Distributed by email Sept. 17th 2002
REGIME RHETORIC REPLY
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric:
When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our " actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What happens after a regime change and when there are other regime changes within the various players? It should be easy to see a pandora's box, but some have the curiosity to open it, without the curiosity or even patience to ask the questions let alone expect any answers.
To those who would go to war: If you have the stomach for blood, do you have the guts for democracy?
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query some people. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query some people. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, April 05, 2004
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Certain Sources...
(now there is a sticky wicket)...
(like "some people")...
My bottom line or actually my sub-heading(un-Tan-Gent-Ed) was that some people cannot possibly read all that they pass on, but it could be just me. ( update** ) Labels do not do justice, but again that is probably me too. Bloggers*** should be called something other than journalists, infotainment may be the ticket. But again my point is that the devil is in the details, sometimes between the lines, and certainly not absolute. In some cases, not certain, full reads are not required.
BTW: It was not my intent to cast aspersions on the prior post with my photo. But it is relevant(bull) and an appropriate image(below) that I cannot even return (1) to all I might like to read (2) or reference. (3)
* (bracketed inserts in the flow of conversation and reading the heading)
** approximate timing of update
*** leaving mainstream and cable networks aside
(1) "two points reference* a line
(2) "This is one to savor"
(3) NBC / Text
[I have viewed the 2nd inaugural speech, but it bears review and revisiting.]
[Lunch hour stop at The Cycle, finds Hillary testifying in Congress. Bearing in mind who should sack certain someones. ]
(like "some people")...
...or Filters need Filtering.*
But my point of departure is the cutting word. "Certain" itself is parsed as I have bracketed.My bottom line or actually my sub-heading(un-Tan-Gent-Ed) was that some people cannot possibly read all that they pass on, but it could be just me. ( update** ) Labels do not do justice, but again that is probably me too. Bloggers*** should be called something other than journalists, infotainment may be the ticket. But again my point is that the devil is in the details, sometimes between the lines, and certainly not absolute. In some cases, not certain, full reads are not required.
BTW: It was not my intent to cast aspersions on the prior post with my photo. But it is relevant(bull) and an appropriate image(below) that I cannot even return (1) to all I might like to read (2) or reference. (3)
* (bracketed inserts in the flow of conversation and reading the heading)
** approximate timing of update
*** leaving mainstream and cable networks aside
(1) "two points reference* a line
(2) "This is one to savor"
(3) NBC / Text
[I have viewed the 2nd inaugural speech, but it bears review and revisiting.]
[Lunch hour stop at The Cycle, finds Hillary testifying in Congress. Bearing in mind who should sack certain someones. ]
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Regime Rhetoric Reply
[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:
Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
A QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Attributed to Lincoln.
MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
The problem is we all forget we are either some of the people or all the people, and think we have a new equation.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Attributed to Lincoln.
MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
The problem is we all forget we are either some of the people or all the people, and think we have a new equation.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Still in draft?
Here is the preface to something I am torn between chewing and eschewing on.
Rally in Progress?
The following is submitted As Is.
(titled)PARADIGM?
Or Ribble? Hint? Or shifts?
The origins:
[in con text: or (sum)some...regarding the Lord Acton quote about power corrupts the key is in the word "absolute" and regardless if it is the people, some of the people or the sum* of the people]
*an erroneous yet prophetic insert of the link (as in a word divided and short for some thing else)
Rally in Progress?
The following is submitted As Is.
(titled)PARADIGM?
Or Ribble? Hint? Or shifts?
The origins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.One thought...
[in con text: or (sum)some...regarding the Lord Acton quote about power corrupts the key is in the word "absolute" and regardless if it is the people, some of the people or the sum* of the people]
*an erroneous yet prophetic insert of the link (as in a word divided and short for some thing else)
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Academic Freedom
Not the best heading**, let alone lede.
BTW: I don't know if I should have a disclaimer as I have "liked" Noam Chomsky on Facebook.*** Now should I wonder if he needs a disclaimer from this being on a youtube page he is featured on.
