More than guts.

That could be the theme of the Democratic ticket. It is also much more than country first. There are many countries that put country first. But are we not better than many countries? And what does this say to all those corporations that think they are people, with rights not responsibilities? Will they be second?

But I digress, do we want a Maverick who is more than a gambler? Poker or any table game may be about guts and calculations as I read more of the LA Times embedded piece. "Voting History" could be titled picking history, but there is more to unembed there.

Change vs. Experience *
More than just words,
and more than about history.

The media is at the table again or maybe working under it. The above two links keep coming to mind every time someone says what a surprise Palin is**. It seems this is more about ping pong than chess, but life is more than a ball.

* cut from link
** in the commentary/news world that is

[More than media
More than news
More than a concern.
More than Entertainment.
More than Patriotic.]

Throwing the Game

or Tetrahedron.

Or should we call it die with less perspective?

Bottom line? I mean, who am I to advise the GOP, but the Pizza Guy may just be the best thing for the country. Not that I would go that far, but if he makes it to nominee, I mean, it just might be good for the national debate. At least he will have one up on the MBA president, if not the constitutional law and community organizer president. I mean just what business is the country in? Let alone what it means to grow the pie.

The other lines? Well I will work on them later, but there may be something to Jon Stewart's point, if not baiting photobombers. I don't want to run the table, but I guess that is another table.


[Post-Ribble or Meta-4: the above was written without the benefit of having followed much ofor many of the links. It was based simply on the point that we have an executive of Godfather's Pizza running for president, and it might be good for the debate. That and the pun on dice(plural) or the lesser perspectives/dimentions of the tetrahedron. But I will now add that I will also contrast in a less dimensional way, Andrew Breitbart and Jon Stewart, they only hinge on the 1st amendment. In that regard I clicked on a link at the latter's and note the "freedom of speech" and the rest of I.T.

Bocephus had a point, even though he was wrong about almost everything else. There is something strange, to say the least about Boehner and Obama playing golf, while some fiddle.

What are the odds? (I can't find where I buried the original ref: but I guess that means that Netanyahu not only might have played golf with Hitler, but he would pin a badge on him. I guess that leaves me off the Picard(cunnard) upon which Brietbart has hoisted himself.) It is not uncommon for me to lose links, but what are the odds the last thing in my email is on Cain.]

[10-6-11 update: Hank Williams Jr.-No Dylan - I agree with Hank Williams Jr. in his apology "The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist." But I beg to differ on the move to get money out of politics. [The devil is in the details, and what is left out. I think the petition is flawed. While I support the intent and wish it well, what will it be replaced with? What influence will the media then have in filtering the debate? What influence will corporations then have in crafting any messages? Get money out of the news! Get money out of "free speech"! If you catch my drift.] HW Jr. used a disgusting analogy, but Dylan Ratigan's petition just falls short of being comprehensive.]
[If wishes were fishes...we'd be fed up. Bain or cut bait, and candy and nuts.]

Egg/Road/Sky*

or crossing the chicken...^

 

The Tikkun(MayJune'09)

knot Rubicon.

* a triad
^ a try ad ?


W. (a)Pre-post-or-us? , (b)  "OFF A CLIFF" , (c) Humpty Dumpty... , (d) Tear Down That Wall! , (e.)High8US , (f)  Bottom Line? , (g)  Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again) , (h) On the wall verses on the table. , (i) On the wall verses on the table. (j)Humpty Dumpty (k) Hold your head up Paul Krugman!  (l) A Plea to Congress  (m) Between the charges   [USC:dumpty]
X. (a) Humpty Dumpty... , (b) "they trust themselves" , (c)  The Clash  (d)  The Most Dangerous Game ,
=====
Y. (i) Odyssey Dawn , (ii)  Crossing the Rubicon (iii) CON TEXT / CON SCIENCE ABOUT THE PROCESS!
Z.  Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.

