Why OWS is bigger than Left vs. Right.

Stuck in the game frame?
Bright Bart and Big Government?

Why OWS is bigger...

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

Whine and G's?

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests". (I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

Really?

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Not your grandfather's "traditional".

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power - but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast

Really?

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

I have read Matt Taibbi's piece three times now over the course of parsing this, and I will let you read your own conclusions.

[Then I signed the petition at DCCC (see bold) "I stand..." with the following amendments.(see 3 links)]

[Each of the above blockquotes are directly from Matt Taibbi's piece, with the bold segues my comments. But the final Really?, "Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately." sounds a bit naive if not libertarian. Companies and Wall Street will not reform themselves any more than they will let themselves fail or let the market do its magic. But it is a matter of who's on board or overboard as well as some sort of tents.]
[Speaking of ironies, or Bright Bart and Big Government, just whose side is who on?]
[Meanwhile I have four posts to further parse. Starting with the big bite. @ 7 minutes 15 seconds in: Over two thirds of New Yorkers support Occupy Wall Street.]

[Oh what a web. No E.B. White:
SCroll up! Tol Keen? Rubric, Elements, what "October", Mis-attribute? Justice and/or sand witchbracket.]
[Alternative Reich? Not to pun on the furor, but is there an alternative?]
[A Democratic* strategist touched on something(on Martin Bashir) that has been embedded in my thoughts, and even more embedded in my writings. The Republican candidate will not come from the activist wing. And indeed the current leader often trails "anybody else". Well, they are not really polling that candidate, but the leaders are still struggling for less than a third of the Republican's votes(current Gallup Romney 20%). My point is that there just might be a compromise or coalition candidate. On the other hand... who am I to say democracy will prevail over the Republic?]
* 10-19-11 I have yet to find the proper link but place some others under Democratic Strategist and Martin Bashir.

The Curve or Nuance Thing

In this I am referring first to the Laffer Curve, which is propably not exactly a Bell Curve..

Now to un-nuance something or other.** The Laffer Curve has generally been used to argue that reducing taxes will increase government revenue. That is also called Supply Side economics. Reduced taxes(for the rich and corporations) will create jobs that will produce things and the economy will grow. Supply money, or not take it away, and it will supply jobs that will supply products and people will buy more. A better economy means better revenue. If people cannot see a few leaks in this theory, it is not just what I may have left out.

Not just the Demand Side, but also the debt side, the outsourcing, and the Wall Street or commodities side are left out. If money is being left in businesses and jobs, it is not being taxed as income. If it has a lower tax rate it will come out as income that will be spent, but there are fewer people in the top tax brackets to benefit the economy than there are in the lower tax brackets who would benefit the economy by having enough money to pay for their needs let alone their demands. Their decrease in taxes, or other income benefits,* would increase demand for products which would produce demand for jobs, which would increase their ability to benefit the economy. Now of course there are dangers to an either/or supply or demand(or any general) approach to the analysis. Then there are the debt, outsourcing, and Wall Street factors. Taxes are aslo a part of how these issues(debt, trade, and investment) effect the economy as generally explained here,(as well as in a more complex equation of the economy) as well as how changes in tax code may help the economy.

This has generally been more about how reduced taxes can help the economy. But there is the correction to the myth that all reducing of taxes increase the revenue. When that is more properly on the curve or in the equation, increased revenue will come from a general rise in the economy, as well as the proper taxation rate which will benefit the debt picture, which will be good for the economy. Now, too much emphasis on the burden of debt, trade and investment risks, must also find itself on the curve or dynamic equation of the big picture as well.

* two charts



** two curves in first paragraph: Ezra Klein and Eugene Robinson
*** yet to fully read, but a note on foreign aid as something to cut with only 1% of the budget. It just might fit into the above understanding of proper balance and investment not that it all is, but a cut in foreign aid may mean an increase or leak in another part of the picture above.

