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.

Tear Down That Wall!

No one predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall?
Meet one of a few No Ones.

No, I am not wishing to tear down Wall Street,
but it must be reformed and regulated.
Then "corporations are not people and money is not speech."
Let's Make A Deal, Humpty Dumpty Come on down.



Not to D-ride.

Speaking of wall,
I mean ledership.
As near as I can tell the American Jobs Act was voted down.
Not Really, I mean...really[! No...Really!]

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.]

The Great Wall Recycled.

My teaser hints at a tangent
of Nietzschean proportions.
Bush Army in Brzezinski's Afghan Trap

Or Rumsfeld's ReDucks
or Donald's Duck and Cover Up History
I will not dig into the depths of it,
or what fell into my inbox from TruthOut.
But to feel we have been there before.

My threads:
Berlin + Wall
Vietnam + Economy
Not a wall

Out of the Blue Summary:The irony of intelligence I have recently heard is the contrast between Truman and Eisenhower over the long and the short of it as far as agency and militancy, not to mention in-corporations of it.
A set-up or by intelligent design?

[6-22-08 Bicameral NOT.]
[Prior Restraint: Post Information ]

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)}   

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.]

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 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]

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

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.]

Dancing &Co

Dancing and Bernstein*** and Simon Says.
Is Roger Simon concidering a genre change?
Or has he always been so sharp? 
Unlike?(Wall Street Joe?)[Or is it Mourning Joe?]


9-28-12  Follow-up :  Sharp Unlike.
Roger Simon's parody of a mockery on the campaign trail **.  (Or cam pain?*)
Wall Street Journal agrees it is the stupid congress. 

*Tommy Christopher digs deeper. 'zzzzzzzz'
(Iron knee of sat ire read it completely.) 

**  (b.s. ). satire mockery
*** can Ohioans do math or what [!] ?
(I know percentage does not equal vote but I am employing mythmatic.  Chances of Romney win in Ohio below 4%. Yet to compare maps or 538.)   

[Bottomline:  It is not the prophets or Simon says corporate capitalizers, but it may be the Peter Paul and Mary principle.  No, just the Peter principle and robbing Paul to pay Peter.  A bird in the hand is worth not having two bushes or an etch-a-sketch Bush is more dangerous when they think they will do one^ better.] 

^ not to (fn) butt... 

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"

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.]

Where in the world is Carmen...

Miranda?
Could it be...Real Mythication? Or a mixed fruit salad of bureaucracy.

Labels hint.

We have a heckuva'n updating to do.
[Sea Wall].Oh...really?

Real hint: Sometimes headings have meaning and sometimes they are just links that go deeper. Technical advances in formatting have complicated* literary(communications) styles, while sometimes we are caught in a web.

*not

Note to self:
no Navigation label below
see hint: recycle- ouch!)
[or links in Wall label]

[1-7-10:Shhhh! It is in the Senate Plan! Granted, not "single payer" or "public option" but... "national plans overseen by the same office that manages health coverage for federal employees and members of Congress."]

Bush Is No Reagan.

The Club For Growth will be showing Reagan at the Berlin Wall and Bush at Ground Zero. Though I would not give too much credit for the Berlin Wall falling to Reagan, some do. But comparing the two should imply that Bush gets some credit for the World Trade Center twin towers falling. Whatever credit is deserved, one represents the end of the cold war, the other the beginning of the terror war. Just how can there be a good comparison? One is the end of something that was already in trouble. The other is the beginning of trouble that sees no end. They are similar in that they selectively choose a perspective. One could see the coming fall of the Soviet Empire, the other could not see that failures or successes are not options but results.

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.

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

Hi Noon?

Reforming Wall Street
(Meet the Press)

[Lo nuance. Or More of the Same?]

[Chalk up a win.]

Walking the Plank[!]

A caller to a talk show expressed well my sentiment on the death penalty.
Paraphrased: I will support the death penalty when the first corporation is executed in Texas. Well, being a Jolly Roger, (i.e. No Will Rogers) I might not go that far mattie.(ar R something privatization.)

[!]= sarcasm/irony punctuation (See lede 'r ship)

The real leadership is not in a party or a position but in ideas. My pun is purely about the platform over the process, not to mention parties. But in particular a few planks that Bernie Sanders has suggested in the form of: Six Demands to Make of Wall Street.
If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act, and see who will be left on the ship of fools.

[Speaking of R's Bruce Bartlett anyone? (or A B Sea?)

* The American Jobs Act.

Speaking of three R's.
Four P's.
Five Minutes.
Six Demands.
Seven Lies.(2.5 minutes)
Too Cubed.
Three Three Squared.

Mission Accomplished

(AP photo see link)
A case of colors.
The Wall Street Journal is not necessarily the first source for Obama flag waving, but the lede is this: Obama Lauds Troops as Iraq War Winds Up. But under my ledership*, I must note that "Mr. Obama was careful not to declare victory." But Colonel Wilkerson and Rachel Maddow rally** my reasons for the lede here. "Hooah!"

* yes "ledership"(sic)
[link is leadership]
** link yet to be embedded (here)

[Speaking of battles and drafts, yet to be. (Ground Troops***)]

*** i.e. foot noted
[PEA CE OUT]


12-15-11 [*] "Hooha!" Not Exactly,
but close enough[!] (for gov'meant work)
[Nor black and white, but here are four perspectives. This is a deeply embedded line. It is about working together and leadership, not without ledership. The gist of it is in regards to the process of crafting good documents(let alone with imperfect people). As in what the heck is Obama doing, let alone Ron Wyden, or Rand Paul.(or Keynes/Hayek) The most important ingredient in these threads is the people, their understanding, and elections that matter. Issues bring the people to the table, and the ballot box.]
[No Horsing around.]
[*]Well maybe a little horsing around. But with respect to follow-up to Awkward Segue, and "four perspectives"(text today) I note that Norman Goldman addresses the NDAA, and was looking forward to Randy Rhodes giving her perspective, but David Sirota was sitting in.]