BTW: I wonder Y the only link that is not a~ (sc)anomaly is (iii)?  Not because I let YouSC. Not to mention the spin on W(m) 
Snap! Big JC on Ed! (*^.)**

** [New Page](.) [Carpe Diem!](d/e) [D or R][Mixed News: colors and letters]  / PC of Mini-Me ?
{note to test that anomaly of (b.s.)/(sc)}   

Post-Turkey Day

RSN[11-25-11][12-1-11 Punchline? Spoiler Alert, do not click on Punchline, before reading full post.]
Krugman, connecting the dots,
Will Durst,
Relative Exceptionalism

Speaking of good dialogue and jokers and will. I met Will Durst at a Democratic function probably in 2004. I managed to catch him at a disadvantage, not intentionally but anything to get a word in. His hands were full or reaching for something in his pockets. Well maybe it was an advantage )IF[*]( you wanted to be prepared for a spit take, as he had an empty coffee cup in his mouth. So I tried out a joke that had come to me. "If corporations are people, where does the death penalty fit in?" So, he was polite or inconvenienced enough to laugh, if I recall correctly, with the cup still in his mouth.

Where do we go from here, the Turkey table? Well... have a good one[!]?

Post Game:
Stieglitz and Krugman new paradigm or paramorphology. Lexical creativity, texts and contexts.

Speaking of Turkeys or even the country[!] {t}=tangent slash criss cross or Relative Exceptionalism, or satire and witch[!]came first, the satire or the jihad? Thanks to Joseph Campbell...

Reader Supported News: The Sharia Turkey
The American Thinker: Happy Halal Thanksgiving
Rob McKenna
Literally in that order. The McKenna ad was found in the American Thinker link, which was in the RSN link, which was from TPMMuckraker. My original intent was to track the satire. Which came first the halal or the peta? Well more correctly in who was sat iring whom? I mean is this really along the lines of the war on Xmas? The FOX in the hen(turkey) house? I mean sat ire[!] at the table! No not IRE but pass the trip to fane.

Actually, I am trying to find something in common*. But I must check the history of halal** and the people for the ethical treatment of animals. The only point in common may be the freedom to choose, another brand, and that may be sharia. Am I carving the irony or just stuffing the turkey?

*Geller and PETA?
** Sharia and hunters: healthy treatment of food
[*] typo original is to IF.

Friday Night Quarterbacking/Random thoughts

Friday night as opposed to Monday morning?
Bush loves to campaign, but press conferences?
Benchmarks or timetables at this time?
Still seems like only rhetoric.
[Answering some questions, often going in length on some not asked.]
The election is the game; the war or the plan, the football.

[Random notes and/or(sometimes both) questions on Bush's words and/or thoughts?]

Most of the terrorist have been brought to justice?
More troops to Iraq? General Casey?
Must not believe in his own rhetoric.

Feelings? Bush felt. Timetable vs. flexibility
Time table means defeat. Having plan means defeat?
Decipher the Washington Post?
Violent methods to achieve political objectives?
Child Tax credit?
Benchmarks - buy in?
Expects people to be held to account?
Rests with him?

RIGHT ON!

[ORIGINAL GAME PLAN: THE NEW ADMINISTRATION?]
Accountable to the people? Past or future plans?

[These notes(unbold, un-bracketed, un-italicized)just jotted live during Bush press conference.]
[FINAL NOTE: Will these be addressed by the media or the Democrats?]

Speaking of Timing

All posts are posted at the time indicated unless otherwise noted*, not always clearly, as updated or inserted**.

* saved-in-draft maintain original time with date posted indicated
** sometimes indicated by links

Sometimes bracketed material is a preface, and
now to the matters that triggered this tangent.
It was a surprise to me and others that the Debt Panel released its(or rather the co-chair's) plan, an interesting update to my comments in the update regarding the chart and debt. It is probable that the chart, may not include social security, and regarding medicare, off the chart going forward. But given the shotgun approach, not really a good metaphor(as aim is not the point), but as a matter of breadth and coverage, it is all over the map and "harpooned every whale"***. While the origin of the Debt Panel(link hopefully to be inserted)is in question, (was it Obama's or a Republican idea) it does seem to fit my theory of Obama. The solutions to our economy are very broad, and inter-related, and hinge on the balance of what government does, more particularly does it create jobs or the environment for the economy. The answer is usally, if not always, both to some degree. In this regard, any wholesale dismissal of the plan is in as much error as even calling it a plan. It seems a well crafted way to put everything on the table, not that it will all be called for or passed.