But I will note that I have only viewed about 30 seconds but find the heading provocative. And I will pull some words from a thread I contributed to recently: We can not pick the personalities of the sources(or the sources) that might influence our thinking. That does not mean that educated people can't have bad ideas, or that less educated people may not have better ideas. Nor that some people don't have a mix of good and bad ideas and that others may not be suited for choosing from them.
In the mean time(pun), that thread extended.
* I hope to find a more colorful and humorous link in my BS(blog search)
[Bottomline, not to ode on economics or hummin' resources. BTW2.0: I have two "disclaimers" considered above, one in relation to Facebook and Chomsky in regard to the "pulled" words (in grey high lite) and the other in regard to the "this" on YouTube, which I only previewed a bit. I do not claim it a fluke as that is probably the nature of the technology in another A word regarding math and search engines. Dont' trouble yourself to the fluke as it is just another "A" word.]
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
A Plan to B-Team
[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.
While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.
As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.
There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.
[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]
Thursday, June 28, 2012
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 !]
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 !]
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Fear and Running
in the Republican Party.
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)
Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.
Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.
In memoriam.
* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.
** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.
*** maybe him but not here
Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]
P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.
Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.
In memoriam.
* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.
** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.
*** maybe him but not here
Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]
P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.
Friday, February 07, 2003
OH REALLY FOG
OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?
Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.
But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.
Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.
By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.
Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Obtusity?
Not Here.(Kay label added)
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.
In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.
In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?
[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]
** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:
OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]
[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]
Nor Here.
But in context the former Here is the proper angler.
In a less embedded aside, Leonard Pitts Jr. hits the nail on the head of American Exceptionalism.
In another arena, a friend noted how trustworthy FOX and Bill O'Reilly are. Well, 28% and 9% are far from a margin of victory unless you are looking for an American Icon. NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC combine for 29% while CNN's Cooper and Blitzer match O'Reilly's 9%, and the a4mentioned other network's hosts(Matthews, Brokaw, Couric and Sawyer tied) combine for 12%. So it is only in the winner[*] take all, not knowing what it takes world, where follow the leader matters. Now that is a real Laffer Curveball! Or is it?
[Then there is Pawlenty of problems. Bottom line: if money is a maker then tax it as much as labor. That is an inverse paradox or maybe praximoron.]
[The bottom line is obliquity with intent.]
[Sub** Text]
** asterisks apply to that link, but is not the missing link, but does fit the leadership narrative over people.
[*] boo yeah! Stewart boosts O'Reilly's ratings(**), which likely rigs poll. i.e. maybe FOX viewers are more fair and balanced when the left is presented.
(**) I don't have the Nielsen ratings but it might be reflected in the poll.
[Footnote: scroll over some links for some understanding, but unfortunately links that may need clicking on do not last forever. Hence I hope to be less obtuse but no less oblique in the future. There should be no joy in mud-ville, as the outcome of the NY26th shows, as divided meta(for) prevails. But to unembed these analogies, the Ryan plan was the issue in the divide to lose in New York, 48% takes it, while the issue will next be before the U.S. Senate with Democrats in the majority and Republicans faced with laying their votes on the line. Some will leave the sinking ship, diluting the lemonade. If I may make a few Truman references it is not a direct analogy, but hanging their votes on their necks will be like dividing to conquer.]
[Meanwhile Up-Date]
[Speaking of not Truman--something about:
If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.With my lemon twist on it:
If it's a choice between a genuine Moderate, and a Moderate in Republican clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Democrat before they will a phony Moderate(update 10-11-2011), and I don't want any phony Moderate candidates in this campaign.
OK, it loses a little bit of it's zest, but that is the nature of the slippery-slope, trickle down, lemonade, mudville.]
[Update 12-8-11 The Last Word? As it seemed to line up.]
Friday, April 13, 2007
Imus, the victim?
There is irony above, for some it is lost in humor, others don't even see the line.
For those that may need a hint, the question mark indicates this is not a charge. The irony may be more clearly hypocrisy. The problem may be that I ask questions, not just answer them.
