WHERE DO YOU FALL...OWS!

[see asterisk for eventual date of post]
or rather on Wall Street!
I mean the L-Curve.
No not, the Liberal Curve, "L" is its shape.
Although....
that would depend on the value of people.

No, not that guy, but individuals & en masse. Now speaking of the value of individuals, I won't go that far. But speaking of the value of money and happiness, since the latter is in the constitution. Strike that, I have been reading the Tea leaves*. Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence. So I am on to something greater than just the L-Curve and the value of people, but the value of happiness. Since some say that money does not buy happiness, and others disagree. Let's not tax happiness. But it takes about $75 K before happiness has a steeper price, and then it is another L-Curve... Why not make that the lowest tax bracket of zero. And then L-curve it up!**

* 10-17-11 (post still in draft) can't find the Alex Pareene Tea People's History which triggered this comment (bottom link will correct anachronism)
** last two links post *(asterisk)

Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

Value Added?

Chris Matthews is Value Taxed.

Mid-Speech (13:35 in video):

[quote]To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future

It is not so much was is said, but what is not[***] said or heard elsewhere.[**] Number one threat to national security now? Economic Crisis Second or was number one before the last administration: Nuclear Proliferation.

I don't know if I can find the point where a Republican critic complains that we can't address some of the concerns at home, how can we address them in Afghanistan? That is a great point. It should have been considered before we shifted from getting Bin Laden and to regime change in Iraq. But the important difference is that Afghanistan needs to build their governmental processes amidst turmoil, while we have got one already in turmoil thanks to the Chicken Hawks*, and Afghanistan does not have the stumbling blocks which are our foundations and which the previous administration and current Republicans continue to trample.

* I think we can safely say Chris Matthews is one now, but I don't really know he did not serve. The only wiki connection is other MSNBC military analysts. Not to mention Rube Goldberg. He did serve: "in the United States Peace Corps in Swaziland from 1968 to 1970 as a trade development advisor."
[**] added link
[***] similarly Pakistan has a government that must be dealt with with all our influence. (27:03) Values Sir CHARGE![Sometimes I can't believe Matthews was ever in politics or heard any of the Bush speechs- but that is maybe good for an interviewer, because we must listen to his guests.]
[Having now finished hearing the speech, after spending too much time on the reactions, I must say that the speech was a solemn thrill and no vapid rhetoric. I think I detected that in the faces and response from "the Corps" and one would not expect them to act like groupies at a rock concert or talk show hosts.
[And 1:15 to 1:52 with Rachel Maddow. Lastly I have sorted the bold links{see below index} and I hope you have "found my thrill". Maybe we should have a thrill added tax, but there "he goes" again.]
{Index of priority links: "Speech", "no vapid" (General Eaton), Pakistan, Maddow (1:15-1:52)}

Congratulations KPTK! WE GOT ED!

And Randi and Stephanie, and Thom
[4-24-07: loopy link inserted for reconstruction]

- -
[8-2-07: ADJUSTED THIS DATE -
GO LEFT TV
Air America Radio
Progressive Talk Radio KPTK AM1090 Seattle
FILTER OF SORTS]
- -

[adjusted this date 8-11-07: ifilm of Spike TV
The Colbert Report
The Daily Show ]

Five of the Heavy Hundred are on one local station: AM1090

The 100 most important radio talk show hosts in America!

NUMBER 5.
Ed Schultz www.wegoted.com

Number 13.
Randi Rhodes: The Randi Rhodes Show

Number 36.
Stephanie Miller: The Stephanie Miller Show

Number 51 Thom Hartmann: The Thom Hartmann Show

Rounding out the court. Maybe the center.
Number 27. Clark Howard.

