Location, location, location.

" Sources, sources, sources [!]" 
Not to parse ... nor tangent.

(FP1)*

* yet to post Footnotes Page One(June, '14)
Asterisk(1) pulled from b.s.@[!] (i.e. blog search) May the source BwU.

My original crack~ refers to references and sharing.  It is not conceivable that some could read all the material they** share on social networks.  To be less obtuse, there are sources read, sources cherry picked, and sources quilted. 
(to be continued)***
draft:
Bold = read 
italics=more to read
** Courier = at this juncture b. s. *
*** see labels
~ last insert
[On the matter of reading this...(not yet) but also see italic nor, yet recall D.D. Runes !]

[FP1 redate 6-14-14]

Reducks[!] in a row.

Flash Words

and Holey Math!
The words are not as bad* as the math or the understanding of the checks and balances and full faith in budgets or IOU's.

* Picking up from the last link(or 2) in the last post I must note the biased(although that is relative)source(mediaite) and dig out the Paul Krugman and Peter G. Peterson sources above. And I have to say that there is no comparison to the "gotcha journalism" of recent controversy. Commissioner Simpson was the aggressor who stood his ground in error or at least two worlds, confusing the IOU's with the Lock Box. i.e. the double hit is not, except for the interest that is robbing Paul to not pay Peter. No pun on sources, but I must note that we have a strange convergence of agreement, Simpson must go or actually be used to school the debate. But I will unthread these sources to D-Day(the Derivatives article) in Progressive Breakfast with a side of Simpson a link to Krugman, and from him to The Fiscal Times(of Peter G. Peterson). Has one ever seen such bipartisan agreement that Simpson should go for several reasons?[bold added 1-31-11] But does it not boil down to this? The double hit is really a double pick pocket or some such farther from faith and credit to government.

[Post-comment updates] [and more]

Academic Freedom

Not the best heading**, let alone lede.

But not to be preemptive, I am being rough*drafty.

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)

** see "extended" reference: not a bad heading (round and round)

*** not to pin the tale on this dawn key ode (Ouch those frackin' wind mills)

[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.]

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

Borrowed Comment!

* * *
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *

* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *


Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.

On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?

Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.

Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.

* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.

Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!

[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]

Anachronistic Reasoning?

Rational Actors?

The X-Factor?

Not Exactly.

[Note: it was not my original intent to post so much comment. A reading of the asterisks in order,(* through ***) may help the flow of reasoning, such as it is. (i.e. get to *** before reading asterisks.)]

Chomsky/Pillar.

The dilemma*** of dealing with irrational actors, seems to argue that the reason for not allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, is the same reason for supporting the Republicans for leadership: Only irrational actors can deal with irrational actors.**

Ironically it seems that it is the same reason for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear arms are needed to prevent the will of an enemy from being forced on one's homeland. Hence the irrational* also enforces the rationale that Iran needs nuclear arms for rational reasons.

This is not to argue for nuclear proliferation or disarmament, only to expose the paradox of expecting forces to be irrational, except when it is one's own. And this certainly does not argue for Republican leadership, at least as it expects to enforce their rational behavior on irrational bases. Such rationale is only loose talk or worse, intentional escalation of world tensions, and certainly not incentive for nuclear non-proliferation, global understanding or economic progress.

* not so irrational in the foundations here: as it is irrational to claim that Iran is irrational as a rational for preventing their nuclear capabilities. It is rational just attempting to rationalize behavior despite potential irrationality of the players.

**dualing ironies or double down dueling[!]

[or just dualing down?]

*** this paradox is also rational

This piece is based on a reading of the Chomsky and Pillar pieces.(in light of the "Actors" clip) But not before a re-reading of the complete Kroenig piece in a paper bound edition of Foreign Affairs, not fully available here. I had not yet stumbled on these articles, which may shine more light on the exorcise here.[!] From the former of the last two:

Matthew Kroenig's argument for preventive military action to combat Tehran's nuclear program -- "Time to Attack Iran" (January/February 2012) -- suffers from three problems. First, its view of Iranian leaders' risk calculations is self-contradictory. Second, it misreads nuclear history. And third, it underestimates the United States' ability to contain a nuclear Iran. When these problems are addressed, it is clear that, contrary to what Kroenig contends, attacking Iran is not "the least bad option."

--

Kroenig's inconsistency is clear: If Iranian leaders are as reckless as he seems to believe, a preventive strike would likely escalate to a full-blown war. If they are not, then there is no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would be uncontainable.

