[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query what is life. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query what is life. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster Final Draft
FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Here We Go Again
GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz
I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.
In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.
In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?
[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]
[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]
[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]
* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...
...Financial News with a real anchor!)]
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
by Howard Kurtz
I will save for later, what is probably a very good article or at least closer to what journalism is supposed to be. Which is to not always please me and not always be free of perspective. But the spin and same old tactics seems to be coming from the Republicans. The President had made earlier references to Limbaugh, but a recent one advising the Republicans to stop listening to him was what started the media echo. That was good advice from my perspective and from the perspective of most moderates. Republicans are the ones that have not decided who is their leader and what are their principles. Well, actually the former does not matter because the latter are no different. They need to work on their principles and by focusing on this, they are able to forget them. It is my opinion that it is their principles that are the matter and that they can not recreate themselves. It is not hypocrisy or childish to keep the focus and hardship on them.
In an aside: Chris Matthews is doing them or the country no favor by claiming they have an issue with taxes and keeping your money. All low and most moderate income will see tax reductions or at the point some do, will be compensated by other cost cuts or compensations. Even those that are getting some tax cuts may find other fees increased which only lends to the need for the cuts in the first place. As to Democrats being "all about spending", the Democrats, at least the Obama adminstration, are all about nothing but everything.
In this regard, it seems that if there is anything we can get on the same page on, it is entitlements. We should get back to the safety net concept. That does not mean that certain good ideas are not good for all. But that all entitlements are not needed by some. But in reality, no one wants to give up what they have, so it seems the best field to work it out on is taxes. Similar balance can be taken in regards to international finance, markets and social progress. Maybe a carbon credit for life?
[But back to the Dark Side or Gas Bag (Methane Head No Credit):
Hypocrisy is King!
The Republicans are rallying around Rush while he is eating it up.
He then challenges the President to a debate!
Well the Republican's should put up or shut up.
There is no equivalent to the President.
But the Republicans must decide, is he or is he not the one in charge or would Rush Limbaugh have a debate with Ed Shultz?
Actually the answer is no! Since I believe the challenge is out there. And there have been others (Ron Reagan) he has not accepted. But he should really stick to his own league and maybe Stephen Colbert. Or warm up to Rachel Maddow.]
[Seriously, Rachel Maddow and the link just provided, really put her in a league of her own, but actually the one that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele should live up to before they even merit the jobs they have, (not to mention the other intelligent Enternewsmeant or Fun'n Edifying Personalities I have noted above, depending on the job they aspire to)but here are some bonus links: Michael Moore * vs. Any Rand, talk about doubling down or matches.]
[And I don't know who got it backwards but Rush did say, he wanted Obama to fail before Obama suggested that Republicans stop listening to Rush. This was Obama taking on the old way with the Republicans, not a direct attack on Rush but his ideas and tactics which Republicans have so hard a time changing, and they need to make it about Rush. [Update: too enough!]
* [Plus Must See TV: FNBC ](For funny? No for real...
...Financial News with a real anchor!)]
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
GRN
Global^ Resource Network ?* (published 12-27-13)
Third Times a Charm?**
(1) Not to pun on web, but here was the original link. Subsequently here is the 4th.
(3) i.e. under Net is this:
"According to the Indian view, our separateness from each otherin space and time here on earth – our multitude – is but a secondary, deluding aspect of the truth, which is that in essence we are of one being, one ground."
(4) Previous|Next
^ FYI: I have the old school format, i.e. the book.
Re: net*
https://www.facebook.com/TheAtlantic/posts/10152150493863487
*re:random? RE: weave?
(b2)
Third Times a Charm?**
|
(1) Not to pun on web, but here was the original link. Subsequently here is the 4th.
|
"According to the Indian view, our separateness from each other
(4) Previous|Next
"There are strong possibilities that this period of rapid change is part of a birth process – that a spiritually renewed earth is about to emerge. Many sources of information, including the Edgar Cayce readings, offer us a promise beyond the troubled times in which we live. They say that the pain andstress we feel is a result of the old ways dying so that anew vision of life can be born and lived."