*** Simpson quote from Bloomberg link.
[Speaking of timing and updates and tangents, Fair Game is a movie noted in C-word post, but Decision Points(book) is the center of the Circumference. Somewhere there is a link that closes the circle.]
[Speaking of Spokes: Axel Rod?]

Obama 2012

The appropriate follow up for Economics 2011
Netting it big with Bridge Poker.

Week old Last Word: It is not Republican checkers against Obama and N-dimensional chess, it is whatever you call the Republican bored games against Obama*** and his Bridge Poker*. That is my take, not Lawernce O'Donnell's.

[My guess is that whatever is voted on will be politically beneficial**, win or lose.]

*more than just the table games
** for Democrats
*** not much of a chess player myself, I think it is a bad metaphor. A bit more of a poker player and less of a bridge player, I did not know there was actually the game of Bridge Poker. But negotiations are one thing and politics is more the thing, so a bit of Go Fish might be thrown in. And if wishes were fishes we'd be fed up.
[Belated Happy Birthday to MSNBC!]

[Later in the day, apparently Speaker Boehner bails out or has taken the bait: Remarks by the President:

So they will come down here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. I expect them to have an answer in terms of how they intend to get this thing done over the course of the next week. The American people expect action. I continue to believe that a package that is balanced and actually has serious debt and deficit reduction is the right way to go. And the American people I think are fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodge their responsibilities.

[Earlier Obama Town Hall]

[7-24-11: The Deadliest Catch]

Brackets and the Debt Clock

[9-26-11 UPDATE: Tax Plan and "Fiscal Terrorism" A slight rearrangement and edit for clarity below. ]

[In might be easier if the links and asterisks are referenced later.***]

The whole issue of cuts over revenues * _ must be sorted out on two fronts. There is the issue of the so-called "progressive" tax code. Then there is the issue of the history of the tax code(see* pun), and how it impacts the debt clock.

The first regards the "Buffet Rule". There are the actual tax bracket rates(10% to 35%), and then there is the effective tax rate, which is further complicated(reduced) by captial gains tax rates(15%). Let us also be reminded that even the richest pay the same rates for their first brackets worth of income,(ZERO), let alone each bracket's worth of income. But since the capital gains tax is most of the income of the bulk of the rich, the effective tax rate will not be the actual sum of each bracket's worth. I will not bother to do some math here, but I hope it is clear. Basically the effective tax rate for the rich are not effective as "progressive" by a look at their brackets. They effectively get a lower tax rate, because capital gains are taxed less than the middle to top income brackets.

Second, there is the matter of the "Debt Clock", which should have its own brackets of sorts. The Bush wars, as well as his Medicare(fix), not to mention his tax cuts are off the clock so-to-speak. Not to mention the economic down turn which should probably reset the clock. If I was able to clarify the first issue, I don't mean to make up for it by complicating the second. But the "spending under borrowing" is more than a pun, it is an economic effect. For now I just mean to address the clock issue. Where I imagine that there could be some way to show previous administration's as well as the current administration's** debt clocks.

Now, I hope that I can get away with not providing more detail. But it is not so simple, as I almost closed the issue. It would not be simply an historical replay of their debt clocks, but a sorting of the debt from their budgets. So we would have several clocks at different brackets in time. This is the matter, where the devil is in the details. This almost becomes a matter for mathematical physicists in regard to the dynamics of budgets and time, in that each bracket in time has potential future impact where political economists would sit in for the mathematical physicists.

But, I hope that it can be imagined that each bracket in time, have two clocks. Their own budget and the debt that was not theirs. I will leave it for real economists or accountants to sort out whether there needs to be more than two, as I don't know if it is just my imagination, or the reality of the difficulty in sorting this out. In this regard, I mean the difficulty of sorting a budget's impact over time. But maybe it can be imagined from the effective impact that war and medicare can have on people and how dynamic that is over time, let alone the setting of tax rates. In fact, that is addressed by one or two instances alone. The Bush tax cuts were temporary. The Bush wars and the Medicare fix were not paid for.



