Anti-semantics or...**

Parsing Semitics.
        -  /  -


Anti-Semantics.*


A. Not In My Name: Some Facebook funny-business brought the first link to my attention.
B. Facebook Empathy the 2nd insert.
C. True Torah expressions.
D. Not In My Name but whose?
-/-

* See D irony?
---


Kant we all get along without going to Hegel, or without Hume or Mill?
Thesis/Anti-Thesis/Sin-Thesis?***
---


** Work in Progress!  But before I get too fractal or tangent shall, the terminology is pertinent, what is the difference between insurgents and rhetorical terrorists?  They certainly Rn't strategic terrorists[?]  ALSO: Caution with the reading of semantics and semitics[!].  Rhetorically, why is anti-semitic a word while semitics a questionable word?  Could it be in the parsing of semitics?  Pardon the Escher-risks.
...


*** Not to Escher the Charlotte.[link is late insert not fully read]

So much for safe harbor...

or the silent running of sabbatical.

All men's gains are the fruit of venturing. Herodotus
Analysis: Obama moving to center on some issues.

Semantics a tack a tact.
"I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it."

Rhetoric: Smoking Craft
I am trying to find an earlier reference to Bush using the administration in the third person. Anyway it seems that is what Cheney has done, when "the decision went to the president." Of course it is semantics, and so is any word, like obfuscation.

Progressive Caucus Semantics

The political calculus:
Dennis Kucinich or Obama
or
Ralph Nader or Edwards
Nader / Bloomberg?
[Update or more of a sort: see comments in bottom brackets 1-3-07]
I was originally going to spin off on the first three words, but breaking commentary and news tweaked these lines.
More later. Maybe.

But these tangents are not really so wild, they revolve around the council one takes and that [**] one gives. Kucinich "the principled" or "the calculator". Nader "the idealist" or "the realist".
Standing up or compromising.
All are more than semantics.

Thanks to Brie Walker* and Thom Hartmann.

*Sitting in for Stephanie Miller.
[**] or which

[1-3-07: a straw poll was just distributed by the Democratic Party of Washington State so I will now add LOCAL to the LABELS for this post. I was going to make a comment but unfortunately I am making progress and asked a few preemptive questions which fine-tuned my course. They will do that. Questions that is. My original thought had to do with who the poll was distributed to, but it was broadly distributed and the best comment is on that site. "Congratulations to Kucinich supporters on their great organizing efforts." Not to take anything away from this comment, but Kucinich's comments in Iowa were the kernel of my original post and its Ramble and subsequent flip-flop. But strategy aside(or maybe I just can't or will not articulate it) I may stick my neck out for Edwards. I have too many theories but I will refrain from rationalizing this as one. But my alternate perspective given the latest input, is that Senators Dodd and Biden are pretty good guys or as the latter would say, "I really like" them, but the political calculus is not just from the base.

[UPDATE: 1-7-08 "strategy aside" link added ]

Image of Original In Tent

Re: Sources

C W
Homer, Plato**, Hell'nistic, Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian *: Evolutionary Thinking***.

* less than random link/Google of the day?
not fully read yet,
never completely endorsed, unlike Labelists [Well...not exactly.]

** lede not

[The under lying(pun) under standing(literal) as well as substance, regards semantics. Now that is a pretty firm line for a fluid foundation.
See W(hint pun/ribble)
The history of the constitution falls into this spectrum. The Federalist Papers were an argument, for what does not matter, it won and lost, as the amendments suggest. The constitution was signed but not without compromise. And we were never on the same page again. This is my perspective without the usual qualifiers.]
*** How prophetic?

[Unoriginal In tent: related links without hints]
[On the other hand... looking for spectrum.]

[Given the field of the Republican Presidential race, no apologies are in order. Excuses maybe, blame yourself. BTW: not disappointed by Herman Cain, to drop out but carry the mess age to the table. But in honor of the Federalists, the non-party party, here is a third field or party or option. Caution!]

[NPR: Re-education]
[Update: Herman

Bio ~ engineering.

My first major was Chemical Engineering at USC before a stint in their East Asian Languages and Cultures Department.*  After a sabbatical for a number of years, the result was a BA in Liberal Studies at the University of Washington.

[anachronistic writing]**
*removing the impression that I am at all responsible for the hyperlink
** the following are notes in progress akin to side notes on a page being read

NOTES:
Madhyamaka     /     Dialetheist       crazy ~  unmattaka
M-theory of D {?}
Paraconsistent Logic
Paradox ~ ironic ~ rhetorical device
Conceptualization ~/~ falsifies

Nietzsche: tT~ER (eternal recurrence)
Radical Contextualist Semantics ~requires meaning
Statement ~\~ truthmaker (not required)

=====================   segue   ==========
W-Theory  ~ Milo Wolff
Logical Positivism   Fusion v. Confluence
Defluence is the struggle[!]
=====================   theory?==========
LEVEL TWO NOTES:
W for Wolff AND Wave
Not to mention paradox of M.
Model / Madhyamaka / meaning?
D for Dialetheist, Dimensions and Design
Even rougher notes:
Paraconsistent Wittgenstein
Popper's poker.
=============
Then there is Methane[!]
Big T, and small t: Truth and Tetrahedron
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* asterisk info only added 5-2-16
Pardon my style.