Visions and Prophecies for a New Age, Mark A. Thurston, Ph.D. A. R. E. Press, 1981, p. vii
| Myths To Live By, Joseph Campbell |
| Bantam, 1988, p. 154 |
Re: net*
https://www.facebook.com/TheAtlantic/posts/10152150493863487
*re:random? RE: weave?
(a)
| "In the great corporeal world, which appears in different forms, of air, |
| The History of Magic and the Occult Kurt Seligmann |
(b)
Previous|Next "God'splan is simple. He has no Thoughts except the Self-extending, and in this your will must be included. Thus, there must be a part of you that knows His will andshares it."
A Course in Miracles, Helen Schucman and William Thetford Foundation for Inner Peace, 1985, p. Text, p. 426
(b2)
| "God is defined as that which is."* |
| Summons to Life, Contemporary Christian Insights Martin Israel |
** Al Gore Rythms are difficult to trace. A wo ? OW? The Ying or*** Yang ? and ofor? |
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Para~graph Three!
Endo-terror~cism?
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”view , now almost universally accepted, that philosophical truth could be made compatible with and indeed supportive of modern politics. Transparency is today the name of that venerable game. Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a different view; namely, that philosophical skepticism undermined the irrational beliefs necessary to the maintenance of a political community and therefore needed to be kept under wraps. As Melzer points out, there is a large body of contemporary scholarship that actively contends that virtually no one other than a few cranks ever wrote esoterically; he performs a great service by, first, showing that the claim is empirically wrong, and second, that it is itself an historically contingent interpretation." (ibid.)
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
aka Academics ?
The point? The esoterics of Strauss maybe the Socratics of Plato, or exoterics of Neitzsche.
Ctrl F (academic:~:academics)
::: aka [a. FOOTNOTE JUNE 2013 PAGE TWO, b. The Daily Counter Balance , c.(J) In the begining... , (D)BoC, e. Belated Breaking News! , f. THE COUNCIL OF NICE , h. Back-Log August 19th, ("religious ghetto") , i.(G).]
::: ? [a. Looking Back , b. "if I were dictator" , c. What's good for the goose? Goose the gander! , d. Bane(Or) Change , e. Conservative Foray (4A) , f. Blame to go around? , g. Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams., h. Academic Freedom , i. Framing Narratives , j. In the begining... , k. Technical Difficulties , l. The Thorn and the Lyin' , m. Running Joke , n. Let me finish? , o. We are at the table. , p.Forward (Ironically) ]
(what the fudge? f-j,p?)
::: Endo-suffix?
The project ? The dance?
"Esotericism is the practice, widely employed by a variety of thinkers prior to and up through the early Enlightenment, of disguising their real meaning through ellipsis, surface contradiction, dispersal of their real arguments, and the like (indeed—they were misleading casual readers about their true intentions!). The understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made use of esotericism was central to Strauss’s own project of returning to their thought as an antidote to what he called the “crisis of modernity”, since it pointed to deeper truths hidden behind the evident meaning extracted by superficial readers. It was probably also one of the sources of distrust of Strauss and his followers by other academics, since it implied that initiates into the art of esoteric interpretation had access to meanings unavailable to others." Francis Fukuyama.
Or Ecto~tonics of Aristotle? Less than Ionic that paranormal came up in English [?]
P.4,The Prince misquote? P.5 "undermine dogmatism" bingo~? P.6 Nietzsche Recurrance
"That latter struggle was ultimately won, and led to the triumph of the “harmonist”
2-25-15 2 ~ B Kantinued ;-) R I P ? [!]
(1) a. Who Let the Dogs Out?, b. The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government., c. ...what about the damage to your Presidency?, (d.) The Curve or Nuance Thing, e. Doxology.
