that might be "appeased" * has little record to base that on. Critics of the administration must hold them accountable and give aid to the "enemy" by assuring accountability, not politics. The big question is whether Iran can in any way accept restrictions on nuclear research while the administration accepts no accountability to international agreements. [NOT! **]
* quotation marks indicate fuzzy English except the Reagan remark.
[This is based only on a radio snippet of Bush's hopes for success.]
[**] - [ This IS an update from www.JustForeignPolicy.org thanks to Thom Hartmann having the Robert Naiman as guest, just prior to having John Bolton speak to the contrary I presume.]
[My original point is that there is always hope that diplomacy, even tough diplomacy, can work, as long as the other side of the table has a reasonable alternative to giving in to what is unreasonable, and if there is no hope that we will be reasonable, then standing fast is just as reasonable, in the light of unreason. While I am not charging unreason, just not open *** reason, while we find it hard to find reason on the other side.]
A. -
B. -
C. -
D. - Bingo!
*** it is often buried somewhere
[Myth? Pre-visited.
Connected back later.
And dialing in.]
[Mission Impossible Script Writers Guild. ]
**** link added 6-12-08
On Bush and Iran, there is hope **** that progress can be made.
It is all up to what Bush will accept and what Iran will agree to.
We could possibly "Trust but Verify" and any sort of solution depends on others
trusting what we can agree to. While any so-called enemy that might be "appeased" * has little record to base that on. Critics of the administration must hold them accountable and give aid to the "enemy" by assuring accountability, not politics. The big question is whether Iran can in any way accept restrictions on nuclear research while the administration accepts no accountability to international agreements. [NOT! **]
* quotation marks indicate fuzzy English except the Reagan remark.
[This is based only on a radio snippet of Bush's hopes for success.]
[**] - [ This IS an update from www.JustForeignPolicy.org thanks to Thom Hartmann having the Robert Naiman as guest, just prior to having John Bolton speak to the contrary I presume.]
[My original point is that there is always hope that diplomacy, even tough diplomacy, can work, as long as the other side of the table has a reasonable alternative to giving in to what is unreasonable, and if there is no hope that we will be reasonable, then standing fast is just as reasonable, in the light of unreason. While I am not charging unreason, just not open *** reason, while we find it hard to find reason on the other side.]
A. -
B. -
C. -
D. - Bingo!
*** it is often buried somewhere
[Myth? Pre-visited.
Connected back later.
And dialing in.]
[Mission Impossible Script Writers Guild. ]
**** link added 6-12-08
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Leveling the World Stage?
And restoring some floors @ the U.N.
Ultimately it is not about [No Bama O Drama.] (*)
[David Gregory "he wants the debate".]
(*) NBOD coined 8-30-13 as QCON(re-links)
[Quick Comment on News, or might be QuipCON?]
[Foibles of punctuation and excuse m-beds.]
(Spoiler alert: Try Lemmings, Kidding Goats, and Votes)
9-2-13
Proposed resolution to congress.
9-3-13
Congress World Reaction(ABC)
It is not just about Obama's "Red Line", it is about the world having Red Lines or not. It is truly about the use of WMD, as well as a nation that is falling apart (Syrian civil war) needing to have an urgency of the negotiating table.
Alternatively or simultaneously, Syria's partners on the U.N. Security council as well as other opposition partners (Arab League, Pakistan, Iran,)should have a stake in getting things to the table or world court.
[Pre-Post-Or-US ? The Leverage of NOW**?]
** anachronism of opinion (by Ghosh)
(*)segue[be-date?/timing]
[9-4-13 inserted NOW link]
9-27-13 M-bedded in the FP (freak n' pounding) i.e. capitol ization of font. Note situation of September's FP and their headings. And the 5th of sorts. / A. Inconvenient , B. , C. The Real B. S. of the F. C. , D. Nail Meet F--C---[!] , E. Irony versus Hypocrisy [!]
Ultimately it is not about [No Bama O Drama.] (*)
[David Gregory "he wants the debate".]
(*) NBOD coined 8-30-13 as QCON(re-links)
[Quick Comment on News, or might be QuipCON?]
[Foibles of punctuation and excuse m-beds.]
(Spoiler alert: Try Lemmings, Kidding Goats, and Votes)
9-2-13
Proposed resolution to congress.
