FOOTNOTE PAGE APRIL 2013

4-1-13 April * 1st. Big Bagel Theory: Springs from labels. (the * 1st are tangent shall references to April.) Not to be shell games for grown ups.

4-2-13: Sorting by order read(ge me oh) or inserted(heck tricks) followed by lines 3, 1 and 4. [** follow up?]

4-3-13 Charlotte's Web: Original search(Share) Ctrl F two "montage"('n Angle) / Not to[FP2] dimention.

4-4-13  (b.s. ) funny+thing: A. A Funny Thing Happened... (sc)[!] B... (Kantinued...?)
 [FP2.(oh) [Re:asterisk or FP (too.oh)]  Re:A & (sc) i.e. Not to create an MU puzzle, but please scroll over and click on (sc)]

4-5-13 TGIF *NFR  Not Fully Read.

4-9-13 Re:Figure & FC: Speaking of bread crumbs ...

Filibuster Bluster* 4-11-13 original title 68-31 to insert Maddow Link. (b.s.) jinx: A. I feel like a Tea Partier!(sc), B. Go Purple!(sc)

4-12-13 : Tan Gents from Mottos.  Bottom line is funny.  Not !  X, Y, ... [_] <- a=""> the solution is in the tax structure, the problem is in the Norquist. Francis Perkins and the Fiscal Party.

4-15-13:  insert Read (footnote tweak). Lost Thatcher reference(to be exhumed)? And OW/bubblenomics ?

4-16-13 Emphasis must be laid on parsing and timing, if not iron knee of profits.  Not to further M-bed or spec U late. (b.s.) tail+: A, B, C Tact and Tack

4-17-13: Now fully read. Ctrl F "not read".  Irony of threats and political dynamics as undiplomatic and unjust.[ Ctrl F "na•ve": set theory and justice.]

4-18-13: As to two "too"[!]  Not to Re-Knot the bottom line, but I thought that gun-control legislation would have a political solution to the obstruction of fear mongers. I had thought that Rebublicans could sign their letter promising a filibuster that would fail.  Four Democrats joined them for their political survival, but their votes alone would not have tipped the cloture.

4-22-13 Math is next 2...?

4-23-13 [Ctrl F] is not the pun but the practical. "F" = [find] but also "filter" and "fervor".  Nor to pun  on 4F or broaden the base.

4-24-13 First change? To read "?" mark.  Second line lede or ship!

4-25-13  Two Reads OW... (font is next to #$cape italicism)
4-26-13: Labelism(on the QT),  Social Media, Boston Strong, A^ peas meant or Green Genes?[!(o w)?] ^ found by blog search^^ of (red+blue+green) ^^(not the ticket)freedom from dickens?
4-29-13:  ***(insert) 4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)] Rachel Maddow(2) , Steve Benen(1) & (8)... of Con Fluence or curve
balls?

4-30-13 Lose, Lose Ben Labolt on NOW /
4-30-13 to pun on ING ? (AP?, B, C(c), D, E(e), F, g, )

Building On Change

Obama cares about change, it was not necessarily his plan or our plan, but what congress thought we could get. But it is only a building block of change. This is a preemptive comment of sorts based on the facts in the leed, although now I am mid-read. Facts in other states are different, but the main point is the economic sense that "adverse selection*" costs someone. Here I have read it fully, though not necessarily able to relate it fully, the changes may also take adverse tracks. i.e. No mandate? Other more direct "interference ".
(italics not fully read)
* not buying insurance until you need to, and insurances required to sell it.
[Breaking Under the Radar or Flying over the Top? Basically preemptively , Republicans blame the government for the rising housing prices and the crash on not continuing support from government.]
[12-17-10 Obama cares(above bold added for original intent a pun)

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.

Following results.

Having finally read, Democracy in Transition, I find the error in the missing gap. Maybe under the cushions of the SOFA -
- Having Now Fully Read (NFR) as opposed to earlier (nfr) - not fully read -

[My original tangent (or somewhat subsequent) was based on a true convergence error, by actually melding two links that I did not later see (but have now fixed) as two. It may have been my original convergence that there was some link between Thanksgiving and Xmas of native form and anacronism if not shopping or fitting the bill.]

The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) is a possible transition piece that also leaves a flexible and democratic if not constitutional way forward. It may be just a piece that is expected to assure a legacy of passing the buck, but that is just what is needed until there is a leader who is willing to follow...

As far as time tables go- (I make up for the muddle by pulling only two segments together from the SOFA.)
"Should the Iraqi government decide to cancel the pact after the referendum it would have to give Washington one year's notice, meaning that troops would be allowed to remain in the country only until the summer of 2010."

"The international agreement will be binding on US president-elect Barack Obama when he assumes office next year, but he could also unilaterally cancel the pact with a year's notice or withdraw all US troops at any time."