(2)~
(3) The Be All and End All?
Pen~ta-gone? i.e. P5
"This section of the book is wonderfully erudite and leaves no uncertainty that esotericism was indeed a major art that is now all but lost. Melzer points to four reasons for past uses of esotericism. First, it served as protection from prosecution; he notes its widespread use in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and contemporary China. Second, it served to protect the political community from dangerous truths, such as philosophical skepticism about the city’s gods and traditions; third, it served a pedagogical purpose by forcing readers to engage on a deeper level; and fourth, it was used as a transitional strategy for modern writers seeking to undermine dogmatism." (ibid)
P6? At this Platonic # I will note Aristotle's place in the Nietzschean struggle.
Hence Fukuyama is a difficult read of Strauss and Plato who are difficult reads.
P7? "If Philosophy Between the Lines were simply a book..." (where P = par.) I might plow on[!]
@9 "Strauss’s central concern was what he called the 'crisis of modernity', where the project of using philosophical reason for practical purposes was in danger of collapse."
@12 "The recovery of the rationalist project was central to Strauss’s life work—"
Having now fully read it, I will let you decide.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
...what about the damage to your Presidency?
Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq
Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".
Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.
Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.
On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:
Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.
I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq
Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".
Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.
Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.
On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:
Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.
I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Major Deal of Minor Gotchas
A matter of direction and degree.[a matter of reading and trust]
Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.
But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."
Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.
A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.
[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]
*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.
Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.
But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."
Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.
A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.
[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]
*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Fear and Running
in the Republican Party.
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
Monday, September 01, 2008
More than guts.
That could be the theme of the Democratic ticket. It is also much more than country first. There are many countries that put country first. But are we not better than many countries? And what does this say to all those corporations that think they are people, with rights not responsibilities? Will they be second?
But I digress, do we want a Maverick who is more than a gambler? Poker or any table game may be about guts and calculations as I read more of the LA Times embedded piece. "Voting History" could be titled picking history, but there is more to unembed there.
* cut from link
** in the commentary/news world that is
[More than media
More than news
More than a concern.
More than Entertainment.
More than Patriotic.]
But I digress, do we want a Maverick who is more than a gambler? Poker or any table game may be about guts and calculations as I read more of the LA Times embedded piece. "Voting History" could be titled picking history, but there is more to unembed there.
Change vs. Experience *The media is at the table again or maybe working under it. The above two links keep coming to mind every time someone says what a surprise Palin is**. It seems this is more about ping pong than chess, but life is more than a ball.
More than just words,
and more than about history.
* cut from link
** in the commentary/news world that is
[More than media
More than news
More than a concern.
More than Entertainment.
More than Patriotic.]
Friday, December 12, 2014
Proof of Life...
is a term that is used in hostage taking. Hostage taking is a tool of terrorists. Torture has been a tool against terrorists. Noting these as such is not an endorsement or argument. But...
what is the word and when does it change?
CIA Director Brennan: word[!]
/ Pelosi: will of words (?)
(/)will of the people: Rumsfeld/Cheney
(fn)viscous cycle
[!] I think Brennan made a very nuanced and carefully parsed review of the so-called Torture Report.
There is a sense of E.B. White and M.C. Escher in this 4mat. Let alone Cromnibus.
Hint(/)Rib [!].
[Note: E.B. > Elements of Charlotte.
M.C. > not exactly !]
12-16-14 Torture may be watching Meet the Press, I may waterboard myself later.
what is the word and when does it change?
CIA Director Brennan: word[!]
/ Pelosi: will of words (?)
(/)will of the people: Rumsfeld/Cheney
(fn)viscous cycle
[!] I think Brennan made a very nuanced and carefully parsed review of the so-called Torture Report.
There is a sense of E.B. White and M.C. Escher in this 4mat. Let alone Cromnibus.
[Note: E.B. > Elements of Charlotte.