9-3-13
Congress World Reaction(ABC)
It is not just about Obama's "Red Line", it is about the world having Red Lines or not. It is truly about the use of WMD, as well as a nation that is falling apart (Syrian civil war) needing to have an urgency of the negotiating table.
Alternatively or simultaneously, Syria's partners on the U.N. Security council as well as other opposition partners (Arab League, Pakistan, Iran,)should have a stake in getting things to the table or world court.
[Pre-Post-Or-US ? The Leverage of NOW**?]
** anachronism of opinion (by Ghosh)
(*)segue[be-date?/timing]
[9-4-13 inserted NOW link]
9-27-13 M-bedded in the FP (freak n' pounding) i.e. capitol ization of font. Note situation of September's FP and their headings. And the 5th of sorts. / A. Inconvenient , B. , C. The Real B. S. of the F. C. , D. Nail Meet F--C---[!] , E. Irony versus Hypocrisy [!]
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Swift Reading!
"Is Growth the Be-All and End-All?
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
The economy is neither.
(Grammatically I am uncertain if a comma is needed or where, or if none is more to the points.)
Meaning it depends on perspective, not to mention choice of words, and sometimes two are not enough and one too many.
Where am I going? Exactly. Well not to be redundant, but...
Where have we been? Ourstory.
THAT IS TOO THE POINT.
Exactly and NOT.
* * *
Tangent or more to the point later and backing up to the present, I used to label such work QCON (Quick Comment On the News) , the N could stand in for nuts, or where it leads or where they come from, but I segue now, to the point. Good Piece! Despite my preemptive take on it, meaning, I have not finished or even read too much of it, but am sticking my preemptive neck out. But here is the catch or rather another perspective that I have applied the same methodology as well as possibly the subjects. That is somehow seeing between the leaps that others make or seeing that they have leaped to or fro a starting point, as well as what got us here.(Ourstory) [grammatical note: yes "fro" as in... well suffice to say I did edit check the sentence a time or too, and let it stand.]
But one point, whether the chicken or egg:
Hmmm? (dot, dot, dot) or rather
Well... based on a mistaken impression found in search of "be all and end all" the following came up. In furtherance of my methodology it could be labeled "Course Filter".
Course as in navigable and holey. Or wholly and holy.
But again I tangent to a possibly better place, whether by intention or error this may be the point. Given that I was not sure of this path but the point I used to get here was in my mind presumptive or nonetheless a found by a search.
This may take a reread and result in no recourse but at least it is not swift boating or hit and run. ID the future or id the future or the exception proves my rule. The search is ours.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
The economy is neither.
(Grammatically I am uncertain if a comma is needed or where, or if none is more to the points.)
Meaning it depends on perspective, not to mention choice of words, and sometimes two are not enough and one too many.
Where am I going? Exactly. Well not to be redundant, but...
Where have we been? Ourstory.
THAT IS TOO THE POINT.
Exactly and NOT.
* * *
Tangent or more to the point later and backing up to the present, I used to label such work QCON (Quick Comment On the News) , the N could stand in for nuts, or where it leads or where they come from, but I segue now, to the point. Good Piece! Despite my preemptive take on it, meaning, I have not finished or even read too much of it, but am sticking my preemptive neck out. But here is the catch or rather another perspective that I have applied the same methodology as well as possibly the subjects. That is somehow seeing between the leaps that others make or seeing that they have leaped to or fro a starting point, as well as what got us here.(Ourstory) [grammatical note: yes "fro" as in... well suffice to say I did edit check the sentence a time or too, and let it stand.]
But one point, whether the chicken or egg:
Hmmm? (dot, dot, dot) or rather
Well... based on a mistaken impression found in search of "be all and end all" the following came up. In furtherance of my methodology it could be labeled "Course Filter".
Course as in navigable and holey. Or wholly and holy.
But again I tangent to a possibly better place, whether by intention or error this may be the point. Given that I was not sure of this path but the point I used to get here was in my mind presumptive or nonetheless a found by a search.
This may take a reread and result in no recourse but at least it is not swift boating or hit and run. ID the future or id the future or the exception proves my rule. The search is ours.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
HIT AND RUN (QCON)
"HIT AND RUN" is my term for the Righty Republicans. Righty Republican is another running with terms. This blog has been about Running with Rhetoric. Rhetoric, like politics or the law, is not good or bad, but that is another story.