Given the room for democracy otherwise known as process, there is also room for interpretation with oversight.

As far as Democracy in Transition: Congress should reclaim their power in the United States with a "signing statement resolution" as Iraq is still forming their constitutional process.
"Such a resolution, which would still allow Congress to fund the agreement if they feel compelled by the Obama administration to do so, could be passed by both the House and the Senate the week of December 8," Fox said. "If congressional leaders cannot bring themselves to take that one minor step, then the damage to their institution may be irreversible."

In conclusion, it may be that this is the best thing that the current administration has ever done. Not that it was their intent, but the best they could hope for, and would not have been possible without the pressure of some form of daylight, albeit not here yet.- diplomacy - ]

Give 'em a break!

New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan

He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.

Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.

A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong

Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.

* Their work, not these pieces.

Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.

Said Relief?

Who said, he Said, they said.

Egypt Update.
Speaking of Journalism** or freedom's intent.
Other Associations and Said Groups...

Note preemptive nature of links, as not all are read fully nor sometimes more than scrolled over.

In that vein, here is another mid-read comment--
--
The Prophet Margin* or "Decartes Bones"(not 2 mention) quote:(p.XIX)

Most people seem to be caught between these tidal currents--the pull to faith and tradition in a dangerous world, the argument that religion is at the core of the world's problems and only a revived commitment to individual freedoms and rights will steer humanity into a better future.

Colin Slee said about England:"You have a triangle with fundamentalist secularists in one corner, fundamentalist faith people in another, and then the intelligent, thinking liberals of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, baptism and methodism, other faiths--and, indeed, thinking atheists--in the other corner."

--

* my characterization although I do not necessarily appreciate the characterizations that follow, but it is the Ge Oh Me Try, not to mention who is at the table.

** link lost in editing(still looking) maybe found.
[along the same line, the first link is too embedded in comment on journalism and comment, while the last link on "freedoms"(edit to possessive)is embedded with preemptive history and irony
(ex. Alexander Hamilton against the Bill of Rights, yet for a National Bank.)]
[Journalism link now replaced and here is an un-embedded link from it.]

Speaking of Relief:or spin zones or characterizations. 'nO'Really!

[Said Review: Post an achronism. (Relative to perspectivism)]

The President's speech. In regards...

to the extent I had read it at the time of the last post, I must make a correction. I had the link to the prepared text, and had read the 1st three paragraphs rather than just what I thought was one as I claimed. That would be the equivalent of two paragraphs in the White House text.

Having now read the complete text I must comment more fully. It was actually a very good speech, that makes a lot of sense. That is also the opinion of a friend of mine whose experiences and credentials in intelligence are well beyond mine. But that was just the first part of a sentence, which I finished for him in my mind as he was making this comment. Paraphrased: His speech made a lot of sense... except for the facts.

Back to my first read, the paragraph in question has questionable references to "Iraq, an ally" and "terrorists and extremists who are...seeking to topple Iraq's government". These are at odds with the wishes reported that Iraq would like us to leave and some of the administrations allies wishes for a new government in Iraq.

In a related matter, Bush has said he prefers to listen to the generals on the ground rather than Washington politicians. Well how does that play when Petraeus wrote [*] in support of the administration before the last election and has plans for politics already?

[*] [Battling for Iraq September 26th 2004 Washington Post added here 9-21-07: also His Political Hopes and more and Krugman calls him out. and Political Animal Drum(s) him out. ]

"Feel the Love"?

Anger Management.
Caution:  Who you talkin' to?

Too often it is the case in my blogging that I make cultural leaps without fully reading articles. 
Example:  Tan Gent to BaneOr**   
But maybe my GPS Cross Rhodes*** process depends too much upon or may not consider sufficiently a diversity of understanding.  Here I may have perfectly expressed the dilemma/dynamics of rhetorical progress.  To bring it back to Earth, con descend shun is not pretty.  Well, not exactly...
At least I did read the link I am now not paraphrasing*.  My point is that I hope that it is read, but with caution and consideration for whom it tolls. 

*  note that the heading and lede line are referenced in the link, my not paraphrasing is a perspecitivizing. (caution scrolling over as well, some may choose not to bother with the other asterisks, BUT choose well to read the link.)

(PLEASE READ the full text of my post before bothering with asterisks or scroll overs)
** not to associate with the persons or perspectives
***  the pun stops where ?

(Follow-up: Specious and Spacious Species ofor Iron Knee[!])
[Look who's talkin'?  (To be referenced later.)]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label) also re:"understanding"]

A Wonderful Conversation!

You take the high road,
and I'll take the low road.
We take the pre-road,
and now for the post-road.

And we'll all be in blank
before we can say...

