Lessons of War

From a less than left writer David S. Broder no less:
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic".

As noted before(I will have to find where)economics may be more a factor in history and war than winning. (Well, I never put it that way exactly.) There are those that ignore the importance of economics in reality(as in all the various fields or disciplines of study), but do tend to focus on just a winning economy. That may be a little closer to the point, and if not even less understood.

Here are two examples: a.) We are now doing business with Vietnam. Versus not with North Korea. b.) Reagan's words tore down the Berlin Wall, or Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.

Again it may not be clear to those that see winning a military war as the only way to win. Money is power, but not everybody wins.

War is hard work. Peace is hard work. Facing realities is hard work.
Enough from me, before I give you more hard work.

By the way. "You break it, you bought it." comes to mind. Besides that fact that pottery bard[*] does not have that policy, I don't know if a point has been made that it is misquoted as "You break it, you own it".
{Use Ctrl f to find each quote in each article) Many do not want to face who pays.

[* 8-19-10] Noting typo

Cost of Course

From no less than David S. Broder, no lefty
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic."

As Reagan would say: "There you go again." Well I use this to refer to my post which I just lost as time expired.
[NOTE: After doing all this work, a second time, I then notice that the lost post is up. LESSONS OF WAR. Sorry for the redundancy, and it is unedited, but I will leave it up as I must go off in another reality or discipline.] [a navigation aid: use CTRL F in these links to save "hard work".]

My point: Reality is about many disciplines, not just discipline. Hmmm, I've never been to the point before, maybe there is something to beginning from scratch.

In this case economics over just the economy. Work not just hard work.

Well this does not mean that I won't have tangents, in fact that is what linking the fields implies.

My second or original point, is that economics has more to do with history than winning. Actually I may be getting farther from the course I took in the lost post. But two examples are Vietnam and Afghanistan. We lost one and are losing the other. We are doing business with one and the other beat the Soviet Union, and we are still losing.

Then there is the "pottery store" or simple minded advice that still is in play and not fully understood.

This is where I have more experience that I even knew, forgetting that my first job was printing store signs. I also have wandered a few shops or two and feel that it was "You break it, you bought it." Doesn't that flow better both literally and economically. Despite the fact that it is not the Pottery Barn policy, it is ironic or not that Thomas Friedman is involved in this. Only a sloppy or slanted writer would confuse the credit to his words. As far as I can tell, the course often depends on reading signs. and getting their meaning straight. Owning something is a whole lot better sounding than whatever work it takes to get it.

I don't know if you get this sign but the post was a whole lot shorter and straighter than the one lost.

Maybe Woodward and Russert got it, but Powell probably used too many words for Bush. See Wikipedia
[8-19-10: labels and link added]

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Who is "Lighting a Fire"?

President Bush gave a very remarkable speech today. One filled with hope, if not fantasy. While I did not catch the whole thing, many parts of it should be embraced as goals which we could unite behind. A few parts I may have missed, might cast a shadow on how we go about the tasks that we could agree are admirable, amongst them freedom and equality. However as they say, and I may google the who "they" are, but the devil is in the detail. Here is to the hope that he "speaks anew" to us all, and that we will know what he means, and most important that he means what he says.

If what President Bush calls, spending political capital, is any indication, we may have little hope. If it means claiming a mandate by addressing the Social Security "Crisis" when it ranks fifth (question 2) on a list of highest priorities, then we may be in trouble. It may mean only more, Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Maybe he has been a uniter not a divider, as the poll shows the top concerns of those finding need for hope. While hope may be found even in those that worry, the issues which are of concern are "the situation in Iraq" and "the economy and jobs" (same link, same question). We must have hope, but it is how we work for it that matters. The process does matter or the fire will be suffocated.

We must remember and remind others that when Bush was told "you broke it, you own it" about Iraq, that we are the ones that will pay for it. Now we must make sure that while we may need to improve social security, we do not want to break it.

TRY-ANGLE NATION

Disclosure:  Just elected Hillary Clinton Delegate for my precinct. 

It was a gut decision for a truce between my head and my heart, not that I can triangulate that. 
Well... maybe it was gut-Clinton, head-Undecided, and heart-Sanders. 

With this in mind to be potentially sorted later:

Make It So[!]

To better BORG*: 
(third link below NFRY: not fully read yet)

A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence  ***

Why Young People Are Right About Hillary Clinton
Trump and Clinton Match-up?

*"BS~FD/make me" (0)
"BS~Borg" (A., B. Culture War , C., D.  Obama With Drama , E., F., G., H.)
(BS)=blog search (scroll over any hyper-links)

3-27-16

War and Peace is a false dichotomy**.

