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.]

Risky Business

Risking progress?
Update: "the filibuster"
The other guy?
If Democrats can manage any improvements on this plan, go for it. But not at the risk of doing nothing. Even breaking it up for the sake of getting what should not be bargaining chips*, for the sake of "the debt" or sticking to principles or campaign promises, may have adverse impacts to the econonomy, and with it being even more of an up hill, problematic legislature, getting more done may not be on the table. Some have argued for a line item veto...for the president. Not to revive that arguement, but imagine[**] the impact on the political calculus if congress had a line item veto after all the work of crafting legislation, be it this plan or another.

*trading doing the right thing for allowing the wrong thing
[post-post-google tangent hmmm?]
[** post post realization that this sentence is a paradox of sorts; Congress is bi-cameral and does have line item vetos, it just has to go back to the other house and branch. I guess my point rests on one body having a line item veto or final say on another branch's work.]

"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

The Randslide?

I believe I must credit Sarah Palin for using this term. But Rand Paul must credit Rachel Maddow for giving him an even hand.

The Pre-Midterm Mandate: The Ed Effect Sometimes the Democrats ask too little.* I second Ed. And Stephanie Miller. Not to mention TeaParty of the Left?

There is a theory out there that slips my mind now, but if I have not recrafted it, mine is that the Republicans run down government and Democrats have an up hill battle.** Actually I just sharpened it a bit. But economically*** it is a serious theory, if you look at each of the past Democratic Presidents since Eisenhower. Each administration has had a lot to recover from, and have been progressively less timid in addressing the slide, yet increasingly needful of change. Careful change.

* my amendment to Sestak paraphrasing President Kennedy.
** and I don't mean the slippery tubbers(Cf)i.e. link and Ctrl F "tub"
*** Oh and my General(Mills) Eisenhower pun aside,(but not the inversion of the check mark), my theory actually covers the existence of the Democratic Party. I will simply say that since Vietnam there has only been Carter and Clinton while the Carter was not out of the shadow of debt he faced the energy crisis, Clinton failed to transcend the Reagan revolution. I think it hinges on the failure to understand Keynesian economics and the evolution of empires or power period.
[see comments presently three]

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]

Obama posts a win.

Note the pun in retrospect .
Obama cares and is Building on Change, bold added there.
There has been some concern in regards to Social Security as to a slippery slope being created as to the beginning of the end, but I feel that it could be just the start of the proper slope, an up hill discussion. As for the issue for some of leadership, it must include the reality of parties, classes, and labels, and the inability to dictate their use, nor eliminate their potential for change. I am not implying that the President has a clear goal in any particular concern, but getting things done and getting things on the table, and getting people concerned, is big. Not that the media does not have a big part in making it less clear.

[Fact Check Please: "I know that we are going to borrow every nickel in this bill," Hoyer lamented.] [I do not believe this is economically valid if one can read the charts, all tax breaks are not created equal.]

Whistle Blowing in the Dark?

or the Neo-Plumbers plugging the leaks.

The Turd Blossom's Free Pass

Speaking of...
cover ups or is it dumps.Speaking of effluent or is it affluent, is the flow of information in the same nature? I recently made such a dump (email) and while some work in think tanks, others create septic tanks.

Well some of the sludge was dredged up in the last post.
Now to uncover or filter this:

Waxman, Mukasey and Ten Million Missing Emails
By Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report

Or do we have fertilizer for greener pastures,
Democrats Seeking Answers About Report on Iran
By Roxana Tiron
The Hill
Senate Judiciary Democrats Push Contempt Motion
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill

FRANKNESS: SERVING US ALL? Right.

Contribution to a new level of discourse or d’Nile. (Sent to local paper, 6-29-04, Unedited, aside from the appropriate changes in connection with the additions in italics.)

Maureen Dowd sure hit the nail on the head in "Is Cheney losing it?" and I would like to tack on a few of my own. Aside from wondering if Cheney ever really had it, as the media should know he was not one for mincing words during the campaign. The candidate Bush even concurred with his ticket-mate’s aphorism for a member of the press. That is the irony that un-minced words should get out of this administration.