[I hope the above is easy to understand, but then there is the crack pot calling the kettle "stupid". i.e. Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg disagreeing with what Alan Simpson and Charles Krauthammer think.]

[Also Straw Man D'baits Red Herring. Thomas Sowell is right, there is no trickle down. That is because the money needs to be spent at the bottom, but where does the money come from? From the demand and the production of the worker.]

[3-11-11: two links (an update) from State of Thought blog]

The Bully...

Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.

[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.

** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]

The New Compendium

NOT!
Really...probably not.
But it sounds like an epoch
and not quite an anthology,
but hopefully not an achronism.

THE POINT?
A cover page of sorts.
Yeah that's the ticket!
...the dynamics of progress,

Six Things Everybody Knows About Deficits ...
That Are Completely Untrue
Which I rephrase as truths:

1.) Current and future spending are not the problem with the defecit, except for paying for our history.
2.) Social Security is not a big deal to fix(separately), but could be impacted by the budget and other decisions.
3.) Austerity and investment are different stories, that both have an impact on the budget and winning the future as well as the now.
4.) Concessions should not be trickle down but incentives should be target up.
5.) Wall Street is not fixed enough to be that big or permanent a part of the solution.
6.) Social Security is not on the same budget table as Medicare and Medicaid and calling them "entitlements" is misleading, and means testing or tax changes could address their impact on our economy.

[Mis-click of the mouse of the day]
Slash Segue(Aristotellian)[A]
Maybe you had to be there.
The Bill Thing.
The Frackin' Thing.
The Club of Construction.[ B ]
The King Tut of Rhetoric
Not to mention Divagation.

BTW: Going Egypt depends on who you ask, and I am not asking Stephen or Steve King***. And Going Wisconsin should not mean Going Cheesehead*. But I will tie this up with a preamble. If I may paraphrase and extend the remarks of a caller to the Norman Goldman Show: If you are not for "a more perfect Union" you may be Un-American. If you are not willing "to promote the General Welfare" you may be militant against "the Blessings of Liberty", but one can take words (and rhetoric or puns) too far. I suggest the word militant not be used, and that nowwhere near the tactics be used in political protests** but just who expects whom to turn the other cheek? There seems to be a slippery slope in the free speech zone.

* my original intent was a pun on Ed Head, which is not a Soft Head, but then there may be a lede to leader in the eventual link.[I believe it was a caller to the Ed Schultz Show that lead me to independently think that the failure of unions in Wisconsin would put a whole new spin on the name Cheeseheads.]

** the right to protest and any intent to break the law, includes the right to be arrested but not beaten, though we should understand that resistence is not futile but few put up with it well

*** see previous clause "divagation" link and prior line "Tut" for the two Kings.

[A,B updates]
[2-18-11 Blank(updated)Network- Parallel Channel(See The Pair o' Lax View ) Updates under construction. SERIOUSLY these are a serious sorting of views.]

[See Follow Up]

[Note Jumping the Gun Again! i.e breaking in-box of (news) sorts (AKA: sports metaphor not target or weapon analogy) Meaning the CPAC divide regarding the Islamophia section of The Progress Report is hint at the LAME O' PHOBIA of Platonic Dialogue not to mention a cave[of irony] of or con tent... or CAP]

Bottom Line?