That was my heading(sub-heading for this addition) before technical difficulties wiped it out. 
I had woken up to that thought after reading only part way through a Philosophy Now article last night. [The "Ugliest of Things"?]

** or are all dichotomies false? 

*** the punch line
"You can't _ _ _ _ _ your way out of problems with the same parties that got you into them."
to paraphrase the Obama problem and the nature of our government.  Here "parties" is used in general terms, but with due respect for the three branches of government and the GOP, let alone the spirit of progress or hope to Trump nature.  I am talking about the first article on War, and the Bush campaign that was a bull in a pottery barn.(~)  (Speaking of policemen, nation builders and break it)

(~)(<) Lessons of War , Cost of Course [(~)]
Cost of Course [!], Hail to the Troops! [!]
Owe what a muddle we web. i.e. these (F'n) need review.

3-31-16
Expletive not intended, Foot Notes is the italic intent. 
Mean While... (M'w,huh,ha) 
Medved(msnbc)  (~) the last conservative president was H. W. Bush (i.e. don't count Neo-cons)
Kasich  (msnbc)  Trump puts the con in conservative. (^) Also speaks of policing and intelligence, I was waiting for nation building.
Kinder Gardener:  Do I have buyers remorse?
Well, I haven't bought anything.  And we aren't a pottery barn.  (oops unsegue)^
(return) Is the caucus system broken?  Not for Bernie.  Is the primary better? Only for Hillary?   

Give us a brake?

[Originally Posted evening 8-30-12]
Raw Hide!
OK, the RNC convention is over. 
It is hard to say much about the Clint Eastwood performance. 
Was he in character, or was he just acting his age? 
It was a good performance, but the Romney camp has defended it as an ad lib.
It was a break from the rest of the speeches, except for the empty chair. 
Rachel Maddow is reporting it as wierd.  I would give it more credit.
They are saying that much will be made of the Clint Eastwood performance. 
Which will detract from the other so-called messengers of the convention.
So much of the convention were good performances, if you forget that governing does not go by a script. 

[8-31-12]
The above** might not be my usual script.  But is less or more* a Charlotte's Web.
"Move em up!" might have been its original heading, but it is lost on the edit-room floor. 
"Give us a brake?" is the pun on the break or the foot in the mouth on the brake?
The point is what is the point.  And it's politics, not its politics.***

*Mitt Flop=?[!]=meaning? Not!
**written "as is" 8-30-12[UPDATE]
*** "Stunk and White(and Angell)"[!]?

[Note the simplicity of the bottom line(see bold ** to*** of text ).  Note the elements over the style. Not exactly a pun, far from Socratic.  A bit more Platonic, less Pythagorian, not exactly by the book as for the "Elements...(or)Style". See turn around and braking script or characters. Don't scratch too deep.  Or is it scroll ?]


[Footnote: I really should brake and change gears, but here I note that I may later insert links beyond the original raw hide.  BTW:  I know the series was one word, but it is the way I literally rove and un-rove.  

Give 'em a break!

New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan

He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.

Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.

A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong

Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.

* Their work, not these pieces.

Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.

Media Whores*

Media wars was my first thought for this post. My intended sabbatical, a break from my customary work for other matters, was to be one week. I indicated the difficulty it may be, to not post, and in fact not even work on related stuff, but here is one I noted and saved as a draft:

[* *]
To whom it may concern:(THE FCC?)
Regarding a seemingly meaningless spat between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly:

Bill O’Reilly is of the opinion that she should not be free to give her opinions as a "broadcast professional" and I think that it falls into your auspices to determine that. It seems to me that the term either applies to the broadcasting engineers or the terms of an FCC licensee. If there are any standards, as I would have them, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News should lose their licenses. This is no joking matter. While the O'Donnell and The Donald spat may be about ratings and while Rosie may choose to not renew her contract and let the market determine she has an even greater value, again it is hard to stomach the excuses for the airtime wasted by O’Reilly or Fox News if there are any standards. Further, no joking matter, while Rosie’s opinions may be fringe, and O’Reilly truly unreliable, if there is any such ruling that could shut down Rosie and not O‘Reilly, she has demonstrated that she knows what she is talking about in her claim that he is worse than a character from 1984, and that there is a "big brother".

[The best I can tell the above was written, April 3rd]

Now we have the Don Imus issue. It is too bad that he is the more moderate of a list of disagreeable personalities, who if there were standards may not have the airtime they enjoy. Yet the very idea of standards is also a problem while the idea of the market alone may not be the solution. It is unfortunate that he may end up the scapegoat and a distraction if not a martyr to the cause of those that do not have the guts to face the consequences of their words.