After all, the president did call for Hollywood to come up with some scenarios and solutions after 9-11. He just didn’t know, read or remember the works of the creative thinkers in his administration from the neo-con philosophers to the Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld who said "facts change". And for the obtuse I am not equating defense with entertainment, but only in regards to his dissemination of information duties. Then there are the history "rewriters" which they eschew but now employ memo rewriters before it is determined who read or followed them or how they fit in the chain of command. From the Cheney Energy Panel or rather the "X-Files" motto that "the truth is out there" to the "Twilight Zone’s" episode "To Serve Man", Cheney has now contributed to the language of unity, not to mention great debates.

And thanks to Maureen Dowd we should remember a useful "F" word (or few words)and when disturbed cry "FOX NEWS". Then we can finally let the French off the hook. Now those who are embarrassed after a personal faux pas or outburst can just say, "Pardon my Cheney". However, for those who are proud of their verbal and debating skills, it is just about time someone let the facts slip.

I don’t know if that means we found the leak in the ship of fools or the paddle that got us up the creek. But we can probably agree it is not all down hill from here. We just may not agree on the continual trickle or flood of denial.

[4-1-08: Is Cheney Losing It? link added ]

The only thing to fear...

is the next Republican hostage...

or regular order.

10-8-13  Tuesday moUrning Quarter-Backing?
[Huff Po, Slate, The Hill, RSN] (oOps[!])

Please note, it is easier to see a mountain than find a mole.  But to cut the metaphors or morphed idioms, I hint at the progress/slippery slope, that is harder to undo than manifest*. Owe the Iron Knee  [ ! ] ?

*diplomacy

[Or pop U lace ? ]
Thumbs Up!
Government shutdown: Obama says he will negotiate when Republicans end 'threats'.
Speaking of Slippery Slopes...**
 

** links to borrowed image (see labels)

Relative Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism, was coined by a Frenchman.

American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."[3]

Well, not literally. It was actually first used by Joseph Stalin.

The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[4]

Speaking of original intent*:

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[1][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[6]

Since the 1960s "postnationalist" scholars on the left have rejected American exceptionalism, arguing that the United States had not broken from European history, and has retained class inequities, imperialism and war. Furthermore, they saw every nation as subscribing to some form of exceptionalism.[7]

But here is the trigger** for my lede. See *** there:

Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights.

*mine was in the lede(pre-wiki)
[But here are more links]
** not to suggest more than civil disobedience(but Relative in the lede)

[Meanwhile, there also may be room for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. But that is problematic, in that I suggest a choice. Or rather politics might make it. The idea is not that dangerous, but putting any parameters on it, is what would make it a deal breaker. If it could be the GOTV for 2012, it might make for good dialogue for the Republic.

Follow-up: Tragedy or not[! Still Life with Romney.]

Rehash or Just Hash.

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say
By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; A01

Or Sour Mash?
Washington Post: Democrats Including Pelosi Told of Waterboarding in 2002
jonathanturley.org

The implications are that there could be something wrong with the pressure that Democrats are under, either from the actual facts of the situation or the interpretation from some perspectives. But it better be cleared up before the lid blows off the principles of this nation or the party, let alone our hopes for progress. This is my take on this, the implications also being that this may not be breaking news but a matter that I have already filtered and others are just getting to the party. I think the simplest explanation is that full disclosure was not done and then even more disclosure was not allowed, but the use of that information in leadership roles is going to be eventually explained if not utilized for the common good. But that is just what is so hard to count on, and meanwhile the "hard work" of our troops and our grassroots, let alone any base is being squandered, or should I say, about to go down the drain.

I must note that I had heard Jonathan Turley speak on this issue on the Randi Rhodes show yesterday, but I have yet to more than barely start to read either of these articles.

[Correction: I did read four paragraphs of Jonathan Turley's piece and just thought there was more, and I must give a lot of credit to his fourth paragraph:

This also explains the failure of the Democrats to block votes that seemed to legitimate waterboarding and unlawful surveillance. If true, the knowledge of Democratic leaders shows a deep disconnect and possible dishonesty between our representatives and the voters. In many ways, this will be the test of our political system. If the public returns to its prior slumber after this story, there is little hope for a system that seems to replicate this type of conduct.

I don't really know what the public can do, but the Democrats better do more than wonder and not wander through any course that does not correct their staggering work.

FOOTNOTES PAGE AUGUST 2013

Up Date: That's the ticket. 

