There is hope that things are about to turn. They could not get worse than the week that was. Well really they always can, but we can hope. There are hints that there will be some feet put down. It only takes 41 Senators to hold up a "heckuva" lot. And now that it has been acceptable to admonish a group for what they say, a real hard look should be taken at Bush.
Search Leahy and Pelosi as I will add links here.[The next day;]
[ Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos] ]
[ On the Table! See A. & B.]
[ What's going on? ]
[The point is that the Democrats are getting the message and contrary to the do-nothing plan that the Republicans have, Democrats should be moving on with subpoenas and may switch to "do-nothing" without a timetable for withdrawal. It only takes 41 votes to not vote on a bill. It only takes 41 votes to hold things up until something gets done, even if it is only a sense of the Senate.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query switch. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query switch. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
He said, She said?
Enhanced Interrorgations?
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.
* meaning the sorts the thing
[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.
* meaning the sorts the thing
[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Economy or Economics
To SIN or not to sin?
SIN*:
Switch Topics
Ignore Facts
Name Call
Call it a Wrap?
With no bow on it, or aft?**
* rated X for economiX
(I should note that I was thoroughly entertained by the Fight of the Century, but it is a Koch sponsored production, and requires a fair bit of economics** as well as other disciplines to see that it is more inciteful than insightful. But the other links provide some other perspectives that I only have a hunch are more "fair and balanced" and not in a Faux or FOKS way. I have only begun to unRap them, but there is a pun in the 3 bows.***
** redone duncy Not! (actually this just might be the bow)
*** correction 4 is more on target
[NOTE: Under(see Wrap) and a fair bit of economics and NOT! are the links I have yet to dijest (see sic and pour ridge metaphor)]
SIN*:
Switch Topics
Ignore Facts
Name Call
Call it a Wrap?
With no bow on it, or aft?**
* rated X for economiX
(I should note that I was thoroughly entertained by the Fight of the Century, but it is a Koch sponsored production, and requires a fair bit of economics** as well as other disciplines to see that it is more inciteful than insightful. But the other links provide some other perspectives that I only have a hunch are more "fair and balanced" and not in a Faux or FOKS way. I have only begun to unRap them, but there is a pun in the 3 bows.***
** redone duncy Not! (actually this just might be the bow)
*** correction 4 is more on target
[NOTE: Under(see Wrap) and a fair bit of economics and NOT! are the links I have yet to dijest (see sic and pour ridge metaphor)]
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Lives
(or jobs) in the balance.
[Amy Goodman found earlier]
Meanwhile on the jobs front(or tax cuts/stimulus) Republicans claim no data[**] on millionaire target. Close enough for government* work.
(hardball breaking: fight or switch)
*context for chart
[further breaking: and pesky fact (not included) Bush appointee]
[Matt Laur?]
** on the other hand
[Amy Goodman found earlier]
Meanwhile on the jobs front(or tax cuts/stimulus) Republicans claim no data[**] on millionaire target. Close enough for government* work.
(hardball breaking: fight or switch)*context for chart
[further breaking: and pesky fact (not included) Bush appointee]
[Matt Laur?]
** on the other hand
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Nature of Things
Air America Today shouts Fifty-Nine!
It seems to imply that Democrats are off the hook. The moderate/independent middle seems to say that they want checks-and-balances which in turn should turn progressives loose now that there is a potential filibuster. Some have accused this middle of being low-information voters, but others claim them to be those that want the change they were promised or in the case of Massachusetts, those that have their health care and worry about the cost, not to mention jobs being a priority. This is my preemptive take from the heading, not the article.
Also the word Revolution has been bandied about. A caller suggested that the Reagan "Revolution" should have been a called a Counter Revolution. I would suggest it would be appropriately called a Devolution but unfortunately Revolution implies a spin that will continue unless there is real change. Now to switch a flat tire to a flat earth, there is a slippery slope because there is trickle down. That means that progress will always be slippery and up hill, or those that rise will only be on* the backs of others. [Correction: they do need the backs of others but they can't rise by flattening them.]
*scratch "on the backs of others": replace with "the burden of others."
[See "nature of things"]
[Extended metaphor: The ping pong ball is flat!(maybe it always has been, or it is more than about games and parties.)]
[BTW: a conference table can be round but it is still flat]
It seems to imply that Democrats are off the hook. The moderate/independent middle seems to say that they want checks-and-balances which in turn should turn progressives loose now that there is a potential filibuster. Some have accused this middle of being low-information voters, but others claim them to be those that want the change they were promised or in the case of Massachusetts, those that have their health care and worry about the cost, not to mention jobs being a priority. This is my preemptive take from the heading, not the article.