OK! My progressive spin almost missed Clark, but the term "important" over "popular" was a factor in the "Heavy Hundred", and his 1 hr time-slot midnight to 1AM may hint at that and the progressive lean of the listeners or hourly demographics. Clark is both important and popular, just not labeled progressive.*

FLIP FLOP THE LIST!
Considering these personalities and their news value, entertainment and progressive intent,Rachel Maddow (while not even found in the top 250) must be on the bench.
What I am saying is that, rounded out to a balance of sort
but with progressive and informative and entertainment value, she may have topped a list with the numbers flipped. It would be hard to say that Thom, Stephanie, Randi and Ed have any particular strengths that would flip-flop the list, other than my feeling that being progressive, informative and entertaining should be considered in that order, rather than the method used for the Heavy Hundred.
On my scale Rachel Maddow plays well off the bench and deserve her own honors, not to mention her on-air teammate Kent Jones.

MY IDEAL PROGRESSIVE LIST[Reality Flip Flopped]
Or from spirited to spiritual. Going up?

[RACHEL MADDOW] A UNIQUE BALANCE OF INFO AND HUMOR
THOM HARTMANN
STEPHANIE MILLER
RANDI RHODES
ED SCHULTZ
MIKE MALLOY: REALITY BASED
[NOT BEST REPRESENTED IN LINEAR FORM]

[Apologies for not noting one of the top 250, Mike Malloy who is a spiritual warrior of sorts.
If there were a FOX NEWS of the left, Mike Malloy would fit the bill as the nightly lead,
but for me he is too much on a Reality Rant to make good bedtime stories.]
Now just to sort my own review, I love all these guys, for different reasons, but would put progress over money and fun, and that is what I wish for all.

* I don't relish labels, but then, it is a sorting. Long Story Short: (or in my usual way: Runting the Rant) Maybe the Heavy Hitter (Oops) Hundred list does reflect the order of "Agressive Progressives", but I would flip flop the list and call it Just Progressive! But the problem always is, coming from a perspective or getting somewhere.

This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL

WW III ?

It began with Bush at the G-8. While he was being caught at the G-8 with an awkward microphone(see comment 7-18-06), Newt Gingrich was describing WW III on Meet the Press. That being the recent (58 year) conflict between Isreal and the Hezbollah or rather Isreal and Lebanon.

These comments are just to bring into context the last few posts.

Now for some worthy reads.

"Open War" in the Middle East [difficulties at TruthOut.org prevent me from providing the link]

Bush faces backlash on the right

My basic view is that some see value in this conflict, while too few in power see value in work toward a ceasefire, or even in talking about it.

Bush: the Belated Preemptive

The BLAME GAME is really a preemptive excuse to be unprecedented.
Of course Bush needed to preempt in 2000 the people and was selected unprecedentedly by the Supreme Court.

One way to understand this may be to look at the jokes that are "out there".

Politicians and lawyers "get no respect"!

That is because we must respect the understanding of them first, before blaming the people that practice them. And if our goal or starting point is truth or perfection, then we do not intend to really practice them. Meanwhile we must do what it takes to stop others who's intentions we cannot be certain about.

Can we break the vicious cycle?

The question is more important than the answer.

But one answer must be that we value/respect the process, not value slash meaning from words.

Soothing of inflammation.

[NOTE] In this blog or as I choose to call it BLOB (Web Lobby) I have never altered the archives that I can recall, except to add a link. The only editing has occurred within moments or hours of posting, as minor corrections. Maintaining this principle I refer to the previous post which I now amend.

In preface: While not meaning to defend any individuals particular choice of words, I do feel that they have a right to choose them their selves. Given the overall and most recent history of violence, and the Orwellian language and Homeland Security acts which have been used to overshadow and preempt not just freedoms but the value of dialogue, I find the inflammatory use of language a very small concern. Indeed it is a highest and best example of freedom as well as beautiful alternative to just saying “war is a last resort” while sabotaging our constitution and flaunting international laws and treaties.

To amend I will only highlight and add the comments that follow this section:
[From previous post] For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.

The bold words leave much to the interpretation of the reader. I would emphasize these words in the kindest light, if I may use a wrong word in “kind”. While a reading of surrounding text may tend to further inflame, they may also further support the overall argument, which I will not be concerned with, given my preface. In fact if it takes outrageous language to get notice or productive dialogue, this seems the operating principle not only of our society but our leadership, if the are interested in dialogue at all. The outrageousness itself has no other value.

