Hold your head up Paul Krugman!

Reform Is Needed. Reform Is in the Air. We Can't Afford to Fail.Truthout.org by: Joseph Stiglitz | Visit article original @ The Guardian UK

Geithner's Plan Will Tax Main Street to Make Wall Street Richer by Dean Baker Truthout.org or Huffington Post

Paul Krugman rounds out or triangles out the table. I will only make one comment in that the bottom line is the people, and since the trickle down has caused an economic bubble if not civilization to go up in smoke and mirrors, that the burden is there on that bottom line, while the money is in the clouds. OK, now I'm rolling. But seriously, I am not sure if we are caught between salting the clouds and salting a mine, but Humpty Dumpty * needs help. Are these the Three Musketeers?
[*] Pre-Post-or-us? links embedded: A Plea to Congress ! Between the charges ? "Off a Cliff" And do we have d'Artagnan on The Fence?

Hang down your head Paul Krugman!

On Meet the Press Jonathan Mann is the bright spot and I do not mean to dis Paul Krugman but the idea that they were talking about owning the economy is my point.
Obama will not own the economy unless...
Oh, heck I fell in the trap.
But hang down your heads, Will and Dowd.

But the time horizon is a factor. It took almost 8 years for the economy to be the issue. It has been over 25 that Reaganomics has been the problem, not to mention, over twice that since FDR and Charlie McCarthyism *have been in the background.
(OH and I will not link Charlie Wilson and another Joe)
BUT THEY ARE THE SHADOWS!
Will is proctor hoc post [*] or we have the Charlie/Joe fallacy.

Re:links Owning the Shadows
and more?
* Socionomics of hope? And the vicious cycle.

[The reference in the title goes no deeper than the reference to a song.(period) (note)...(not) that it is a song of the century but it may be about our economic and cultural heritage...] [or the potential of a carbon based world in a dollar debased economy or justice period.]
[How can you not smile **and be curious Mann?

** Thanks to Jon Stewart and Yes We Can!

[the bottom line? the Greenspan put may need a flip-flop to the Krugman take or is it really about our take>]
[And I thought that would be the last spin but who needs a hair cut and who will*** be the barber?]

*** need segment link to bailout discussion

[*] 8-13-09 link adjusted to correct spelling but still a missing Charly

Not our Grandfather's Oldsmobile

Or War or GM.
Or rather the latter may be but not still spinning.

(Over the weekend I came up with a new tetrahedron. In the balance of forces and freedoms comes fears and fantasies. This is not our grandfather's 4F, nor just a reaction to the 4A of fundamentalists.)
(And I am not saying for critics to "Shut Up"*, but this is a war. After 8 years of mismanagement and "the shadows" I don't think we have to worry about a power grab. In fact, I think that the American people deserve a power grab.)

* Re: first link is Air America Media link and includes Bill Sammon comment clip

[Update retro-added: By all accounts - Irony versus Hypocrisy - Oh heck! ]

Left, Right and Center?

Geitner should be left behind.
Chavez is too far from right.
That must make Obama,
just about right.

I'm not saying I agree,
and FOX is no laughing matter,
but it seems that the answers or
alternatives are apparently out there.
Not that the middle is anywhere
near in line with the right or left,
not even with humor or economics.

Pre-post-or-us?

Humpty Dumpty was an Egg
The Economy was a bubble.

Now the economy is a wall,
and we all must take the fall.

For the wall * and/or the omelet
is a little egg on our face.

William Greider will be the guest of Bill Moyers regarding Humpty Dumpty. [**]

* the preposterous nature is the point that I had flip-flopped the allegory (from egg to wall) (Inflation/deflation seem unavoidable realities without real change and a little egg on the wall.)
[Update 3-31-09: bottom link changed to include extra post]

[** 6-22-09: I finally inserted the link to the Greider/Moyers piece @ Humpty Dumpty(above) and have yet to listen but the metaphor has been used here as well.]

A Plea to Congress

Please support the President and his economic leadership, in particular the comprehensive if not yet always comprehendible rescues and reforms.

The immediate fixes cannot be perfect nor the long term costs of delay neglected. The powers that are needed are not there yet and must be considered carefully but much of what is on the table was placed there by those who were part of the problem while that alone does not take them away from being part of the solution.