Who gets it?
The line in question is in the last link or post:
"subset of sovereignty or tangle"
But I wonder if Michael Hudson really gets it? Post G-20?
We all know it is about who gets it(materially), but some realize there is a question of values(spiritually) but where we mix things up regards the democracy and economics and a devaluing of politics, and the powers that be.(the people and their relationships) In this regard, I mix the allegory of the egg(Humpty) versus the wall(Dumpty) and working on lowering both rather than breaking or knocking both down. Keeping in mind, the pragmatic and incremental, and the cooperative and the competitive dynamics of the whole process. Given that there is more of a bubble problem than the wall problem when it comes to numbers and the creative derivative situation, it seems that a leak is in order, and that might be in the form of tax reform. AKA: Entitlement reform. (not really AKA, more like biofeedback* wise)
*simply a very complex dynamics
[To sum it up, there is a very interesting exchange on Face the Nation where a new congressman (Rep.-Elect Mike Kelly) presents an interesting "reality": "running" the country in the black (sounds like the country is in business **) vis a vis a gory alley.(a flip-flopped allegory) In an aside it is truly more than about left and right, Democrat and Republican, for it seems the Democrats have been acknowledged to be split in their approach including Obama in terms of being accused of being for or against business(it is not that simple) but the representatives in this exchange are "running" from their party in regards to responsibility,(Michelle Bachmann & Kelly) as they may not have voted along the lines of what their party has, in fact, neither did the Democrats in regard to the compromise on the Bush tax cut extensions. In this case being on the same side, does not make both right or wrong, but only both being there for different reasons.]

** link added 1-24-11

Two Points

Please note that just because someone endorses the priciples of a movement, that does not mean they endorse any of their tactics. Obama has been accused of distancing himself from OWS, and the 99%, but I think that is only in terms of some of their behavior and some of their demands.

Who am I to suggest what might work for Occupy Wall Street, but it could be strategic to give them the park back and MoveOn[*] (pardon the Irony)! While I have associated with MoveOn, DFA, and a # of other acronyms and parties(individual and organizational) I think that their message can evolve and be more dimensional.

[Belated Jack Sparrow]

[* 11-4-11 link description added: Ron Suskind on The Rachel Maddow Show, discusses the Financial Transaction Tax And on a related issue, replacing Tim Geitner. The man, any man is not the issue. The policy is the issue. But replacing any individual in the face of Republican obstructionism is problematic.]

[11-4-11 My comment on Left Business Observer is "awaiting moderation". Maybe it is actually awaiting radicalization, but I realize the practical difficulities of moving from Zuccotti Park.(Packing up, needing a place to go, but with the opportunity to return, unless the police occupy Zuccotti Park.) I just mean to take success from the fact that there are so many "Occupy Places" around the country and around the world, not to diminish the value of general assemblies, and the logistical need for occupying some space. Meanwhile here are some other perspectives:
Marc Ash Anarchy v. Non-Violence, The Movement Is Tested
Michael Moore on "Occupy Oakland"
Bill Moyers America Occupies Wall Street Because Wall Street Occupies America
Noam Chomsky Occupy the World
Robert Reich The Occupiers' Responsive Chord

[More Maddow, Cain and Perry and more.]

[A gestalt? Jon Stewart asks about OWS, North Dakota and Syria.
Walk like an...Obama?(up/date plank**)]

** See **B here with follow up.
[And Buffet sages. Note that this is likely the root of Obamanomics(Robert Reich) as I found it, and the root of our problems as Obama and Buffet found it.
More followup. [See deter/mined and Sat Ire.(Buffet v. Trump)]
[Three Points: A. B. C.]

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.

Pre-post-or-us?

Humpty Dumpty was an Egg
The Economy was a bubble.

Now the economy is a wall,
and we all must take the fall.

For the wall * and/or the omelet
is a little egg on our face.

William Greider will be the guest of Bill Moyers regarding Humpty Dumpty. [**]

* the preposterous nature is the point that I had flip-flopped the allegory (from egg to wall) (Inflation/deflation seem unavoidable realities without real change and a little egg on the wall.)
[Update 3-31-09: bottom link changed to include extra post]

[** 6-22-09: I finally inserted the link to the Greider/Moyers piece @ Humpty Dumpty(above) and have yet to listen but the metaphor has been used here as well.]

Mess Age Monger

Reading between the lines.
See Draft,(now that is a tangent),
but I will skip the sign over cosign.
Or See Cant [!]
[Follow-up.]

Two Points Determine a Line.