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

Inciteful?

Insightful, not incitable.
It occurred to me that Letterman maybe threw out a pun in this exchange.
In that the heat of the recent debate had some value. It was maybe insightful.
It is my take that some are more insightful, and some are more incitable than others.
Edwards - didn't bite.
Obama - inciting and incitable.
Clinton - inciteful. [*]
Yes, it is not a word.

[Scroll over candidate names above for my blogs. Unfortunately or fortunately, Edwards is more filtered: I was trying not to be self-serving, but finally hit on a tangent that came back to the point. (Filtering, input and output) A vote for my post is not a vote for Edwards, but like regular voting sometimes there are hurdles.]

[ * note scroll over of cursor to save you the trip to the link, and a hint at the gist and the jest ]

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.

Romer Resigns

Full stimulus package considered by head of Council of Economic Advisers, not in the memo from Larry Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council. Ostensible reason for departure: family considerations.
[Speaking of deals,, from the bargain rack @B&N]
[I would propose that contrary to the fear of trade, that we consider the Egg. i.e. follow the money? No...the bubble. With social evolution, value has increasing variables in the equation*. All the kings men and all the kings horses, have to get a little yoke on their faces.]

*see p.3 here, it would seem that Nature is the original cost. I may be punning but it would seem that the number and impact of the deer and beaver would have a place in the equation. But my original intent, was not in the beginning values but the end values, and costs of the highest creations of finance.]

Hi Ate Us

[updated 6-23-11 here and here]
[updated 6-22-11 below]

Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)
US in perspective?

(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)

[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]

[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]

Lemon or Orange?

Or Green*? Why vote?
Ralph Nader asks: Why say yes to the party of no? The answer is, one shouldn't.

*"At the risk of being obvious..." began my letter to the editor, but I guess I went underboard.

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without Green or any other color being a factor in making us see red.**
[Please note the bold "Green or any other" was struck by the editor, apparently not obvious enough that Nader was the Green party, (and green)the almighty buck and envy. And these days if you need a Tea Party pallet, just smear the colors and brown with hints of purple works nicely.]

** if you want more anger and debt don't vote
[Speaking of info wars]

It must mean...

Mitt Romney is a moderate, because Republicans know that Obama is a moderate* and they try to take on strength** with strength.

Newt Gingrich is a Conservative*, because he is trying to out value or nuance Romney.

Is the Republican race the old circular firing squad of the Hamilton/Burr conflict?

*see five minutes
** Ctrl F "Rove".
[Against Romney Obama can move left. Against Gingrich, he can stay moderate. The checks and balances are between the branches, we need cooperation, compromise and more progressives in the legislature to get anywhere. Failing that, gridlock is a failsafe.

Third Times A Charm?

Or one too many mulligans?
(the rough, the fairway or the green)

David Horsey: "without green being a factor in making us see red."

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

[Personal Note:  See bold and italics bold. For apparently the italicized irony, "green" was replaced by "colors" by the editors.]  Not to condi send but, Nader was a factor along with chads.


More on Boehner and jobs later. i.e. the success and pop(ularity) of congress

Wall Street or Main Street

Reading between the lines?
The people spoke out 100 to 1 against the bailout.
Republicans voted against** the bill:

"Despite the changes made during an intense week of negotiations, the heart of the program remains President Bush's original idea: spend billions of taxpayer dollars to buy mortgage-backed securities whose value has plummeted."

This comment was from Sunday, seemingly mischaracterizing the progress made on a bipartisan basis. It seems to me that more accountability and more creativeness is needed to bring mainstreet along. But politically it will be difficult as Democrats will not go far enough, and Republicans want the market to fix itself, meaning more trickle down.

[Note that my caution on Palin, is reflected in the conflict of nuance between her comments and McCain policy.[*] It is my feeling that some of the punditry is missing the nuance and/or her uncomfortablness is manufactured intentionally or not by her handlers.]
* the irony is that the Palin/McCain rhetoric on Pakistan is the Obama policy. Or diplomacy is flip-flop and context, not to mention the media.