I urge the TARP oversight board and Finacial oversight committees to investigate all bailed out institutions and not only how they came to need rescue, but to make sure they do not get out from under their need to change. Any reimbursement of bailout funds must be complete, and there must be an understanding of how things will be different, before there is any back tracking or refunding.

I think that all political measures should be considered in supporting the four pillars of Obamanomics; Energy, Education and Healthcare reform and fiscal responsibility, as well as the international scope of financial and progressive reforms.

Please see the Humpty Dumpty allegory for the wall that needs to come down, between people and progress.

Sincerely,
Roger Larson

[Update 3-27-09 bold added to Obamanomics: it is a link to an article by the president and international scope has one too. The rest of the body of the text can be read with the links as footnotes.]

[Without getting too into the term "political capital" which the previous administration really had none to spend, it may be something that if you don't use, you lose. I do not see how doing what the people sent you there to do is a risk.]

AIG should reconsider name change.

It is ironic that AIG should attempt a name change. Now that AIG is owned by US, is that the U of the "new" AIU Holdings Ltd.? Hopefully it is not Unlimited but so far it is Underthetable.
[I will leap to the point that the good name of the United States is at stake in this name change and the potential for changing minds about corporate welfare being at stake. Attempts to return TARP funds must include funds that came from any other bailout efforts and not in the expectation that things will return to the old way of doing business. I think that is implicit but it is yet to be resolved how or made explicit.]

What does the U stand for and why should AIG change its name now that taxpayers own 80% of it? Did we get a voice in that? And what about all that advertising* which went for naught?

* update [Speaking of Leviathans and who is too big?]
[Also a new look at the cost of advertising and the media should be taken in respect to free speech and freedom of the press as opposed to prepaid or bought and sold, views and news.]

Recycling Trash

Conservative Eras and Socionomics.
I'm not sure who is really talking trash, but is there a leak or a gas bag somewhere?
Methane?Carbon? Market?
There is a mind blowing or is it a bubble blowing link below?

The Raw Story

Presidential Press Conference (II)

a look back at (I)

On the other hand:
A Time for Global Action
by Barack Obama TruthOut.org The Chicago Tribune

[update briefing link3-9-09]

Commander-in-Chief Obama

[UPDATE 3-24-09: President Barack Obama on the Federal Budget: Four Principles ]
[Speaking of Battles: The real authoritarian v. populist.
The Battle Over the A.I.G. Bonuses: Class War in the Media ]

I never really did follow up on viewing or reading the bottom link at my Off The Cliff post, but used it as an allegorical leap. But here is a good point someone found regarding the Buffet comment.
From which I snip the point:

"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.

Commander-in-Chief? Where have we heard that before?
My point was the economics of the War on Terror where I said:

The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than declare, a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients which do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.

Now the bottom line is what is pre-emptive.And should be a uniter not a divider.

* and since what confused me about the Buffet report was his call for clarity, I have edited my grammar for that purpose here.

Too Embedded?

Well, not that I am talking about my own community participation, but the comments in recent if not most of my postings?

King County Executive position has another name in the race.
State Sen. Fred Jarrett seeks King County executive job Seattle Times

Previously announced:
Larry Phillips
Dow Constantine

Alternative Perspective: Jarrett Running as the Anti-Seattle Candidate TheStranger

From his seat: Running Out of Chairs Senate Democrats Blog

Puget Sound Liberal:
Obama Watch
Strategy

The real embedded? What is in a word? Liberal
/ Progressive
I just mean, what is progressive and what is right?
Just, a rhetorical question?
[UPDATE: 4-30-09 5-1-09

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]

Between the charges

and between the lines:

In their defense, A.I.G. said that they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses in question. Not paying these bonuses, the company said, would cause their executives to leave the company and could trigger a collapse at A.I.G., which could set off a collapse around the world.