Foot:Notes (!0

[Now I will parse the irony. The two points are Occupy Wall Street and the National Defense Appropriations Act. (Rebranding a SALT or SLAT**) Actually only one of these last links was the trigger for this line of thought. My point is about the lines as we make them. We are an exceptional country that is at risk of being more like those in the past. Congress is responsible for drawing the lines, and the judiciary and executive are responsible for interpreting and navigating them. Sorry there is no punch line, but that is the dilemma. Re-leads* and typos.

* my original intent was our foundation or 4mat not type ohs.
[The people must be heard, not a herd, let alone hurd.(ouch) It is an uphill job.]

Un-Seg-Way.
[** Strategic Argument Limitations Treaty or Strategic Lines Assault Tactics. Are you with M or again M? V4 VOTE! That is the spell/check of sorts.]

[Speaking of witch or spell checking...two notes of caution. I do not mean to make light of violence, food products or Occupy Wall Street. Or the Heck do I? But is there a line for satire or freedom?(Comity Central in mind.) And R we exceptional or the exception? And you rule!***

*** not original two notes of caution
[Not to mention: On the other hand, save the POST OFFICE and consider upgrading our constitutional links to include the internet. The internet is a post road. And congress legislates regarding commerce.]

[Follow up / un-M-beds]

[Speaking of Timing: Norman Goldman and Sasha. Redo taxes from the ground up. I did not catch enough to know if it was the same Sasha, but it is interesting that I had run across the connection, in follow-up. Not to mention Bill Maher on the question of taxes and class war and who is following [up] or being lead. And how prophetic in my lede and how I followed up in bold. Norman feels it is a misread of sorts. BTW: it is S. 1867 that has s. 1031 & 1032 respecting Amendment 1107.]

Courage to be...

taking a test.

Is it the right test? Who is tested?
Who makes the test?...Actually?

"Is there courage there? Is there boldness there? Is there ability to think outside of the box?" - Wilson Goode, Sr., Former Mayor of Philadelphia
Not exactly the questions for the test, but already demonstrated, by the way.

"They have to demonstrate the courage to be lonely. The courage to understand that they may be making a decision that no one will understand, no one will like, and few will respect." - Andrew Card, Former Chief of Staff of Pres. George W. Bush
Not exactly even questions, but nonetheless demonstrated, by the way.

Could the media pass the test? Or are they passing the buck? Will we pick it up?

McCain: "would rather lose a campaign than lose a war"

Obama: "not interested in a false choice"

The parsing the test problem?
What about* the blue book approach?

* I have yet to filter all these tests, but it seems that McCain is taking Andrew Card's advice. And I come now to the final line that ties this up:
"But, the article may have done more for the campaign without being published than it ever could have if it was." That seems to be the McCain strategy, perform poorly and blame the coverage. While it is mistakes that often get more coverage, whining is not winning, but it plays the refs. The irony in the rejection of McCain's piece may be balanced by the error in his parsing by CBS.

[And my own parsing is tested: "It is what it is". Just an update.]

Speaking of "global" ** and one for the books, who writes this stuff. (And I was going to note anachronism)

** Having read the speech Obama took it to the wall [... see bumped up material to next post]

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)}   

IMAGINE!

That is what John Lennon wrote...
and he's not the only one.
This is what democracy looks like!
And Jim Hightower is not the only one.

FYI: Hightower was at Petrovitsky Park Rolling Thunder 2002.
Ambassador Joe Wilson was at the Inslee Iraq Forum.

I realize this is a bit of a ramble. But I will leave it for now. The sentiment is in the Label: Civil Disobedience. Thank you for paying the price. Peace On, not out!