[Please note that the links and image were inserted after completion of this blog post. They include, in order: The New York Times, FOX NEWS, No-Labels, and the Center for American Progress [9-26-11: OurFuture.org], where it was not my intent to lower the level of discourse nor bring more nuanced metaphor to light. But please note my No-Labels comment, in regard to the referees and what is on the table. Not to pun on a game buffet, but the neither the cuts sandwich nor the sand wedged in links were referenced for the writing of this post. But it may be suitable that brackets and clocks are used in games. This is a not so nuanced reference to the sports analogy of politics.]

*which alone needs some economic sorting: I mean "spending under borrowing", to pun a bit.
** oops, a whole new clock issue, why not bracket it by congresses?
*** not to mention by myself

[9-23-11 Update 'nuff s' Ed?] Iron Chef!

[9-29-11 update on timing, see comment 2. Speaking of timing,(darn) lost it for a moment.]

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 !]

Para~graph Three!

Endo-terror~cism?

aka Academics ?

The point?  The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.

Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
:::  aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
:::   ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) ,  f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically)  ]
(what the fudge?  f-j,p?)
:::   Endo-suffix?

The project  ?   The dance? 
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle?  Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in  English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist” view, now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
 
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3)  The Be All and End All?

Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6?  At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.  
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.

P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9   "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.

Obama With Drama

For complete context I will have to read further.

For preemptive context^, is it between the Frost and the Peck?

Recent references?^^
Poetic linkage?

(^) F P
(^^) R. Throwing the Game  / r. Net and Yahoo? , WWW Wisconsin Lesson?





The WhoSure State?

See labels. *











* looking deeper into the quagmire

Re:4th mat ?

[Meanwhile, still digging.  Where did I bury that poetic link?  It may have only been under the italics 2 back.]

AnyHow ... apparently I buried or wove under the nexus** of a brighter side of life.  I must return later to the [...] *** junction?

** bane oar tangent

*** 3-24-15 kantinued post red[!]
Translation: did read.
Path/Road~Frost/Peck to be sorted under Fed oration[!] 
Vulcan/English~Table/Borg \~\
Spock/Nimoy~Idle/Palin Galactic Conference?
Let alone . . . ??[!]

Stop that!

But first a comment (of course) on the blame game of post or preemptive briefings and speculations and scepticism of what will be the results of our efforts, change or stimulus... It will be an ongoing effort, of which I have not looked at what the quantity or quality, let alone timing of the current package entails in comparison to what is needed but it is just the begining. In other words this effort such as it is, will need much more, regardless. (aspects: infrastructure and timing)

Today's Press Briefing is probably addressing the nuances of this right now, but it would be scary if it would or could all be put on the table at once. Scary in terms of international finance and relations and domestic security, all of which much is being handled in my opinion, more professionally.(not to mention negotiating in a bi-cameral way) [Hint: Biden interview/rush MSNBC]

Back from my tangent, I pull out two pieces that should get us on the right page, or course.
TO DIGEST!
Jerry Springer: C-Span coverage of speech at the Clinton School of Public Service.
DNC Chair: Governor Tim Kaine (Take our questions)
(embedded here)
To sort:
The Economy
Partisan or Rhetoric
Investigations and Mediums
Inaugural, invocation
(we are one)
MLK and in context

[Bringing this up? WeGotEd at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and more to digest.]

Reading between the lines...

without reading the lines. Not to just pun, but will the Super Committe fail?

Maybe it is already in the cards. Not that I have marked any C A R D. Bush tax cuts must expire. That is already in the cards. Using it as a sticking point is a joker. The president has been dealt from the bottom of the deck. Congress is the house, are we the vigorish? But actually my idea is that we use the Republican rhetoric. They have claimed he has gotten everything he asked for, and have blaimed him for not using the Simpson-Bowles suggestions. In actuality, they did not come up with a concensus, and the president put it all on the table. So the Super Committe does not have to fail, it just needs to report a non-consensus, and Congress can do their usual thing, and they can risk failure, which might be still better*. Ideally there will be up or down votes on parts of it whether they reach consensus or not. Then it will be the peoples turn to deal, at election time. It that is bringing in politics, that is what brings in the people. And that "my friends", is the name of the game, not to channel McCain.

* embedded "kick the can" misplaced