The problem is really that the market and freedom are not solutions. The bottom line is not just people to step on, the top line is the result. Intentions are the line that some don't see or would stomp on rather than look at or even walk or wake up to. The media, the economy and the government, for that matter, are not the problem or the solution, they are mechanisms that without work on, will get results without consideration for the work or the results,(and)let alone the people.
And below all that and what should be at the top, is not just the people, but justice. Another goal, but also a process, that gets lost by those that only look too high or too low for the line, and even ignore their part in drawing it.
Action/Reaction? Some just see the /. [the slash...or burn? * ] The middle is not the product or the aim, but it can be the result if thinking is only linear or worse, black and white. See? Even that could be a metaphor lost to the culture war.
But in reality, flip-flopping is the way we think, both more and less than the metaphor. However, real light is colors, not just absolutes or not.
* this post is connected if not in line with the previous post, meaning a different shtick and more context to the con-front-lines.[or fire lines]
[4-14-07: links and metaphors related to previous post]
For those that may need a hint, the question mark indicates this is not a charge. The irony may be more clearly hypocrisy. The problem may be that I ask questions, not just answer them.
The problem is really that the market and freedom are not solutions. The bottom line is not just people to step on, the top line is the result. Intentions are the line that some don't see or would stomp on rather than look at or even walk or wake up to. The media, the economy and the government, for that matter, are not the problem or the solution, they are mechanisms that without work on, will get results without consideration for the work or the results,(and)let alone the people.
And below all that and what should be at the top, is not just the people, but justice. Another goal, but also a process, that gets lost by those that only look too high or too low for the line, and even ignore their part in drawing it.
Action/Reaction? Some just see the /. [the slash...or burn? * ] The middle is not the product or the aim, but it can be the result if thinking is only linear or worse, black and white. See? Even that could be a metaphor lost to the culture war.
But in reality, flip-flopping is the way we think, both more and less than the metaphor. However, real light is colors, not just absolutes or not.
* this post is connected if not in line with the previous post, meaning a different shtick and more context to the con-front-lines.[or fire lines]
[4-14-07: links and metaphors related to previous post]
Monday, April 05, 2010
Water Under The Bridge.
Russel King's: An Open Letter to Conservatives.
(two links same letter)
Previous Ripples?
Waves to Come?
(Too much to filter.)
[Retrospective same day,
The Ed word of the Day: regime
(OK, I don't have words of the day...) But I would like to note that "regime" is not necessarily a bad word, as a form of government, ours is based on the constitution, but for some[*] it is an ideology and even that is a double-edged word. But who started it and how's it welt?]
[In modern usage it was the one of Bush's illusory excuses(Regime Change) for the invasion of Iraq, co-opted as a political call for his ouster by the left.]
[*]the seed of this was The Ed Show...
(asterisk and comment inserted 4-6-10)
[...which later germinated on Countdown.
Speaking of Ideology not quite "out of the blue", but confidently out of the red.]
[for some, "some people" are their sources which translates "some say"(i.e. opinion) to "news". Not O'Really]
(two links same letter)
Previous Ripples?
Waves to Come?
(Too much to filter.)
[Retrospective same day,
The Ed word of the Day: regime
(OK, I don't have words of the day...) But I would like to note that "regime" is not necessarily a bad word, as a form of government, ours is based on the constitution, but for some[*] it is an ideology and even that is a double-edged word. But who started it and how's it welt?]
[In modern usage it was the one of Bush's illusory excuses(Regime Change) for the invasion of Iraq, co-opted as a political call for his ouster by the left.]
[*]the seed of this was The Ed Show...
(asterisk and comment inserted 4-6-10)
[...which later germinated on Countdown.
Speaking of Ideology not quite "out of the blue", but confidently out of the red.]
[for some, "some people" are their sources which translates "some say"(i.e. opinion) to "news". Not O'Really]
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Billy Club...
needs some explaining.
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
---
[INSERT UPDATE 2-18-11: << SERIOUSLY these are a serious sortings of views.] >> Note sortings link is important to the explaining of The Billy Club lost in the scuffle.]