M.C. > not exactly !]
12-16-14 Torture may be watching Meet the Press, I may waterboard myself later.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Coordinary
What^ is life?
An *un-coordinary* chemical relationship with the environment with potential to replicate itself and adapt to change or find a niche but not without risk of changing it[!]
* "It's alive." ... actually this asterisk expresses a nature(RNA)^^ of sorts[?] to the evolution of purpose. In the original intent two asterisks bracket (to be continued)... the word. The missing link revolves around the magazine Philosophy Now and a Philosophy of History con text.
^ 1-13-14 apologies for not noticing subscription requirement.
^^ related news to be updated
*no* not that it came from Mars, but that it is not fully read yet or linked.
Speaking of not fully red.
OW !
OW!! ^^^ Frau Neitzsche **
** There is no^^^ !!
O W ? ! c-red?
Hint: *asymmetrical underlining?* ... knot to insult or dis-pare(or re-pair)age. {?}
Alternate aphorism? Art is Litter Ally chemical.
An *un-coordinary* chemical relationship with the environment with potential to replicate itself and adapt to change or find a niche but not without risk of changing it[!]
* "It's alive." ... actually this asterisk expresses a nature(RNA)
*no* not that it came from Mars, but that it is not fully read yet or linked.
 |
| Phosphat-Ion.svg |
 |
| Phosphate-3D-balls.png |
 |
| Space filling? |
Speaking of not fully red.
OW !
** There is no
O W ? ! c-red?
Hint: *asymmetrical underlining?* ... knot to insult or dis-pare(or re-pair)age. {?}
Alternate aphorism? Art is Litter Ally chemical.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Daily Counter Balance
From The Dylan Ratigan Show:
* to be linked here(Goodfriend Tribute to Snowe^)
[Speaking of preemptive embedding, Hardball on Romney speaking in pros, "looking for a KO"^?
Churning media or fulfilling the table, Killing Organizing, or Freedom of Foundation? Let alone "life among the cannibals.^" Not to mention AP-Paul-ING^ "Politics Nation". Do we want an Obama Nation or a Bane Nor Nation?*** Not to Pun on Lioness Pauling up Watson Creek.]
** actually this was on a panel (note anachronism of rant and panel)
*** Susan Del Percio^: Interesting Republican Spokes Person(2:42) in her opening talking points or not needing to defend Ryan but whine about the panel being 4 to 1 against her, before attacking the Senate or...
[3-21-12 ^ late links^^ added: Ryan Plan 2013]
[The Glorious Revolution is embedded in the academics of "/","not""^^". Republicans want to revisit the mid-17th Century. See ^^ cycle. Sometimes to tergiversate is better than too sate-yore-deceive. (pun on give/take/receive) (Slash Not what you can do...)(If I may quibble withRobert Reich, and Noam Chomsky, I will have to link later^^^, but the former is related byword play to the latter by George. Society plays a part in defining words, so I guess I can't blame Chomsky for using words that we want to change. This relates to the evolution of the wordholocaust and the war on evolution. It relates to groups claiming words while we also want to define them under the flag of progress. Is abortion genocide? Is war murder? The law decides, while some forsake it, and the politics that decide it.)]
^^^ I must find a Chomsky use of the word murder in the context of war. (The connectingtissueis the use of "social Darwinism" in a way that is contrary to the survival of the fittest, that nails trickle-down to the cross. )
Note that not only do Democrats spend less they generally contribute less to the national debt, at least since the late 70's. OK, so there are only two Democrats before Obama, but look what happened to Carter for being conservative, and at least in Clinton's case he bent the curve in two terms.
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
P.S. (Pre-Selection: Romney/Ryan 2012)
Friday, December 04, 2009
Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.
you google*
Caution...The Goose for the Gander.(6-13-12)
[Kant We All Get Along Without Going To Hegel?]