[10-13-11 Here is the inspiration for this post: [And my reply (yesterday).] Wouldn't it be cool.
If the OWS could follow the rules? Now I am not mocking the right or left, but "imagine" as John Lennon said: People occupying the park and actually standing for something? I mean literally to not mock Faux News. But I just mean that the more that stand, the more could fit, and they could even go home or to other encampments or facilities. I'm just saying. [Update] GONGA[*] (against the gravy train)
Yes! I am serious. The park clean-up has been postponed and the private owners of the publicly accessible park have come to an agreement with the OWS organizers. But when some protesters chose to march on wall street, they chose not to use the sidewalks. Which is their right not to follow the rules for the sake of getting the attention through civil disobedience. While I have yet to read the details of the agreement, but I can still imagine. I am imagining a conga line of sorts. Imagine the length of any procession moving from one venue to another. [This is reminiscent of a MoveOn rally that presented the anti-Iraq War Resolution petitions signatures to every congressional office in 2002. Well, we didn't do the conga**. Wish I had thought of it.]

[*] 11-22-11 follow up spell check[!]: My original GONGA is noted as a potential typo or pun that I am now missing, or maybe the voodoo that some do.
** like added 11-22-11

Speaking of timing

Or counting (or FOX)and follow-up(I could swear there are 6 legs unless it is on the other hand*.)
{italics not fully read yet but it is the point of departure}
{the point of arrival is not always originally intended, or that is the question.}
{note on labels, Navigation is regarding the blog, Navigation II is regarding our course changes. Maybe I should add Navigation III(a combo?).}
(Oh, and a leed change is also a challenge...to read)
* Third Way is point of tangent
[Maybe Thom Hartmann(AM1090) is coming to a realization, which I just missed(taking a call) regarding the power of Obama and his base and secondary potential thread. My points here are: Obama's base is not the liberal left. The Right's loss is the Left's loss, but the middle's gain.(I just coined** that.) My original metaphor*** was, as Republicans lose voters, they become more concentrated, while as Democrats gain voters they are diluted. ]
** critics please pick a better word for this new paraphrase of my original concept, other than coined, is in not that it is not making money for me, but I am just not sure that you coin a phrase. "turned" may suffice.
*** actually a metaphor would have a concept like Lemonade or Kool-aid as an ingredient, which apparently I have previously avoided saying directly at least.
[Still needing to read the italics link, Thom Hartmann and callers are still frustrated, and discuss the Marxist concept that things have to fail first. I am uncertain that is technically a valid name for it, but my point is that dynamically it will not work that way on two counts. It would take people who want it to fail(whatever it is) and it would take people giving up on changing it. That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again.]
[Post-Pre-emptive Comment: or rather footnote regarding bubbles and cliffs and easing the wall down. Post Hartmann comment: one of my tangents was inspired by the concept of not enough mentionalism, a pun on the dimension of perspectives and whether there are two parties, or three or four or whether the labels matter. But the more the merrier or at least the more the discussion and the bigger the table.]
[Post Building on Change update: "That is why peace is much harder work than war, and why it is much harder and slower to make progress than to see the same things again." Bold added above, but link back provided as promised here.]
[Just in...Breaking or rather Re-Creating the mold: and I am only up to the word "defecit" in Steve Clemons question but I am having a feeling it relates to my just bolded and repeated quote in last bracket, and to wrap this up before it is too diffuse I seems to build upon earlier comments if not leeds.]

Speaking of on the wall

Or Off it.
I drop two links here for pre-reference:

Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes:
It's bad for our democracy to exempt half the country. by Ari Fleischer / Wall Street Journal Or as The Week put it "Then more people would want less government spending."

And Tea Parties Forever by Paul Krugman / New York Times

Or Just Verses Not? OK they are both spin and I think I have spun it only slightly if at all hear here re: the weak.
My last crack might be off kilter but I am implying I know the spin on these verses and might support the latter over the former. It would only be fair not necessarily balanced to read them.
[OK, I am dizzy only glancing at the first few Ari paragraphs, (which I had previously not seen) as they were just about the spin and the flip-flop, so bingo and kudos to me. And a closer look at Krugman's Tea Parties Forever nails the MoveOn advice.]
[Some are fond of saying that you cannot tax corporations since costs will be passed bown, well deductions are also passed up, so I think that the balance has been (only) slightly struck. Nonetheless some points may be drawn from both pieces but not without more striking out into how work only trickles up and maybe money should not be treated as capital let alone a product or the point.]
[Not to mention the Triplex of Hitchens, Hartmann and Hedges or the rational middle? It is more likely the tri-pod of progress, or heart, hedge and hitch.]