[Bingo: just in! Generals against of war ! or "loose talk"^]

[No Fluke? Yeah Right! ...and more Breaking Presidential Press Conference ! And ABC Fact Check is not Fact Check.]

^[Under "loose talk" a self-deprecating reference to my occasions to both hear and speak in-person with General Eaton.]

[Note that "anachronistic" pertains to the reading of the sources and the top three lines, not to mention the ongoing nature of who's interests are reasonable or to be forced, in the flow of the rationalizing. (Also asterisks and late found sources.)]

[Not exactly breaking, but Ed Schultz notes that Bill O'Reilly believes it was "No Fluke", that Sandra Fluke did not get "in front of that committee" by accident. No, she was rejected by a House Committee and was forced to appear before a Democratic Sub-Committee.]

Proxymoron?

Romney/Ryan* - "Social Darwinism"

BS (Blog Search)

Make no mistake, I am not associating President Obama with Proxymoron for using "Social Darwinism" wrong. I am not using Social Darwinism as it is commonly** used, since it evolves.

Even The Righteous Mind will evolve us.***

* Huffington Post (NFR)

** "common sense is not so common"

Related proxy-aphorism? Counter-Rush or Tea Party or FOX Think.

i.e. For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT! The word is action.

Maybe false dichotomy applies.

*** If corporations have become persons, what is society?

Further sources of comment on this event.

Christian Science Monitor

The Guardian

CBS News

The White House (the event: AP Luncheon)

[I Ron Knee of the Bottom Line? That I have yet to listen to the full speech.]

(Footnote: last link entered simul-speech about 14:40 on. Mitt Maligns Marvelous!)

[Loopholes? The Mitt Medvedev Moment. By George. Apologies for the tongue in cheek or cubism on the side but please Ctrl F "Loopholes"under the bold MMM.]

[Other Message Mean 'm, or Forum or 40m mark in video? Check that, 38 minutes, first question, not to mention BS remark. Grand Slam ? Or B in GO!]

[Speaking of GPS: "What we have here" is a Galley Project SimpBowlized, by the deficit commission and the Kitchen/Boat math, marvelous mangling and tale gating. (Also see 2 comments.)]

[P.S. under a Google of "AP Luncheon" I found this interesting Hoist by his own Picard by John Hull. A careful reading and reference to sources would indicate a hoist of his own profession not to mention his metaphorical name. My father had a boat made by Swiftsure. Three flushes you're out! The three strikes are A. the fact-check error. B. the Lockner v. New York error C. the Wickard v. Filburn error. In context: Obama is a "professor", Lockner v. New York was probably what Obama was referring to or in era in general, which John Hull flushes, and Wickard v. Filburn recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. I mean, the gizzard of that guy.]

8-16-12
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)

Mea culpa

Maybe in the previous post I let my filter down and provided too may sources on candidate number five. It was only with the intent to provide a broad spectrum of perspectives without much comment.

[Update: 5-4-09 Apparently I am out of hot water where my flow of sources triggered a blogspot automated review. I guess I asked for it, with the May Day and all.]

The Jig is Up?

Metaphors aside the Debt Ceiling "negotiations" may require a short-term vote.

[Cut, Cap and Balance: Cutting Jobs, Capping Responsibility, and Balancing on Disaster. That is a not only a non-starter it is a nation ender. Spending is not the problem, Congressional responsibility is, and we know which party. The House sets the budget, with the approval of the Senate and with only a veto threat by the President. A balanced budget amendment with a cap on percentage of GDP is a form of capping the mechanisms of government to get anything done.]

[The President addresses the nation.]

[7-26-11 Misledership: Cut Cap and Balance - The Whine and Teas
for the American P-ease-
Hook, line and sinker.]

[7-27-11: Reel Time*? Blank Check? Bounced check for previous Republican administrations(See Chart).]

[Respected Sources: Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnell. Ezra Klein. Norman Goldman (7-28). ]


[Disrespected Sources: Whiner of the House.]
[Debt Picture 101: or cut, cap and balance.]

* Lawrence O'Donnell, Howard Fineman, polls and results.