Credit Olbermann, Clemons and Dick Cheney, not to mention Charles Dickens; the tales aside. It seems that we are broaching the American Dream from the nightmare of history.
footnote: Hegel Can't
Not to mention, D'Cart before Newton.[***]
[*] e for go figure; i.e. oops, ironically coined a word - NOT - how's 'bout realmystication? (Perhaps Realmythication?) But the question is, by the goose or the gander? More disambiguated, google may have adjusted as it no longer pops up "ramifications", but it could be my lack of foundation between the geek and the street. You might ask, what about google? Maybe a ribble, search me.
[** 12:08 PST 12-6-09: OK, I am not going to rhyme or jiggle but should I be glad I've maybe been read or mad I my might have been borrowed. Now that I have read the body of the work, the pop quiz it concludes with is rhetorical or at least left open, but least it had 4 options plus all of above; while a Republican Survey misdirected to me, was a push poll of yes, no and no opinion, which does not have as much wiggle room as their questions.] Along these lines, giving the "locked in" a "what for", as in not exactly any contradictions there.]
[Also 12-6-09 note that I was trying to determine if there is such a thing as Rubric's Cube, it was not a mispell as my previous post did refer to Rubic's cube.]
[12-16-09 Update made "go figure"(also 12-14 Realmythication apparently coined.]
[*** 12-23-09 link inserted ]
1-9-14 Kant we all ... ? Roots / Branches / axe knot*? Is it not that some are so lost from their roots they cut off branches? No. Or create limbs that leap? Ask if there are more primary fields than four mats: Physics, Psychology, Philosoply, Politics? Aphorism or fact: Truth is a determinant. Math is next to godliness, and religion parting from Platonics. Speaking of fields they are more than planes, knot too categorical lee. (G'Ribble Label?)
Caution...The Goose for the Gander.(6-13-12)
[Kant We All Get Along Without Going To Hegel?]
It was the worst of times, it was the best of times. [**]
Steven Clemons: On Olbermann
Palin and the Pashtun and the Dickens it is.
Lawrence Wilkerson: on ibid. [6-22-12 Link Corrected]
A Christmas Carol meets A Wonderful Life.
Credit Olbermann, Clemons and Dick Cheney, not to mention Charles Dickens; the tales aside. It seems that we are broaching the American Dream from the nightmare of history.
footnote: Hegel Can't
Not to mention, D'Cart before Newton.[***]
[*] e for go figure; i.e. oops, ironically coined a word - NOT - how's 'bout realmystication? (Perhaps Realmythication?) But the question is, by the goose or the gander? More disambiguated, google may have adjusted as it no longer pops up "ramifications", but it could be my lack of foundation between the geek and the street. You might ask, what about google? Maybe a ribble, search me.
[** 12:08 PST 12-6-09: OK, I am not going to rhyme or jiggle but should I be glad I've maybe been read or mad I my might have been borrowed. Now that I have read the body of the work, the pop quiz it concludes with is rhetorical or at least left open, but least it had 4 options plus all of above; while a Republican Survey misdirected to me, was a push poll of yes, no and no opinion, which does not have as much wiggle room as their questions.] Along these lines, giving the "locked in" a "what for", as in not exactly any contradictions there.]
[Also 12-6-09 note that I was trying to determine if there is such a thing as Rubric's Cube, it was not a mispell as my previous post did refer to Rubic's cube.]
[12-16-09 Update made "go figure"(also 12-14 Realmythication apparently coined.]
[*** 12-23-09 link inserted ]
1-9-14 Kant we all ... ? Roots / Branches / axe knot*? Is it not that some are so lost from their roots they cut off branches? No. Or create limbs that leap? Ask if there are more primary fields than four mats: Physics, Psychology, Philosoply, Politics? Aphorism or fact: Truth is a determinant. Math is next to godliness, and religion parting from Platonics. Speaking of fields they are more than planes, knot too categorical lee. (G'Ribble Label?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)