QCON is an acronym, for Quick Comment On the News. It also runs in line with this post. It suffices to stand for Questioning Cons, and that is the link to the Hit and Run. The Hit and Run refers to the crowd, usually the Righty Republicans who would bash the so-called "Liberal" media or press" while running from the questions. Tommy Thompson recently did an amazing "hit and run" on the abortion issue.
Now in these cases of representing such an exchange it may make more sense to skip from the transcript. A closer look may ruin my thesis. But the portion I did hear, had him for making abortion illegal, but sending people to jail was a "liberal" thing. By Jove I believe I did it. A one liner.
But on another track, "liberals" are about running the government, not running from responsibility for their actions or questions, while Righty Republicans are about bashing and running for it.
Search: QCON, Hit and Run
and bonus search: MAD
QCON is an acronym, for Quick Comment On the News. It also runs in line with this post. It suffices to stand for Questioning Cons, and that is the link to the Hit and Run. The Hit and Run refers to the crowd, usually the Righty Republicans who would bash the so-called "Liberal" media or press" while running from the questions. Tommy Thompson recently did an amazing "hit and run" on the abortion issue.
Now in these cases of representing such an exchange it may make more sense to skip from the transcript. A closer look may ruin my thesis. But the portion I did hear, had him for making abortion illegal, but sending people to jail was a "liberal" thing. By Jove I believe I did it. A one liner.
But on another track, "liberals" are about running the government, not running from responsibility for their actions or questions, while Righty Republicans are about bashing and running for it.
Search: QCON, Hit and Run
and bonus search: MAD
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Counter Intelligence
Not really ... or type-O ?
Before I cast aspersions we might be reminded of curve ball and other manipulations for political gain or loss.
People can be told anything, confirming it or counting on it are another thing, not to mention protecting sources**, let alone foreign and domestic consumption of intelligence.
5-15-15 Dimentions(~)* of Speculation
QCON, NFRY, NFR, and a number more labels.
Quick Comment on News
Not Fully Read Yet
Not Fully Read
# more?
*or labels or magnitudes of exposure to "intelligence community"
(~) alternate sarcasm punctuation or (sic) for spelling intended
** not to advocate misleading but international relations, national security and truth as the first casualty of war and Clause~wits are a factor in considering sources.
Priority of Read is another asterisk(or read through the nuance).
Charles Pierce(really) reviews Seymor Hersh's (or) while Huffington(I) reviews the New York Times aspersions and Bergen's(cast) is unembedded from Charles Pierce's piece.
Before I cast aspersions we might be reminded of curve ball and other manipulations for political gain or loss.
People can be told anything, confirming it or counting on it are another thing, not to mention protecting sources**, let alone foreign and domestic consumption of intelligence.
5-15-15 Dimentions(~)* of Speculation
QCON, NFRY, NFR, and a number more labels.
Quick Comment on News
Not Fully Read Yet
Not Fully Read
# more?
*or labels or magnitudes of exposure to "intelligence community"
(~) alternate sarcasm punctuation or (sic) for spelling intended
** not to advocate misleading but international relations, national security and truth as the first casualty of war and Clause~wits are a factor in considering sources.
Priority of Read is another asterisk(or read through the nuance).
Charles Pierce(really) reviews Seymor Hersh's (or) while Huffington(I) reviews the New York Times aspersions and Bergen's(cast) is unembedded from Charles Pierce's piece.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Unity 08 / Bloomberg
NOT!
[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.
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.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
More Breaking Filters
The WTO may be a good failure.
US Accused of "Stone-Walling" as World Trade Talks Collapse
The ABA may force change.
American Bar Association Objects to Bush's "Signing Statements"
But the old guard will try to stay the course, speaking of Nixon.
Aziz Huq | Wiretapping Unbound
These are what I have referred to as QCON, Quick Comment On News.
There I go again.
US Accused of "Stone-Walling" as World Trade Talks Collapse
The ABA may force change.
American Bar Association Objects to Bush's "Signing Statements"
But the old guard will try to stay the course, speaking of Nixon.
Aziz Huq | Wiretapping Unbound
These are what I have referred to as QCON, Quick Comment On News.
There I go again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)