8-2-13 The blank's the thing. A. Proxymoron?, # That is the ticket!, #?.(FP5) x. Killing Fields of Dreams, (y) Tea Party Down Grade, z. Congress- - to boldly go... ? 
8-2-13 1., 2. a., b., c., d(a), e.(We are at the table. ), f.(Update), g.House of Cards, h.  3. a. b.Killer Ad from Killer Group c.Take On The Hill! d. e.Post-Pyth F. G. h.I'm not saying... i. j. k. l. m. n. o. Just Say O! 4.MessAge 5.(Dime) a. Mmmm MOW, MOW, b.Tin Foil Herman, c. R.S.V.P.

8-4-13 VC, Vinyl Café, Vicious Cycle Virtuous Correction? Pun on VC or Victimizer Congress.
Perception Correction President(shall) Congress(shun)all?
8-5-13 : CePR? math/baker? Perception $knot Reality!

8-9-13 WAR (belated insert) Presently listening to Norman Goldman opening re: Rance Priebus and the Middle East. (5)mess+I-uh(b.s.), (7) format change, (13){Paper U?}, (21) NO!, (37) ! 

8-20-13 Back from Sekiu fishing trip, with dad, cousins, nephew and friends.
8-20-13 (a) [Aeschylus] & how buried

8-21-13 1 wiki(Miranda Warning), 2 (WSJ), 3 Trans Parent Seas, 4 Miranda Warning!, 5 The Guardian, 6 The Telegraph, 7 The Guardian(check redundancy)   Re: Oldsmobile (b.s.)

8-22-13:  That old hope and changey thing [!] (order of insert)  6 2 3 4 1 5 [7]
    (changey old hope and thing That [!]) Ribble this ? (FP2) 
8-23-13 bold added: not to Farce the Wor(l)d or parse SS oar well.
8-26-13: The (b.s.) of lemon ship is already inserted, with later untwist of mangled mixed meta for ... ?(FP2)
8-27-13 Not to pun on Too Bolds or W lines. (1 NOW, 2 The Cycle)
8-28-13 Hecuva post. (wMd?) Crtl F "spectrum" (a, b, g, i) See notes on original post and placement /timing of asterisks and links.  There is an M-bed within this FP.  But to cut the dimentionalism, there is more work. (d, w)

Reading In Progress[***]

R.I.P.?

Bill Mauer and Sam Harris are the best case for religions.[***] 
Before I exscrabble[!] my case, I note three reference points.  First to Hegellian dialect(ic), second to democracy (Churchill)and the best, and third to Voltaire's gardening and the best.  Let alone the full crumb or hinge pin of tolerance. * (neo?)

[binary references]

[!] Witt gen stein  (and I hadn't even bit on the "binary" bit or subjective/objective "heritage".) Let alone hoist on his own cable. 

*seg way D-fact-oh? ex facto[!] (paragraph 10 militance?)
(p ll clash reaction) [p12 "willy nilly"]{p14 Jell-oh}
"stacks the deck" shelter
Fn1 (original inserts R.I.P. / neo)
Fn2 (shelter / oh)**
Fn3 (crumb / hinge)
** HeGel
Fn4 “Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes.”  George Carlin
FP? : A. Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality, B.(R) F'n P[!] , C. Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
(R) adjustment>B
1.  Hegel, 2. Churchill, 3. Voltaire (i., ii.)
2b. C-p, 1. 2. 3. 4. What are the Frackin' Odds...
Steal [***] yourself 4 the binary.

 

 

 

 

[***] (10-9-14) NOTE: 3 placements of the triple asterisk:

Heading, Lede and Steal. (Could read *Steele*.)

 

I may nail Wittgenstein to the door Erasmus[!]  Dimentionalism and TryUnity.

Three amigoes and the sine of the cross?   Hume or Confucius? In the name of the age of consumerism to fed up.  The branches(*4) of his(s)tory[!]  Pythagorian, Platonic, Judeo, Christian, Papal, Islam... Every age has a pater and mater. We all need a John. 

 

ITALICS (here)mightB the Paul Harvey... /(Peter Rabbit)  Re:history WholeEness.

(p."Feel the Love"?   / Q   r. R not, R2, R not, R2, R2, R not. )





 

 

NO JOKE

Last night, David Letterman made fun of the Democrats for not articulating a message or rather having lost to the Bush efforts of articulation. I won’t attempt to retell the joke, but it is sad, if the opinion prevails that the Democrats could not out-articulate Bush.

Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.

Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.

[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]