Who, What, When, Where and Why,
by How. (3-20)

OK... enough Rant or Ramble.

The real story is that considering the past debates, ABC's was nothing new, except that it was broadcast on the airwaves, not just on cable.

So... I will conclude that it was a success,
given d'meaning of the medium.

Obama took the high road, and shone as best he could on the road, while Hillary took the old road, and may be shone the road.

Now for footnotes, on what got me on this road, of which I have only read from the search engines not the pieces.
Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues -
The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media -
Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Flag Pins and '60s Radicals

HERE IS A BIG HINT: You don't have to read all three. In fact if you just read the headings you have a bigger hint.
Thanks to Thom Hartmann, and Editor and Publisher, and again for me these are (nfry): not fully read yet

[speaking of pre-posts and the media shone up: or is it pre-post-er-o-us? or is it just...]

Bush the United

Bush the Unitary*

The founding fathers are blue, or at least purple, meaning they are rolling over in their graves with sadness if not hopping mad. This image began as an intent to remedially read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by highlighting it in color for those that need help standing up for the principles contained in them. America should really be red as in the color of anger that the Republicans accuse Democrats of being full of. Doubly red for the embarrassment that we are exporting "so called Democracy" while undermining it at home.

A little color in their cheeks should be left over for the "so called Liberal Media" which if it were really so liberal, would be shouting from the roof tops or at least on all networks about a law suit brought by a few in Congress suing Bush for violating the Constitution by signing SB 1932 which that did not pass through the House. Not to mention the 750 laws that Bush has signed but noted he will not follow. OK...That is my slight exaggeration. The "he will not follow" not the number 750 necessarily (one is enough). These should be under the heading of Bush Pre-Justice, not to mention Pre-Legislate and Pre-Administration, and never mind chain of command. READ THIS:
Article II: Section 2. paragraphs 2 and 3

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone***, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

My bold and italics added instead of the color code that should insight(i).

It should be noted how much emphasis there is on the senate and the law regarding the powers of the executive. Rememeber how "philosophy" was so important in his selections for appointment, not to mention** loyalty.

* link added after the first two paragraphs posted here.

(i) = intentionally construed.

** link added last and is noted as not necessarily balanced and not fully read by myself but from what I did read, had already selected here the pertinent sections that refute.

*** It may be important to explain here (it seems) that these executive powers are only vested by law, by the senate, to whom they alone choose.

FOOTNOTES PAGE DECEMBER 2013

Begun 12-3-13

12-1-13:(sc) math problem un4m~ulated. (NFRY)
12-2-13(cont.) Too Random... Righty? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (the point ?)
[4 the record : 3 squared? ]
12-3-13: Parallel [!] un-Pink Floyd, He- /^\ , van-NO JOKE, ven-Rough Philosophy, Cry- / Star Chamber Revisited, river- / creek ? 

rtd 12-3-13

Retrieved from draft 12-13-13
State Theory <- heading // lede -> and duality // trinity/body  Headings and^ Leadership*. (dynamics)
  ^    of/or 8:  Snooze/Dream(4,6) *prof(it)C? (7,8) Bane or Right?  [Not to blog both ends against the middle.]
Don’t celebrate yet!: Why Boehner won’t really ditch the right-wing nutjobs. /  The Christian right wants civilization to collapse / (3/5) Head ~ Lead Paul Krugman: The GOP’s austerity agenda is winning / My critics have “income envy”: Ed Schultz unloads after backlash to his union quote 
Dual / nd: When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! / 3 essential (and ignored) questions about Detroit’s bankruptcy  Try Ad of Caution?  (not fully read yet) (anachronistic construction) (duel conflation)~ (bc: bubble critics)  OW Hegel ~ Liebniz [!]
RTD


12-23-13 (4) A.  Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications., B. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! c. Snooze Alarm d. Tony Baloney e. WWW Wisconsin Lesson? f. We Need Ed  g, What's good for the goose...

12-27-13 
12-28-13 1 Was Wittgenstein Right? or behind [?^] 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 9  // 10 / 11
^ insert a - h
12-29-13 - Original 5 links.  A. Frank O File? B. Pi cAP Delta rOW(USC) C. 1. Inverse Reality?,  2.(i), 3. Fair and Balanced..., D. Wittgenstein , E. Re-Mix  ///
12-30  F.rough- 1. Punderous Ponderings , 2. State of Politics , 3. A Revolution? 4.Un-Exceptionalism 5.  , G.notes^ -1. 2.Heuristic Concurrence and  3.My Respects to Those who Celebrate. (re-search*) , H.math^^ - 1. Too Random... , 2., 3.Bury the lede?, 4. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)] . *(under the case of not fully read yet, but back to math... why now 16?  too cubed by two? Speculation that the 5th perspective is from apart too pun? The three-body problem regards intitial circumstances from within or without. R 1st 3 models different than recently added.  The pow#r of i(V)?