**Perfect Politics McCain is out of touch, misrepresenting that Obama's allies voted down the bill, when the reverse is true.

[Bush blames media and is right for once. Bailout not the right word and even a fix is not the right word. Unless it is that we are in a fix.]

Conservative Foray (4A)

The right wing rhetoric suffers
from four faults or defaults:
Anecdotal
Apocryphal
Anachronistic
Academic[*]

In particular:
Lew Rockwell
Anne Wortham
Betsy McGaughey
Floy Lilley **

I did not select these, they were being spread by a victim of the victim hoods.

[* This 4A was held in draft, and pondered till I arrived at the right Initialism. Speaking of design and initialism the origin was:
often A$$ Backward Oops!! - Pardon my Cheney , I meant acronym-ism.]

**[Hopefully I have these in descending order.]
[(CTTC)Cutting through the Cr@p:
I would love for economists to cut through some of this.]
[Academic is a word like politician and lawyer that have developed a poor reputation, not to mention rhetoric and Swift Boaters. Or Bottom Line? ]

[(CTTC2.0)I have two bold links above that I would like economists to examine, in particular in light of the bad rap Keynesian economics keeps taking. In that regard, on a lighter and less silly or harsh note; Greenspan seems to be learning, or has he, and in regards to the Floy piece and the bottom line;
is there not some synergy that needs to be worked out? Meaning current efforts cannot be compared to past efforts directly, while problems that are missed will be the devil in the detail. The Carbon Market may be a solution, but not if the Market period is the problem. In other words, I have not looked too deeply into the hot air side (climate matters) of the equation, but feel that the thin air problem (financial matters)is deeper. To re-embed in aphorism, there is bang for your buck and there is the value of your bang. And there is likely more that matters.

A picture's worth 1000 words?

[Italics: Edited next day.]What are actions?
These are rhetorical question(s). Ones which are only the beginning of the dialogue, not that I will extend or finish it. But in relation to the issue of rhetoric and politics and the meaning of words, it might be kept in mind, that if it is so,[**] then what does a symbol or icon say that the politician can't for whatever reason say? And in many cases the participants and our freedoms, in relation to the dialogue and the media only confound this rhetoric or meaning as to the various positions of responsibility or fields of endeavor(arts if you will) they cover.

[AND...How many words is a link worth? Let alone a leap*? I say this in regards to the hopeful turning point, in regards to this walk-back. Not that I have anything to walk back, but in context to consideration of a possible change in regards to the aforementioned arts.]

* let alone a name: Tucker? But actually my intent was to note: "the value of the unexpressed thought" under "mixing it up."[see second video: Mediaite]
[Main context? Irony of what counts.]

[And I don't mean to find reason in everything, but the words and intent embedded (and parsed and paraphrased)here are for all our consideration.]

[**] the pictures worth
[1-12-11 In relation to edited above: President Obama has been accused of using violent language in regards to, in a knife fight bringing a gun. It was a metaphor. We are not in knife fights. It is even a poor metaphor. But when that causes their opponent to use stronger language, that tie in issues, misplace facts and use imagages. Then they are responsible for even worse metaphor. That does not mean it will be easy to change things. Using the original to make matters worse, is oddly justified, but only by way of extending the metaphor and being claimed victim of it and feeling their freedoms threatened. Some people apparently can't handle extending metaphors, and they are not even always meant to be extended. But again it seems that by extending them, they intend to break the original metaphor, for the battle of our ideas.]

Cropping the News?

The Daily Show Lewis Black cedes Beck.
The Colbert Report Colbert routes FOX.
Some weep what they so**.
Sow check* your crop.

*thanks to Casey Kasem
** and some misspell
[updates: 5-17-10 Commity(sp?!), Charlie Rich?, the Free*** Market?, Re;-)sources?(Comity Label added)]

*** non-value or non-prophet