[Update: 12-16-11 As The Week put it, link corrected. And Triplex amended.]

"OFF A CLIFF"

Dumbest Proposal Ever.
by Joe Conasan The New York Observer

HUMPTY DUMPTY! COME ON DOWN!***

A quick glance at the headings put this together. But preemptively[*] I will say that a friend of mine has had a squabble with a builder over a fence or the height of it. There is a drop off on the other side which anyone would be concerned about kids or just anyone slipping or falling into. Well, I don't know about the height of any projects but as Obama has indicated "We are in this together". Maybe my analysis or faith has been too flip-floppy. But it is better to ride the fence down than to slip or fall off on either side. Riding a fence does not mean D-riding the project as irony would have it the Republicans seem to do, by having it both ways and expect things to not be on the fence and by not working on it. This metaphor may not work exactly, as government is not a business and both sides of the fence are not down hill. But maybe they are, just one is away from the fence (the project) the other is toward it. But my real point is that if you get pushed off the fence (the project) nothing will get done and we will all be slipping. But if the fence is the thing not the people, and it is at the top of a hill so to speak, getting pushed off will pop all our bubbles or maybe it is more like Humpty Dumpty

[UPDATE 3-16-09: "OFF A CLIFF"]
[3-16-09: The Fence? Is Obamanomics Conservative or Revolutionary? by Robert Reich, Salon]

[3-18-09 bold added with update].]

[Also (nfry) Obama wants G20 to act on stimulus, reform]

[*] Update 3-16-09: Preemptive in that I had not yet read the referenced "cliff" link below or the "Dumbest"** piece on the Republican obstructionism. And still not having read the "G20" but append it where appropriate in text, I think it is safe to say that when Buffet spoke of Obama, and Obama later spoke, Wall Street listened. Not that they said anything. Talk about clarity, I don't know if I should rock or dine.

** since have
*** 3-27-09 update heading inserted here and pre-post-or-us link inserted at Humpty Dumpty

[11-4-11 follow up move up link

What is TheLiaisonReport?

In noting my lack of comment on the Fort Hood tragedy [last Thursday*], a commemoration of the Berlin Wall coming down [today], as well as the upcoming Veteran's Day [this Wednesday], I did not want to just make gratuitous/obligatory commentary or cracks, but must note their passing.

The word *** "animus" tripped me up in a recent essay. Just how does this tie in? Maybe between the geek and the week, or the will and the weak.

[* my thoughts as the news broke: It seemed that the snippets of detail that are still coming out, told a story of failure of process if not un-intentional derilection of duty, in putting together the potential triggers for a disturbed personality. They include: the stress of his duties dealing with stressed soldiers, his being a psychiatrist who did want to be deployed, a recent poor performance rating, not to mention his(I don't want to say "so-called")faith**. ]

** this is not to diminish faith nor emphasize the Islamic connection, but ideology might be a better word or the irony of the word associations.

[Belated links: encyclicals, stress and cracks.]

[11-10-09: update on Fort Hood investigation. There is an interesting loopiness in the lack of connecting the dots, and that is between the talk and the action. It is also reflected in the difficult aspects that determine whether this will be a military or terrorism prosecution. It is more deeply embedded in the insanity of a defense for an offensive act, unjustified if there were not such a loopiness. This is not to justify the act, nor ridicule crazy talk. But I am connecting the act of justifying preemption with violence, over preemption with caution, to a failure to talk about justice preemptively.]