It seems that he has faced his error, yet still seems to be putting it in context. Of course everything is needed to be looked at in context and taking it elsewhere may be unfair, but if Imus is determined to be the problem, broader problems may not be faced.

* whores:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Considerations are twice removed from personal gain: first by the person, then by the principle.

* * [4-17-07: for clarification I must reitterate that "To whom it may concern" was written and saved on April 3rd, 2007]

[4-18-07: Stereotype Threat the cultural impact ignored. Just look at lawyers and politicians and what you expect from them. Not to mention...

The New Compendium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See Follow Up]

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

Political Strings Pulled

Bush upcoming big speech.

McCain wants debate delay.

Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.

If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.

On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?

Maybe we are finally there.

White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.

Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.

Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.

Fair and Balanced Summit

I did not return to the livestream after the break [*] but dealt with other issues. But did tune in to FOX for a "fair and balanced" perspective paraphrased that: If you were D you were pleased with the points made, and if you were R you were pleased with the points made.

But I do quibble that there was no change, because there is a fair and balance ratio of the 52% that do not want reconciliation who are either misinformed or hypocritical about its potential, which would flip-flop that matter to the left, not to mention future polls that might determine change in support for both the Obama plan and the public option.
(Not to mention CNN covering the wrap up. Ouch, I thought that it was a re-wrap*, since it seemed FOX already had a wrap, but I guess it was a pre-rap.)

* my point was that MSNBC switched to the Olympics, FOX seemed to have called the summit a wrap, and while I watched CNN provide what I thought was highlites, then found it was not wrapped up yet.

[*] 2-26-10 two links added also these: earlier summit post , pre-summit summary, pre-summit push and pitch. Not to mention new swing. Admittedly Republicans "don't do comprehensive well". No, really well.

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.]

Over Helming.

[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]

Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.

* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]

Mmmm MOW, MOW

papa mmmm MOW MOW

Bill is THE Word, for the Pizza Pie Culture.

Michigan [not Madison 9-28-11]
Ohio
Wisconsin

Speaking or Iron Knee you tooboldly surf*.
[Not to mention: Keepin' up with the Jones is, I mean.]
* David Sirota:[bold added] Standing in for Thom Hartmann, I don't have time to disagree, but it is not the second time that sets a precedence, it may be the time it goes to court, in regards to the way Obama follows the "Law" too similar to the way Bush did not.
[AND JUST BREAKING]
Speaking of intersections and bottom lines:

Well, now, now, now. would n't you know it. Let's keep it cool. BUT THIS? Hopefully just a form of education, that will be kept in perspective.

Throwing this out.

Cut tax breaks for advertising. That would probably make them more efficient, but it would certainly not help Palin's crusade.

As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".

* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.

Update

Somewhere I may have noted that Herman Cain said he would have a surprise before the South Carolina primaries. I haven't found that reference, but I wonder if this was it.

BTW: I think there is a new Niche for our Cain 'n Able.

Speaking of Updates.

[Forest Gumption: Krugman / Capehart[?] and Trees of Chocolate.

Not to mention Martin Bashir and Heads Examined. Tea Party Nation leader endorses candidate who literally* in his own words, needs his head examined. Who wants anybody to be on food stamps? Certainly not the president. The Gingrich claim that Obama is the "food stamp president" while coming close to being... [1-24-12: I chose to break mid-semantics as to the truth of claims. Judson Philips quote: "if you want someone to be on food stamps you really ought have your head examined" yet Gingrich thinks that is what Obama wants.** If you think the NAACP should demand pay checks not food stamps, what does that make you? That is what Gingrich charged them with.]

*1-24-12 in con text m/un-con science links/break

** I Ron Knee? Not to mention con vention.

[?]

[To be read: Ryan Lizza The New Yorker, The Obama Memos.]

[1-27-12]

Biggest BU SH !

Much as Condi and Bush fail to read memo’s accurately or even their headings, I am jumping to conclusions as to what this means. It is all in my headline, if you read between the letters. Meaning also that I have yet to read much of it.

But hear is what the headline reads that makes me jump.

WP: Rice bucks election traditionSecretary of state is expected to be above the partisan fray
Well that is just it, the contradiction and the connection to what is Left out or may not be Right!

I will actually read the rest later and hopefully the break may do us all good. At least if I have set up wrong, I am prepared to jump back and apologize, or take another tact or tangent. For now I foresee the need for an apology just in my own title, but I am trying to point to a jump of sorts.

