Almost makes me want to tweet.

The Tweet
The lede?

Well truthout.org headed an email as:
The Model is the Message.
Everything is on the table.
That is what Obama has frequently said, so get to the table.
By Jove!
[10-20-11: Actually there are some things that are off the table for everyone, but they are not always the same things or the same people. Like violence and social security as just examples. A crowd is not always able to control the violence of individuals let alone individual authorities. And taking social security off the table would mean that it doesn't get the help it needs. Everything getting on the table does not mean that it gets off the table, but people had better be with it.]

The Politics of the Table.

The Message is the Model.
Everything* is on the Table.

See Apples and Oranges and Cherry pitting.
Salad anyone?
Really...anyone [?]




* see 10-20 update there
[per-spec-tivism: over view?]

FOOTNOTES PAGE ONE- MAY 2014

5-4-14  In Spiration: Salon-W.R. Klemm / Sch~hhh[!] ... Who started it, I finished it, it still needs sense. (Ctrl F: sense ) Everything Model? A. Para-model, B. Almost makes me want to tweet. , C. Wittgenstein, D. The Politics of the Table. , E. What the Beck? (Witt Gen Stein's Buffet)   Milo Wolfowitz (FP2)

5-5-14:  fath:   ...:   gr :  your : [nexus, cats, herstory, herding] 1.A. NEXUS REVIEW (Re-posted) , B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I.  2. A., B. C. D. Reigning wags and tales ...  M. 3. EH? The History of B.S. 4[$]. A. B., C.Congress is Like Herding Death Panels!, D. What's good for the goose... [?] ow!  

5-7-14: SkyNet published from 5-6-14. Yes link inserted, but italics added. 

5-29-14 this:  Nixon- Plausible Deniability / Bush 43- Plausible Incompetence / Snowden- Plausible What?  Hence the word.  Posting based solely on NBC link.  4Later digging/yet/to read.  ...& further D'Ribble rather than G'Ribble;  Plausible Disciplination asks about his education and training in law or civics or what else he was educated in that might inform his understanding of this exchange with authorities, not that we should expect constitutional scholars not to have varied opinions.  Italics: not a foundation for my ainfount[><].  i.e. bu'dump ump[~]

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

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

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

From his (President Obama's) Fiscal Speech:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.

[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.

Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.

Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.

Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.