---
(original post continued)
It was a reference to the Bill Maher-Elizabeth Hasselbeck feud over humor and politics. aka: rhetoric and intelligence
It also pertains to the King of Rhetoric and the Genre Clash. But in regard to the "Billy Club" it was based on the "Billy Boy" name Elizabeth used, (which I use) to indicate that Beck(Glenn, nor HasselB) is not in the league of Bill Maher let alone the likes of other Bills. Now I have realized that the Billy Club could be easily mistaken as including O'Reilly. It does, but in the likes of not being in the same league as any on the so-called "left". Indeed Bill O'Reilly does make FOX look respectable, considering the field(Comedy News Network). So to be sure, the Billy Club is a fan club not a weapon, but is about the Genre Clash which is more of an evolution(note mutation) than a revolution (actualy Spin Zone).
I will pause to review the above and maybe find more to explain, and in that vain, well actually on a new path(vein or vane) I might not have more to explain, if I am more careful.
But back to the original forum of explaining(The View) and my not always having viewed sources completely (we all cherry pick-but some don't know apples from oranges, and I may be a fruit salad maker by not wanting to clean my kitchen of the tools or fruits* and nuts of the right) here is a countertop** I don't use. But my embedded point of the first asterrisk is my own suggested answer to Bill O'Reilly for why President Obama is hated. "Because of the likes of you, Bill O'Reilly". It even has a sense of balance.
* as often happens the right link is an aftersearch(pun on my link not the Right)
(It is counter intuitive or not a dis of the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell)
** in reference to link or lede into "so you don't have to" sometimes we must. And I am sure that Beth Beck(aka Elizabeth HasselB) would turn up her nose if I segue from Kings(Tut) to Queen Tit for Tat, "that perhaps others would want to call" her.
[Speaking of salads and segues(see comment 1)or vain(vein or vane) attempts:Current TV (any relation to Shock Jocks or anti-Pop Culture)
CNN Comedy News Network
ABC Anti-Billy Club ***
And what about that Calm Cast or America on Hypocrisy?]
*** maybe more later
[Well actually I was thinking about the organizational structure of the ABC: the Anti-Billy Club. Bill Maher would be the what? Only the original Billy maybe. Heck this is metaphorical anyway. Maybe ASZ would work. Anti-Spin Zone? Too court jestery but maybe a hint at the structure. So structure aside it is the thought that counts.(Though some are free to flow down D'Nile or the slippery slope.) The Try Angle of ABC's aside, it might be too fruitless. But recognizing some of the negativity in the words adn sybolism is a bit like the expectations of Representative Steve King. Thankfully he is a Represenative that may obviate the label of leadership. The pulling back he expects of our President, is the other end of this candle burning on both ends. I won't drag philosphies or ideologies in at this point, only the word play or lack of efficiency in its utilizations. The Anti-Billy Club is a sentiment that is not about Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly(Or a reflection on the Bill of Rights, but justly might be.) It is about the club of association, a tool that some wield as a weapon or simply run with scissors when a spoon may do.]
[Please note my equal opportunity jest you'ring, not to leave CBS out or dis Comcast or Huffington let alone Salon. There will always be critics or those that have opinions on the intentions of people or organizations. But I am hinting at the Calm Cast sentiment of the MSNBC/Comcast merger along with the Olbermann departure and the Huffington some say sell out to AOL. Hence the America On Hyposcisy, I just had to fit in an H for the sake of merger. Not to pull back, or Palin drone.]
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tolerance at the table?
People for the American Way presents a basic argument against the tolerance of intolerance.
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...
[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]
[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]
[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]
Just what was Obama's purpose? ? [*] I hope there is some here.
I think I found it, and to shine the light on ...
[Maybe tabling the metaphor of the table as the well as the use of metaphor?
It also should not be a case of "reaching out" to the other side.]
[[No Dis-Respect but it is "fair and balanced".]]
[*][Update: link inserted for purpose driven foe-be-ah? And apples and oranges. I was originally focused on the lack of attention given to the benediction speaker but it is not a matter that balances the issue. Except if is balanced on the separation of church and state. It is my belief that there should be no government regulation to force the associations made in one's church and it may be said that the word marriage should be given to that category, with the caviat that states give equal rights to churches to determine their definition of marriage and the states provide for civil unions to those who choose. But no!!!! It seems that some people will not be happy with re-parsing of words, like freedom or rights..]