Also the word Revolution has been bandied about. A caller suggested that the Reagan "Revolution" should have been a called a Counter Revolution. I would suggest it would be appropriately called a Devolution but unfortunately Revolution implies a spin that will continue unless there is real change. Now to switch a flat tire to a flat earth, there is a slippery slope because there is trickle down. That means that progress will always be slippery and up hill, or those that rise will only be on* the backs of others. [Correction: they do need the backs of others but they can't rise by flattening them.]
*scratch "on the backs of others": replace with "the burden of others."
[See "nature of things"]
[Extended metaphor: The ping pong ball is flat!(maybe it always has been, or it is more than about games and parties.)]
[BTW: a conference table can be round but it is still flat]
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Association vs. Responsibility
Free speech: How much is there, if people who want to get their perspective out, have to sacrifice their principles by association with a host to get on the air while those who control the airwaves use free speech to be less responsible for the sake of their principle of the bottom line?
On The Most, a good exchange just occurred that reinforces my earlier joke.
Actually, I guess that "reality" is too harsh, responsibility is what I was stretching for. Also in regards to my definition of "whores" in the earlier post, principles should be called into question. I wonder if generosity or charity by someone who is raking it in is really any way to determine if someone is a "good person"? It is probably something even Imus may be calling into question.
Another comment: What is the attraction of Don Imus, the personality? I am not a regular viewer of any cable shows, but MSNBC seems to have had a better impression than the other cable networks. But I have not been impressed with his casual mumbling approach whose attraction may be that anyone could seem to do his job. His added attraction may be the adolescent attitude that many may wish to have in their 60's.
No Hold's Maher-ed is a very interesting clip. While I agree with some of Maher's comments, I disagree with certain premises. He ackowledges a valid double standard in terms of which race is using which words, but in terms of jobs there is also a valid double standard. I think that Maher and Scarborough should switch jobs. Then the likes* of Scarborough and Imus could use their "free speech" and be guests and face a host who is more up front and humorous about their perspectives.
* the likes: I hope is more sensitive than Scarborough's "people like you" to Joan Walsh. This clip "reflects" that he is on the wrong side of the desk...
On The Most, a good exchange just occurred that reinforces my earlier joke.
I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.
Actually, I guess that "reality" is too harsh, responsibility is what I was stretching for. Also in regards to my definition of "whores" in the earlier post, principles should be called into question. I wonder if generosity or charity by someone who is raking it in is really any way to determine if someone is a "good person"? It is probably something even Imus may be calling into question.
Another comment: What is the attraction of Don Imus, the personality? I am not a regular viewer of any cable shows, but MSNBC seems to have had a better impression than the other cable networks. But I have not been impressed with his casual mumbling approach whose attraction may be that anyone could seem to do his job. His added attraction may be the adolescent attitude that many may wish to have in their 60's.
No Hold's Maher-ed is a very interesting clip. While I agree with some of Maher's comments, I disagree with certain premises. He ackowledges a valid double standard in terms of which race is using which words, but in terms of jobs there is also a valid double standard. I think that Maher and Scarborough should switch jobs. Then the likes* of Scarborough and Imus could use their "free speech" and be guests and face a host who is more up front and humorous about their perspectives.
* the likes: I hope is more sensitive than Scarborough's "people like you" to Joan Walsh. This clip "reflects" that he is on the wrong side of the desk...
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Rest in Peace: Andrew Breitbart
It is with no schadenfreude that
Yesterday, David Bender interviewed former Senator Alan Simpson, who really tore into Rick Santorum and the Stephenie Miller Show. I hope** that was not what put the "Journalist"* over the top. I regret putting any meaning into what were hopefully "natural causes", not that they are any better than the best intentions sometimes. His dreams or nightmares will live on.
*3-2-12 BS added...(i.e. blog search)
*** apparently it may be how "Google" can work for some.(note image replaced below)
4A: not to pun on a death but there are categories of writing and communicating. Why do you think they have wakes?^^
3-2-12(continued): In fact I think I will take it back a notch.
Note: Face moved and replaced.
(see "image"*** switch)
RIP: Respect in Place (Face adjustment)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Fine Tuning.
THE GAME (Slightly updated: bold Stay the Course - job->search) The topic is our job which is to help navigate embedded with a link to help you navigate. Not to mention bottom links that brings some news to light if you go there, or sometimes just a previous connection as below.
In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.
In this case, The New Wave is a switch in focus from the battle for the Democratic Candidate to the Republican potential candidate and the media who is filtering it all. The issue of negative campaigning and super delegates are an example of what may make for a rocky boat. They are not easy to explain away, but there are so many perspectives that it is not just a matter of declaring what is the will of the people. There is a process that people are a part of and parties are a part of. It is unfortunate there are not alternatives in some cases, but playing like they are part of the process is no better. What I am alluding to is that without something such as Instant Run-off Voting any wish that things should go smoothly is a pipe dream. Not that things won't turn out to be much smoother than anticipated, but each voter must accept that they have a part that is no bigger than the next voter, but that involvement does matter. Finally, (obtuse as I am) 1. charges of lack of substance must have substance themselves 2. charges with substance are not negative campaigning, but the voter is the decider 3. super delegates are not super nor necessarily committed.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Who are they calling
Economists? Or what the bleap-
do we know? (or they? Post-Laughing Stockman.)