Note: in my transcribing the above I almost lost a point when an error crept in which made another point as well as pointed to the dilemma. Suffice it so say, the haggle be, whether to it is nobler to be or stay.

"you people..."?

Skirting the dignity. 

Ann Romney claims it is below* the dignity of the President for his campaign to follow the money. 
"beneath his dignity..."!?!?
We can't get beneath your dignity !
You can't handle the dignity.
Show me the dignity...
not the face of the down troddin'!

Know the difference between cause and affect, between foundational and founding, between digging and building.

[Lean Forward]
[MB Jonathan Capeheart Romney editing, which I would call Rumsfeldian die-a-log.]

[Hardball: Braking bad? "Bachmann-Beck Overdrive."   "It's not about the ad...": Flackery on Flackery.]

Enough puns on why they break their English.  It seems that the Romney's(or Republican's) cannot afford be honest about how the economy works, let alone the immigration and emmigration of their beliefs**.

* more awkward English?

** "trickle down anyone"?

FACE THE MUSIC!

As ridiculous as it is that voters expect their state representatives to enforce their wishes on the county and local level on the issue of sports arenas; and that contractors conflate the cost of repairs under warranty to the most expensive homes they can build; is it that ridiculous that voters expect their legislators to stand for the principle of the rule of law, let alone not undermine it from above?

I hope you see the people in the streets and I hope that things go well, but some out there will be thinking; if politicians don’t stand for the rule of law, only criminals will be patriots.

While I am one that is turned off by the thought of marching in the streets like sheep, and the diversity of concerns is frustrating, even civil disobedience requires a line to cross, where in politics and the highest offices there is often no line. It requires a line and the guts to face the music I might add; for those that break the law, no matter what, deserve justice.

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Original reaction: Not to Second Guess.

This idea coalesced from a Melissa Harris-Perry(*) panel and a Jared Bernstein reaction.
What irritated me was the piling on upon Mitt Romney. The second guessing was how Jared Bernstein discusses the context he was taken out of. As the panel on MH-P continued after her weigh-in on words via Barack Obama the segment on Word Police had nothing to do with my change, but everything to do with it; change and context and victim hoods. Not to mention "quote(s) from Nerdlandia" creeping into the X-change. (The hazzards of live blogging.***) I had no clue in the "footnote" controversy.** Am I falling for the spin, that Raw Money is a victim? Or do I forget my own theory of Share 'n Angle? Not too mention differences of intents[!]
* to be updated
** to be related later[!]
*** the alternative would be more awkward[!]

7-9-12 A Hunch Revisited as Obama prepares* to speak on extending part of Bush tax cuts.
[Segue/break: the "Dogs" above are "aTax dogs"; my subtle skirt of the issue.]

Regarding the president's speech, here are my rough notes:  Jobs.. core mission... rebuilding economy...stalemate...choice two views.  Top down- wrong...typical middle class tax cuts $3600... repeat $3600 Obama midle class tax cuts... for sake of misinformation.  We tried, slowest job growth, falling income, rising deficits... we can't afford more.  [me: we 1/2 tried more or other way].  People are with him, cut small business taxes 18 times, for 97% of them.  We should agree to do what we agree on!  [poor 1%, 2% 3%]  One year extention for under $250K then we can debate the rest and act or wait till after the election.  You are the ones driving the economy.  Learn lessons of the past, build foundation for the future.

* speech here[Note that links for "A Hunch Revisited" were contemporary, not later insertions. Referencing democracy and choices of direction.]

[Andrea Mitchell follow-up here: "fiscal cliff"?** and tug of misinfo!  Deficit distraction or key?]

[Bingo was his dog!  NewsNation "big tent" not to mention simple math from idiots.  I'm sorry, but math is where the numbers lie.  It is math warfare.  But I digress. Well,* not exactly ! ** And pardon my pun but Swiss Romney Knife?]

** bit of a cycle/anachronism here*** regarding insertion of links & today's asterisks.(I may not have the right fiscal cliff clip but neither does the math add up for AM or RNC. Re:Bingo and math of the dog carrier or station waggin')

*** (rather here **) HW B? (SK re/v SE: 5:25 HW Harvy Weinstein)

[OW to Act?]
[Bingo too point OH! (see poor 1%, 2%, 3%: LR RL)]
(Anachronistically where does MB fit in here ? i.e. I can' remember where Luke Russert was nailed down.  But I think it was Martin Bashir who was asking about the 1, 2 or 3% and the previous sequence w/links does hit the nail on the understanding or aTAX jobs.)
[Hardball: David Corn to Smerconish "Sin of making sense". Then Bob's your uncle. It certainly rots at the head. MM Marshalling Message ?]