I am not sure if it was from this article: A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by Matt Renner TruthOut.org but it occurred to me that these bonuses were hush money. That is probably what is referred to above. But in my mind, trade secrets were not only a threat to the economy but also to the bubble blowing which was their job at AIG. And now "hush money" is more than just in my mind, but on Hardball in the AIG bonus backlash Rep. Gary Ackerman used the term. But that does nothing to topple my Humpty Dumpty allegory. Clarifying on 1600 Pennslvania Avenue Ed Schultz points out these are not performance bonuses but retention bonuses. That does not really buttress any charge as hush money, but it might be a good market indicator when such heavy bonuses are built in preemptively, and a preemptive indicator of market failure. And yet we have another controversy where charges are under defined, or interchanged as to what kind of bonuses are being talked about and the involvement of TARP.

[3-19-09 TARP updated and links added: AIG was prior to TARP and a look back.]
[Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.]
I may not be as confused as I think. Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory.(for 1,2,3 see continued.)

TruthOut.org

The truth is that I stumbled upon Cognitive Policy Works * through my registration** with TruthOut.org and I was too busy not working on my own Wage-Productivity Gap to run out in time to get the last printed copy of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Where was I going with this? Just unpackaging or repackaging "on the fly" as the CPW's Joe Brewer might say, or my yet to read William Rivers Pitt and maybe back to my use of allegory and metaphor and a need*** to be more productive.

* today's reading inserted here, actual original stumble was here.

** email updates are a valuable filter(sign-up and contribute if you can)

*** and finally my point I did not know I has heading for, a contribution to the dialogue: In the power of belief over facts and needs over wants. (Maslow)

Wage-Productivity Gap

Dr. Ravi Batra: New Thinking on the Economy

It is hard to see what is new about this thinking. It seems to be how it works. Without the tinkering of the Federal Reserve, the boom and bust cyle would be busted.

It must also be remembered that now Secretary of Treasurer Geitner is in the Obama administration while his prior position was as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the Bush admininstration. That may not be an excuse for any unwise or erroneous moves, but it does put the cards he was dealing with under the table, as we see know that the government will be holding the cards on the table. This is not just a gratuitous slam or partisanship but the basic difference in the view of government responsibilities. The finacial situation was so serious, that some action was necessary before a complete change in administration could take place.

[11-4-11: Move up link(hold) and update link]

Update: "Off The Cliff"

Maybe we are on a ledge now.
But a few things are clearer including fundamentals, except where what Obama said is anything like what McCain said.
[BONUS UPDATE[*]: Organizing For America And More]

In that vein (of the lead update) I append this economic perspective:

And throw out this idea to be reality checked:
a cap in the derivative process.

It seems that the real problem in the financial crisis was the packaging of investments (derivatives) that made them an increasing gamble and risk and further blew up the bubble. This may have already been addressed with new regulation and management, I am not sure. (It still seems a potential for ponzi or pyramid scheme, which furthers government interdependence. But with a clearer understanding of the Cap and Trade for Carbon emissions, maybe this could work for other issues and would have an impacted in guiding our values back to people rather than profits and away from a reliance on blowing things.

While this may be an example of too creative thinking, and too similar to the way I began this dialogue, I hope someone can grasp any threads which they might pull or weave for us. On the other hand a particular part of the Reich piece points to my need for better understanding of an impact. In the area of education reform and Obamanomics: "It cuts subsidies to banks participating in the student-loan program, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did, and it provides some funds for early childhood education." But I guess this just demonstrates the bottom up and balanced approach that in the context of the college tax credits and pell grant increases are necessary. (therefore not "on the other hand")

For a short allegory (enticing heading aside) on how we are all in this together, I just updated:(see ledge now: under construction) (3-18-09)
Since I have possibly dispelled my own concern regarding the one possible glitch in Obamanomics, I leave with another to dispel or verify. How is it that there can be a concern for imagined trickle-down opportunity being dashed by taxes, when business expenses are not really on the table? Food for thought? Or the recycler?

P.S. For a more deeply embedded compendium of sorts, where I picked on Chris Matthews (In an aside) and picked up on Jon Stewart(FNBC). And as far a fundamentals of McCain and Obama it is in the media that the difference lies as much as earmarks when it comes to comparing apples and oranges or pork and ham where we have a rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.

[And this addendum: Go Stephanie Miller! Thanks for being on CNN to balance Tucker'd out. And it is more than just funny, but that I have only stumbled on this now, and it is deeper and more on message than just video or Unsatire as the world evolves.]

[*] CORRECTION: These are not bonus links. At least the first is right on target at the fundamental difference: focus, fix and the press.