[7-28-11: Down Riggers and Reel Leders set the bait. There are apparently three options: something that will pass the senate without the presidents veto, a clean bill or no bill. And no bill (to mix metaphors) is a punch to the tackle box. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment(see bait) not only is the right solution, as the debt ceiling is probably not constitutional. It makes no sense to pass budgets that are not paid for, let alone put the present administration on the hook for earlier non-sense.]
[7-29 Thom Hartmann , Rerun O'Donnell- Nancy Pelosi and Grand Bargain: Leg 101.
Stephanie Miller: Leg 102., Debt 201. NG 7-29. N.G. Prophesied: Two weeks for John Boehner as Speaker, since he cannot control his people. I don't think they want to control their people, so he may remain. It leaves a bit of denial to the party, or would be a total association with them if they replaced him with someone who could.]
[7-30 I'm conflicted or caught in a net, is it deal or bounced check? If you can expect a deal why not a clean bill? How about a no bumber stickers or banners and slogans, pledge? But get a deal done or the president will have the biggest line item veto any Republican could wish for. Or invoke the 14th Amendment, impeach and MoveOn. Clean deal or no deal?]

DECEMBER 2012 FOOTNOTES (fn) PAGE

[Begun 12-3-12.]

12-28-12 [ = (b.s.)pondering :
State of Politics
A Revolution? (scroll click)
Un-Exceptionalism (SC)
Punderous Ponderings (ibid) ] = /knot/ ( Try-unism ? ! ? )  ?
& (this is a test of sorts under the classification of filters/sources and progress)

12-22-12 Speaking of Will to Footnotes:(I will note the sequence of my link inserts{such})
Speaking of ge oh metric(or me trick) projects. (fn)GIGO(or MoJoe)
{ge oh metrics}
me
trick
projects
{speaking}(to be continued or Kantinued)

12-21-12 ^^ "paradox placement" anachronistically where the *ouch* was where the "pas" link is Treason of Imagery, with the "pax" link inserted retroactively, and lastly the "ouch" link inserted  All to pun(or parse) on pause, stiob and SignField)

12-20-12 By golly of sorts ^ (i.e. by google, by stiob)
Under the IS(^) is 5A, and here they Be ! (or R )

12-19-12 : Presidential Press Conference.
Links from bottom up.

"text"= (b.s. slippery=slope) a. Try Angle b. The Nature of Things^
 e.^ Flow of Conscience (a. thru s.)

"conn"(b.s. P+B+M+P) a. #1 Discipline - Philosophy ^^ b. The Tetrahedron Ramble* c. Looking Back, and Moving On. d.  Proof of Process? e. Geometry of Purpose f. Use of Labels g. Rachell Maddow Wants You! [talking points]  h. The Mess Age is the Message!

(1st)link: Presidential Press Conference
[pun on conn text: we have the conn!]

^ scroll over in-directly effective
^^ technically only a.^^^ works in scroll over
(i.e. rest link previous post)
^^^ except d. and f. for some reason


12-18-12 Perspectivism : a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l ?

12-18-12 "buying a stairway"  (POSTED 12-17-12) [under consideration]

12-5-12 Joke of the Year!
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/politics/article/Analysis-Obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-4091855.php#ixzz2EC9tWNey
political = Contempt for Courage
leverage = Fiddle Sticks^
Ctrl F = Nail Meet F--C---[!] (Full Crumb?)
time = (b.s.) "will+expire" (FN)  ALSO Re:"time" will expire.

12-4-12 Pre-Pan FRY :
Original links pre-comment.
Why It's Hard to Replace the 'Fiscal Cliff' Metaphor.
asterisks.
[ read. ]
***  (kitchen)
[Post-comment]

12-4-12
The Place for Politics link that triggered my comment is not yet found.

12-2-12: as amended:
 ... Re:sources - not too pan or FRY.]
[...prE-links and post ponds.]
BTW: Is it better to fry two fish with one pan than kill or flip any birds or count bushes?
[Pre-C Hawks ?! ]

12-1-12 Links inserted. * Not too Die-jesting [!]
Washington Week
Facts...
algorithms
leverage
(rough issues/links)

12-3-12 Fiddle Sticks (hyperlinks included in pst as follows)
Boehner tells Geithner, ‘You can’t be
White House to GOP: It’s your move
“The Hobbit” is not a hipster!

What will happen.

It is hard to comment on the previous post but I will try to get back to it. But there will be more links added there, and it is encouraging that there will be investigations. Part of the problem of the previous post is reliable sources. Not the links I include but their sources and the contradictions that need to be waded through.
But Senator Leahy, says that when there are appearances on the hill, they will be under oath whether subpoenas are needed or the come in voluntarily. Meirs and Rove are on the list to appear but what will happen if they take the 5th? This is an area which I may speculate my not being a lawyer, but given that journalists seem to be speculating and see what that gets us, but...
1. congressional testimony may be different than regular court in dealing with administration officials
2. what if they are not officials (Rove)
3. what if they are lawyers [Meirs}

This is in the area of needing to find out and hoping to get back to you, but moving on would be just fine if there is progress in the investigations.