Too Random...

...Righty[!]

Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud? 
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead? 
A stopped clock is right... 
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left. 


* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over


**

knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?

But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem. 
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.



12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed

** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)

Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1.  The Difficulty with Hegel
2.  Hegel or Anti-Hegel

Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."

"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."

References to 3D/4M@.  English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.

I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's.  But is Popper properly popped?  Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression.  The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before.  I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)

In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point.  I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points. 
^ & ~ must be reviewed.  "Dates~" note time of encounter.

12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]

12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?



But to tilt at swans?

12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough. 

12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ? 

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...]

Finally Two!

What's all the hullabaloo?

[C-legend need to update.]
A legend is a map of sorts, to a map.
Example:  NFR = not fully read
[!] = (sic) read as intended, pun, irony, sarcasm NFB, not fully blue[!]
or tangents

Technical Difficulties

Anomalies or Synchronicities? By definition they are hard to explain. But there was first the missing link that I referenced here and then the Eli Pariser "bubble" context. Then there is the Wrap(5***) problem* and follow up **.

* in context is biased
** also needs follow-up and labels
*** anomoly (2) / anomaly(1) (W itch Are)
[then there is the Al Gore Rhythm Spell Check problem, and follow ups.]
(note: numbers in (brackets) are links as found in search to check any change in the algorithms C-W r a p(5).)
Note: Psychology Label added, Physics and Philosophy already applied(6), not necessarily used well.
[By Jove I may have it.]
[Speaking of hunches Gingrich may be wit Mitt. He may be making Mitt and others look good, and working the churned media for his own Obamanation.]

Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Technical difficulties is no pun on Speaker Boehner calling the government broke or Ed Schultz calling it broken. Or was it? Given the anomalies and synchronicity theories who knows? But it was about looking at my own modus operandi and then blogspot having its difficulties and Eli Pariser's TED Talk on the Internet. The word follow-up(4) may have popped up and is applicable(2 to insert here).

Friday, May 20th, 2011
Speaking of difficulties, I had to correct yesterday being Friday. I guess I get a second shot. Note Psychology Label added for reasons then above and follow up, references "rational expectations" not to mention talk and guts. (Bush v. Lakoff) Speaking of talk, yesterday's inserts (2 became 3) are economic talks(YouTube) from INETeconomics.org. And a reminder that problem* above is a Koch Brothers spin. And note to self** is still pending* while I might return to Risk and Robustness.

Since it is Friday and I have several posts in draft that relate to this link, I might note that this is still under construction if I ever get back to it. But in this regard I will say that this is the first INET link I watched and have found several others I might recommend that have been imbedded above but will simple list here:

Raghuram Rajan: Delineating the Role of Government
Also see prior ** not fully read yet but gives context right off the bat***
Lance Taylor: Maynard's Revenge
Reforming the Macroeconomic Framework: Sushil Wadhwani
IMF Calls for New Economic Thinking: Or Does It?

Keynes in a box? I will not expound upon this academic pun except to note the room and a flip-flop. i.e. what I took from Huntington and what Fukuyama may have learned or changed.

*scroll or click but nfry = not fully read yet
**Why I am not an Austrian Economist
*** see can(under bat)

[Not So Frackin' Funny: Demand a...side. (or Borg)Not Pop'nCulture]

In Background to Posts

Testimony on "the surge":
QCON - Pause.

Meanwhile the McCain LEGACY [*] : OFF COURSE -(update) (nfry). [**]

[BTW: I did pick up, in today's testimony, something from Petraeus on "military geometry" and "political calculus"; should we call in the mathematicians?]

[*] [4-9-08: Ed Schultz, not part of Obama campaign, calls McCain, "warmonger" - I suggest "fear monger" or "FlipFlopperKrafting".
Plus: "warmonger" defined,
not to mention: "Defeat" [***]defined...By George

[**] (not fully read yet)-:[4-9-08: Now fully read! (McCain record against veterans and the troops.)

[***]pardon the loopiness but "Defeat" must be noted as almost a Featured Article in this update.
[lastly: bonus link and labels added - QCON,JAG, Navigation,ROR: rant or ramble...GAME - (Watching the Watchers)... GoLeft.TV (hint)]

Chew On...

Or Eschew [*]... on This.
One might bite.
(Speaking of class or was it paradigms?)
[Ribble in a Tea Pot?]
[BTW: I am crafting a reply to the ribble or paradigm. It bites...a thought "divided against itself"?]

[*] update 11-22-10 bold italics update bold indicates I have finally read fully but italics not a recommend [P.S. asterisk is post everthing above]

Who Are They Calling Elitist?

By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.

* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)