And speaking of who's calling it? Whose thumbing it?
[Speaking of append-ages.]
[anachron(plug)istas]
[Yesterday Norman Goldman sat in for Ed Schultz and today it was Jack Rice, so I plug the former into anacron()ista which I had to see if I had coined. Meanwhile, to Jack: Afganistan, corruption and incompetence, capitalism and diplomacy*, naivete and too cunning by half, what's new, and what's knew, and won can ponder.]
* morphed(well, not exactly**) cover word: governance, governing, bottom line, the people, think globally, act locally.(OK, this is less than circumspect, but the key words R "warlords" and "tribal" culture. See the drift?
** bait and switch(now that's the ticket)
[Get R Out= (R)Evolution]
do we know? (or they? Post-Laughing Stockman.)
And speaking of who's calling it? Whose thumbing it?
[Speaking of append-ages.]
[anachron(plug)istas]
[Yesterday Norman Goldman sat in for Ed Schultz and today it was Jack Rice, so I plug the former into anacron()ista which I had to see if I had coined. Meanwhile, to Jack: Afganistan, corruption and incompetence, capitalism and diplomacy*, naivete and too cunning by half, what's new, and what's knew, and won can ponder.]
* morphed(well, not exactly**) cover word: governance, governing, bottom line, the people, think globally, act locally.(OK, this is less than circumspect, but the key words R "warlords" and "tribal" culture. See the drift?
** bait and switch(now that's the ticket)
[Get R Out= (R)Evolution]
Monday, September 13, 2010
Bane(Or) Change
[11-17-11 Update Labels]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.
There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.
Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.
*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]
** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.
There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.
Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.
*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]
** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]
Sunday, April 15, 2012
V for Victim
VFW :
[There is a paradox to the bell curve reference, or counter-intuitive meeting. How ironic the Laffer curve is a Bell curve, but their meeting results in The L-Curve.]
[It may be dangerous(i.e. fuzzy math and English) to insert irony or mixed metaphors/charts, but I will now switch streams.]
There seems to be an overly conservative perspective on government spending in the Krugman/Wells article with the use of the word temporary:
In 2008 we suddenly found ourselves living in a Keynesian world — that is, a world that very much had the features John Maynard Keynes focused on in his 1936 magnum opus, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.” By that we mean that we found ourselves in a world in which lack of sufficient demand had become the key economic problem, and in which narrow technocratic solutions, like cuts in the Federal Reserve’s interest rate target, were not adequate to that situation. To deal effectively with the crisis, we needed more activist government policies, in the form both of temporary spending to support employment and efforts to reduce the overhang of mortgage debt.
It ignores the long-term infrastructure deficit otherwise know as investment in our infrastructure. Given the skewed GOP perspective on cutting spending over recovering taxes and investing in the country, it is no wonder growth, which is not the answer*** alone anyway, is not faring well.
Note fuzzy, not to mention capitalized Bell and un-capitalized bell curve.(ouch)
***(Crtl F) "growth"
Monday, December 12, 2011
PERSPECTIVE
Friday, November 03, 2006
Did I see it coming?
Humor and Reality are not "Fair and Balanced".
Most Trusted Anchors: Stewart and Colbert
I did not see this coming. Or did I? After the last post, I turned to something that had caught my eye earlier on some screen.
Second Hand Wisecracks
Even Letterman.
Thank You Scarborough Country and MSNBC.
And the Today Show.
Or Leno-Just Funny?
I hope to return to actually view the above links again or for the first time, as well as find where I suggested that Comedy Central and Fox News should switch categories or names: maybe News Central and Fox Comedy.
[HERE]
March 24th, 2005 Quick Concept.
August 22nd, 2006 Reality Comedy vs. Faux News
Most Trusted Anchors: Stewart and Colbert
I did not see this coming. Or did I? After the last post, I turned to something that had caught my eye earlier on some screen.
Second Hand Wisecracks
Even Letterman.
Thank You Scarborough Country and MSNBC.
And the Today Show.
Or Leno-Just Funny?
I hope to return to actually view the above links again or for the first time, as well as find where I suggested that Comedy Central and Fox News should switch categories or names: maybe News Central and Fox Comedy.
[HERE]
March 24th, 2005 Quick Concept.
August 22nd, 2006 Reality Comedy vs. Faux News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)