[3-19-07 later comments by leadership indicate subpoenas will be optional if they come in volunatarily, but being under oath will not be optional.]

Counter Intelligence

Not really ... or type-O ?

Before I cast aspersions we might be reminded of curve ball and other manipulations for political gain or loss. 

People can be told anything, confirming it or counting on it are another thing, not to mention protecting sources**, let alone foreign and domestic consumption of intelligence. 

5-15-15 Dimentions(~)* of Speculation
QCON, NFRY, NFR, and a number more labels. 
Quick Comment on News
Not Fully Read Yet
Not Fully Read
# more?

*or labels or magnitudes of exposure to "intelligence community"
(~) alternate sarcasm punctuation or (sic) for spelling intended
** not to advocate misleading but international relations, national security and truth as the first casualty of war and Clause~wits are a factor in considering sources.

Priority of Read is another asterisk(or read through the nuance).
Charles Pierce(really) reviews Seymor Hersh's (or) while Huffington(I) reviews the New York Times aspersions and Bergen's(cast)  is unembedded from Charles Pierce's piece.

Intelligence For Commission

…on the topic of not reading something fully before speaking up, I've done it again. Actually the following 9/11 Commission Chimera is right on that topic, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/911_commission_chimera.php

(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)

Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.

See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.

This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.

My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238

* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.

See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html

FACTS CHANGE?
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.

Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?

Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.

With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.

Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.

The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???

Did congress know that and when did they know it?

Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.

ACORN: Seeds of Destruction

A squirrely claim is just nuts!

McCain perpetrator of collusion?

Voter Fraud Myth covers wholesale theft of voter rights.

On the lighter side:
The Powell Endorsement is more than cage* liner. No disrespect for the sources only some of the content**. Rush Limbaugh claimed that it was purely an issue of race. The connection to Ted is tennuous, but Ed?

* no slight but reference to both squirrel and voter caging***
** CNN is not really "fair and balanced" on some issues but the CSM referred to Rush's claim of race being the issue.

*** a new wrinkle: voter Re-registration fraud?

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

First Sources

It is a beautiful Monday, Stephanie Miller is on the radio. France attempts a turn from austerity.^^
[Really... Click on in"F"ables(see**) at your own risk.]
Guest Eric Boehler of Media Matters and other* in"F"ables.**
President Obama takes his gloves off*** and Ron Paul is another matter.
Not[!][?]

*killing 2brds with one asterisk (the "other" link has nothing to do with Stephanie Miller)
But the next link is not for the Right thinking.
** More than you might want to hear by Live Free Funny or Die.
Scroll over for insufficient warning.
*** First Read (two videos) Framing 2012

Note [?] @Not[!] = Churned Media
[Winning?  Backward? Mitt-Flop ?  (see two videos ***)]
[Not^ the bottom line! (see comments/hints)NFRY]

^confidence fairies ?

[Not such a large leap?!] Knot! Really it is.
^^ L8 link

Update: 5-8-12 Martin Bashir
Ed Schultz on Mitt Flop [!][?] Really! Really? And Lastly.

5-9-12 Charles Johnson
One person's Mitt-Flop ~ is another's Physics~ of Nuance.
~ Duality / Noncausality

How can one make light of a tragedy?

By looking for a silver lining. I think that is what we all want to do. We just have different perspectives on what preemptive is. But remember the silver lining requires a cloud and a light and it is always darkest before the dawn.(Not.)

My original trigger for this thought was a satire on the recent Seahawks loss in Chicago. But please note that my weapon of choice is words and I often have too full a tool box and grab the wrong instrument. But there is a difference between a target and a gun sight and I am sure that they meant surveyors or navigational equipment. Then there is the questionable use of a muzzle.

Back to Seattle: I feel I cost the Seahawks the game by not wearing my cap till the third quarter or so. But then maybe it was in the cards, or the hand of Chicago that was dealt. If these three downs aren't enough then Plato is a hail Mary and there is nothing wrong with the school of hard knocks.

Who let the dogs out? Not Pavlov.

[As for questionable sources: here are some earliest comment.
And more recent.]
[Speaking of rhetorical change*... what about repeal of the Dole-Romney Healthy Deficit Reduction Act, aka Obamacare.]
*see recent link 29:20 and 38:20.