The Last Boogieman?

[@ second google]
First (b.s.)
That's the ticket.
Not to keep it under my hat, but it all started in The Atlantic(!)
Don't take it Parsenal[!](?)

(FN#): a. Dichotomy of sorts., b. Proxymoron? , c. What, Me Worry?
[!] a. Parson Perspective 
(?) The Take Away? - Commander-in-Chief Obama - Irony versus Hypocrisy
An aside. War on Semantics?
The Nexus: Neo-Context

[Try-Lateral O-mission?]
But speaking of jobs... - filibuster-is - Neo-Context  [!]
Re: F(j)ord Blossom:
BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger"
escapement?
Middle C?

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to the Democrats
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.

[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]

[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:

It would seem to me that Congress should be able to "get 'er done" without the 60 votes. Either as some suggest by "going nuclear" (I am against Nuclear Power but) by blowing up the filibuster or somehow utilizing a reconciliation or conference process to do it. Failing that, there are probably enough progressives to kill the bill, but that may not be necessary[or advised**]. Removing the mandate, just might put this in the category of a budget issue under reconciliation, but failing to remove the mandate, might just put this on the track for constitutional review and modification, where it is imagined that a public option just might be the only option. It just might be wise for the Republicans not to push the constitutional issue and settle for a public option now, possibly with a 10-15% buyin margin on Medicare. In the alternative, giving states an option to have a public* plan, and freeing those to sell out of state, might be another crack in the (just say no)[***] armor.

[TruthOut/McClatchy -- Steve Clemons/Huffington}

* one Representative mentioned that the option would have a name other than public, and that could just be non-profit or within the caps imposed.

[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]

[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]

RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]

dunn dunn done[!]?

Bruticus Sardonicus[!]*

~We are physics, psychology and philosophy being.  Speaking of Try ads or Hegel or bane or or whoa man, politics is the pinnacle and base.
“The rational alone is real.”  “presupposition of the empirical movement”
1. a. "Timing is everything.",* b. Foe Cult, c. Lame
2. William Castle Trailer
3.   BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger" , escapement? , Middle C? !

4. a. Connecting the Dots, b. Anti-semantics or...**, c. PC [^], d. Kant we get along... e. Between Iraq and a Hard Work!, f. fnp-11-13.
5. a. Un-Exceptionalism, b. In the begining..., c. Flow of Conscience, d. Punderous Ponderings

* See Quido(Sarducci) under bru
[also (*2) under "Timing is everything"]
Disregard ** under 4b as already in heading.
*#3 D-cap (b.s.)(s.c.) blog search/scroll click or knot[!]

~ my amalgam contribushun
Ra-shunall[?]

The Un-Revolved(~) Thread

Wittgenstein:

Facts?  3-mat?

(~) or resolved
(~)=alt sic/pun or irony [!]

(fp?)(links in order)
1. The lecture on the Tractatus.(picture theory)
2. (b.s.) Wittgenstein (a.) (b.), (3b) Post Romaticus ,(3c), F'N 3 , "Timing is everything." , P'P' la Pew , ( ) , Ghost Busters , Crooked Timber , Coin-age of the day. , Wittgenstein , (/) No Teddy , / OW , / Forward (Ironically)
3. (b.s.) Witt gen stein
Asymetric nature of ?, Logical Track it Us[!], Reading In Progress[***], (fp), (fp) (3a-e)
4. mat/label *

* anachronism (2c=3b), (2e=3c)
(~) indicative/asterisked &(~) explained
4m@ / Asymetric nature of ?, Logical Track it Us[!] , Post R.I.P. , We have met the yogurt , Going through Hegel or... , escapement? , Epicyclical Poet Tree , Forward (Ironically) **

** label's content needs updating but (b.s.)/blog searches will evolve(see 2b/~)
(i.e.) at this point in time Wittgenstein label includes 4a thru 4h.

Third Level **/4mat: or 4p?
1. Lecture on Tractatus (27:00)
2. Discussion of Metaphilosophy
3. Intro to Tractatus
4. Vienna Circle
(fp!)

Q. E. D. [!] [?] Anti-semantics or...**

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Update

Somewhere I may have noted that Herman Cain said he would have a surprise before the South Carolina primaries. I haven't found that reference, but I wonder if this was it.

BTW: I think there is a new Niche for our Cain 'n Able.

Speaking of Updates.

[Forest Gumption: Krugman / Capehart[?] and Trees of Chocolate.