[11-11-09 update Obama at Fort Hood ]

*** 11-11-09 bold added as a hint in this paragraph

A Plea to Congress

Please support the President and his economic leadership, in particular the comprehensive if not yet always comprehendible rescues and reforms.

The immediate fixes cannot be perfect nor the long term costs of delay neglected. The powers that are needed are not there yet and must be considered carefully but much of what is on the table was placed there by those who were part of the problem while that alone does not take them away from being part of the solution.

I urge the TARP oversight board and Finacial oversight committees to investigate all bailed out institutions and not only how they came to need rescue, but to make sure they do not get out from under their need to change. Any reimbursement of bailout funds must be complete, and there must be an understanding of how things will be different, before there is any back tracking or refunding.

I think that all political measures should be considered in supporting the four pillars of Obamanomics; Energy, Education and Healthcare reform and fiscal responsibility, as well as the international scope of financial and progressive reforms.

Please see the Humpty Dumpty allegory for the wall that needs to come down, between people and progress.

Sincerely,
Roger Larson

[Update 3-27-09 bold added to Obamanomics: it is a link to an article by the president and international scope has one too. The rest of the body of the text can be read with the links as footnotes.]

[Without getting too into the term "political capital" which the previous administration really had none to spend, it may be something that if you don't use, you lose. I do not see how doing what the people sent you there to do is a risk.]

SET UP? WALLED EXCUSE.

"Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest"
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.

Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]

"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."

This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".

This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.

Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)

It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.

Pink Floyd

Post e. g.
Shades of Plato.
Knot too Cave. 
Lost ^ in Translation.

^ trans-something/not mogrify labelism
[The E Ron Crisis.]

From the bottomlineup!
tergiversate/Di-spencer with/the wall/social Darwinism.

BFT:(back from tangent^)
In the "corporations are people" and "government is bad" absolutist field, Kant we see that death to a country(read that the ideal of the name) is not death to a people(except if change is the enemy)^^.  The act of saying/wiping any name off the map, does not mean people die, unless people die.  Changing or wiping off a name is not an existential threat.  Anymore than American describes a people, or Zion is a race or state.  This can be seen in the poll(I speculate), that Iranians might hate America, but be more favorable to the people and other principles.  It might also be seen in the take on Israel from True Torah Jews.  But change is a threat to a part of us all.  Even the name Zion has geographical and metaphysical branches.(Castle/Dry Land/Brook)    

^^  context is everything and Mani-Hegelism; like might means maybe, and duality does not mean to exclude. 

(too the moon!)
[Supply and Demand Myth]  Supply more money and demand will increase.  Oops that was too Economic. Demand must come from the bottom up, that is how the money gets created.  Ironically or Mani-Hegelianistically answers don't come from above.  The slippery-slope or domino theory are about the set up and playing the game, not the slippery game and knocking it all down.

Humpty Dumpty...

Sat* on a wall, and the yoke is on us.

[THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN: Tikkun Magazine Man/June 2009]

[Saved in draft 6-16-11, redated as published with addendum, The Daily Rant on The Dylan Ratigan Show(Mark Ames: Exiled No More: IPO for America**). Where are the tin-foil hats now? If only this were only Fable TV.(To be clear, I am not suggesting second amendment solutions, but there is a difference between Sharon Angle exploiting fear for the sake of exploiting the people and the media, and a Ted Rall expounding upon and exploiting his solutions. Then there is a third tier, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow(and Dylan Radigan) exploiting and expounding upon the issues for ratings and our consideration.)]

[I had no idea this*** might be the e pit o'me (2).]


* William Grieder under Humpty Dumpty

** please excuse the "bat frackin'" language

*** or this
[footnote? [!] Draining the swamp, versus raising 'gators.]

6-19-11 High8US[!]
6-20-11 Bib Leo File Roar[!]Reread: THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN: Tikkun Magazine Man/June 2009 The Wall? [!] "dark sarcasm"