Monday, December 10, 2007
Romney takes leap
of faith with religion speech
CNN Politics.com -/- Power Line
"I'm not going to be giving a JFK speech,"
-/-
"Freedom requires religion..."
"A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
"public domain"
"the religion of secularism"
"tHEy are wrong"
"trust"
"the equality of human kind"
"to serve"
"liberty"
"public square"
"under God"
"these convictions will indeed inform "
"constitutional order"
"free exercise"
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate..."
Enough?
I return to the quote he used. And note that the preceding words are all parsed from his speech. If you don't "trust" that, use control find (Ctrl "F") on your keyboard and screen for the words you choose to "verify". Rather than read between the lines, I will let you leap between the segments above and now I will do the same with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
You will find "under God" in neither but you will find "God" is in the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence.
Once and only there.
I could "of course" cherry pick or parse more words, but it is all in the putting together. You might want to search other words like "creator" or "power" and you will find no more of the former and much of the latter and where, but this...
I will leave to you.
[Note: I have taken the liberty to italicize some words and some bold, and here note that a -/- (dash slash dash) gives separation between the sources and parsed words at the top of this post, while in the blockquote -- (two dashes) actually are each one long dash and are for emphasis it seems or high light.]
[It is not that it was a bad speech, but he is "no Kennedy" and may be a better "Reagan". But that is a double-edged comment. ]
CNN Politics.com -/- Power Line
"I'm not going to be giving a JFK speech,"
-/-
"Freedom requires religion..."
"A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
"public domain"
"the religion of secularism"
"tHEy are wrong"
"trust"
"the equality of human kind"
"to serve"
"liberty"
"public square"
"under God"
"these convictions will indeed inform "
"constitutional order"
"free exercise"
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate..."
Enough?
In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
I return to the quote he used. And note that the preceding words are all parsed from his speech. If you don't "trust" that, use control find (Ctrl "F") on your keyboard and screen for the words you choose to "verify". Rather than read between the lines, I will let you leap between the segments above and now I will do the same with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
You will find "under God" in neither but you will find "God" is in the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence.
Once and only there.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed...
I could "of course" cherry pick or parse more words, but it is all in the putting together. You might want to search other words like "creator" or "power" and you will find no more of the former and much of the latter and where, but this...
I will leave to you.
[Note: I have taken the liberty to italicize some words and some bold, and here note that a -/- (dash slash dash) gives separation between the sources and parsed words at the top of this post, while in the blockquote -- (two dashes) actually are each one long dash and are for emphasis it seems or high light.]
[It is not that it was a bad speech, but he is "no Kennedy" and may be a better "Reagan". But that is a double-edged comment. ]
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Monday, January 15, 2007
My Responsibility.
This is a segue* into my noting that it has not been the practice here to faithfully note any holidays, despite the occasional remembrances I have been reminded of or wished to make comment on and remember. Today is the day to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. One reason may be that some people become icons, and some events bring pain, but neither should be reason to not wish that his words be more remembered. Another reason may be that some words are hard to put any better, but all must be taken in their context.
* referring to my apology for not noting it earlier
* referring to my apology for not noting it earlier
Monday, November 15, 2004
Keep Up the Faith
[11-6-04 I woke up to this thought in rough form and have not had to tweak it much.]
Some people don’t understand that faith is not knowing,
knowing is not understanding,
and freedom is not from religion.
This may seem like a cycle that some try to break out of
and some try to break into, but others can not tell them which.
There may be absolutes, there may be knowing,
but finding them together is another divide
it is no ones job to close
but which each of us may find the need to.
Some people don’t understand that faith is not knowing,
knowing is not understanding,
and freedom is not from religion.
This may seem like a cycle that some try to break out of
and some try to break into, but others can not tell them which.
There may be absolutes, there may be knowing,
but finding them together is another divide
it is no ones job to close
but which each of us may find the need to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)