Not to mention Martin Bashir and Heads Examined. Tea Party Nation leader endorses candidate who literally* in his own words, needs his head examined. Who wants anybody to be on food stamps? Certainly not the president. The Gingrich claim that Obama is the "food stamp president" while coming close to being... [1-24-12: I chose to break mid-semantics as to the truth of claims. Judson Philips quote: "if you want someone to be on food stamps you really ought have your head examined" yet Gingrich thinks that is what Obama wants.** If you think the NAACP should demand pay checks not food stamps, what does that make you? That is what Gingrich charged them with.]

*1-24-12 in con text m/un-con science links/break

** I Ron Knee? Not to mention con vention.

[?]

[To be read: Ryan Lizza The New Yorker, The Obama Memos.]

[1-27-12]

Progressive Caucus Semantics II

UPDATE * : "strategy aside"

Here are some thoughts that I will put down. Both Edwards and Obama are very spirited speakers. While Edwards is not now in the senate, and Obama is, the negative rap that Edwards gets for being a trial lawyer is undeserved and indeed a Republican strategy, to paint lawyers as bad, while forgeting that corporations hire them too. My point is that Edwards has been rewarded for his emotional skills (not to mention handling of evidence)for the sake of his clients, while Obama has not so displayed them in work on the issues.

* NW Progressive Institute: "Some thoughts on the Iowa caucus": is the update (the link) which is also inserted the in previous post under "strategy aside" at the time the above comments were posted.

ALSO: going back to 12-26-07 saved in a file was my quiz results (unweighted)as follows:
Kucinich 11
Dodd 10
In alphabetical order:
Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Obama, Richardson 8
Giuliani 6
Ron Paul 5
Romney 2
McCain 1
Note that by this time Dodd and Biden have dropped from the race.

[1-8-08: How Green Is Your Candidate? Grist

Darned if you do, darned if you don't...

bring things(and people) to the table. There is a dynamics of griping in this piece(Sam Steins HuffPo), but one in particular I must note:

For one, various areas of policy disagreement within the White House remained unresolved. In particular, officials familiar with the discussions say, Obama's economic advisers warned against calling for a final balance of three dollars in spending reductions for every dollar generated in additional tax revenue, arguing the ratio was too explicit.

From his (President Obama's) Fiscal Speech:

I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the fiscal commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there’s enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

So it seems the realization could be made that the ratio is much more balanced, recognizing loopholes as spending not additional tax revenues. While this may seem like semantics it is actually a valid accounting of rhetoric. And in some ways it is similar to the gripe that the President as leader is either "the one" or is supposed to leak his strategy to followers. By this I refer to the complaints that he kept some in the dark, yet allowed the Republicans to go first on the fiscal plan. There are many fronts in the process called government, but it is different than partisan politics or military strategy.

[Future pacing? i.e. thanks to Thom Hartmann for reference to "previous pacing" in regards to: Why don't we call it the Republican Debt and Deficits?

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program -- but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts -- tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our nation’s checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

That is not all...(later referred to as "hanging chad" .]

[The above presaged the Facebook Townhall with President Obama (video).(ABC? Real Clear or Misc?)]
[Then there is bold or miss-taking taxes.]

[Italics mark - editing - and I note here additional gripe from Sam Stein:

Several members of Congress also expressed agitation with the timing...(cont.) ]

Sad State of Affairs.

Threats to Humanity.

Know, I am not Putin the NRA on the list, but there is a tangent to the "war on semantics"[!]
Akin to share 'n angle there is the tone down.  A popular network personality was criticized for going after police killings but not community killings, to put it in rather nuanced terms.  The point there is that the community hires the police, therefore have more say in the matter.  Then there is the more silly than sad point that if rifles were what the NRA were about it might be different, but it says something to the trickle down and slippery slope of fear 'n rhetoric.  So back to the idea that Russia is sad or we are Putin up with some escalation or "mental aberration". 

Ebola
Russian Federation
Islamic State

N R A (Nuanced Relative Action)
Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**
Above the Law?
Hyper Sorting (~)
Update (~)
Take Back the American Dream (~)
Retro-Gate (~)

'n states rights
[!]~ (sic)/sarcasm/irony punctuation.
[italics/linkl8r]
All tan gents are not equal, let alone left or right try-angles.
[Icon test. Eye context, con tact, contest.]

OUT OF THE BLUE? NOT!

I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but questions leaping out are another matter. What about Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak? The only one not talking is Judith Miller. She chose to protect her sources. For a journalist admirable, for a pawn of the administration, what? The missing link seems to be the two sources that Robert Novak used. One Karl Rove*, the other still unknown. Another journalist? Is confirming that one heard something from an unknown source a confirmation? Is forgetting the source a defense? Is protecting bad sources or administration leaks a journalists job? Is it job security or a defense against charges of treason?

I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?

Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.

Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.

Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.] 

* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl

Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.

===========================================================

Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".

They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.

It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.

The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.

I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".

Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson

Moving on:

I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.

I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.

Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.


That Train Keeps On Rolling.

Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.

Roger Larson


(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)

* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.

[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]