[Update 3-20-09: I never really did read Off The Cliff but used it as an allegorical leap, but here is a good point which it may have taken me some time to get to in the link I had.]

By all accounts

Bill O'Reilly says the war on Iraq was wrong.

Here is the logic. He claims by all accounts the war on terror is over.
A. Bin Ladin attacked us on 9-11.
B. We attacked Afghanistan.
C. Then Iraq.
D. We executed Sadam Hussein.
E. We are not out of Iraq, but I guess we can leave.
F. We are still in Afghanistan, and it is a struggle to get out, but I guess we can leave.
G. Bin Ladin is still alive.

So by logic, we did not even need to start this war, since we won it with the culprit still alluding justice.

Of course there is one catch here. This is all by logic.

Ear Marks?

Congressional Pork?
I think there is a difference between a silk purse and a sow's ear.
Earmarks, the ones that are snuck in at night are what McCain railed against, not Obama. Pork is what Obama did not necessarily label but recognizes congress's power of the purse and needs to be held accountable.

Fun'n Finance

Rather than Tea Bags for Obama...

Call this number: 1-800-IDEAS?

"OFF A CLIFF"

Dumbest Proposal Ever.
by Joe Conasan The New York Observer

HUMPTY DUMPTY! COME ON DOWN!***

A quick glance at the headings put this together. But preemptively[*] I will say that a friend of mine has had a squabble with a builder over a fence or the height of it. There is a drop off on the other side which anyone would be concerned about kids or just anyone slipping or falling into. Well, I don't know about the height of any projects but as Obama has indicated "We are in this together". Maybe my analysis or faith has been too flip-floppy. But it is better to ride the fence down than to slip or fall off on either side. Riding a fence does not mean D-riding the project as irony would have it the Republicans seem to do, by having it both ways and expect things to not be on the fence and by not working on it. This metaphor may not work exactly, as government is not a business and both sides of the fence are not down hill. But maybe they are, just one is away from the fence (the project) the other is toward it. But my real point is that if you get pushed off the fence (the project) nothing will get done and we will all be slipping. But if the fence is the thing not the people, and it is at the top of a hill so to speak, getting pushed off will pop all our bubbles or maybe it is more like Humpty Dumpty

[UPDATE 3-16-09: "OFF A CLIFF"]
[3-16-09: The Fence? Is Obamanomics Conservative or Revolutionary? by Robert Reich, Salon]

[3-18-09 bold added with update].]

[Also (nfry) Obama wants G20 to act on stimulus, reform]

[*] Update 3-16-09: Preemptive in that I had not yet read the referenced "cliff" link below or the "Dumbest"** piece on the Republican obstructionism. And still not having read the "G20" but append it where appropriate in text, I think it is safe to say that when Buffet spoke of Obama, and Obama later spoke, Wall Street listened. Not that they said anything. Talk about clarity, I don't know if I should rock or dine.

** since have
*** 3-27-09 update heading inserted here and pre-post-or-us link inserted at Humpty Dumpty

[11-4-11 follow up move up link

Enough?

Bring Em On!*
Hold it pardner! You don't know who em is.
But speaking of wind there is an eery parallel at least in the eye of the storm.
At least the climatic metaphors if not all wet cowboys(arrr), as the rising tide boys spin their buckets. But seriously there is a link to us moving in this storm.
See A Turning Tide and Idiot Wind.[**A & B]
Despite fancies of the perfect storm or solution, let alone metaphor, it is best one have a clear head and not head directly into anything. See bearings, not to mention tact and tack.

[But one last smack to the point or walking the plank: the recent spending bill was last years work and does anyone think that delay would be warranted** given the need for spending and the rhetoric of calling for change? The point may be a fine line or the broad plank of antagonism and synergy.]

* Oh, Enough... but don't forget the bottom line (link)

P.S. literally (arrr?) what privateers or cynics might say or American Recovery Reciprocating Reaction not to mention embedded in American.

** he tossed them a political bone from the Jolly Roger of their flagship of spending only on my ship or state. I would like to further contrast the use of sarcasm it seems in the two depths of the waters of the top two links above.
[**A] 4-28-11 Idiot Wind Updated.

[**B]11-4-11 update links
[and move up link Pearlstein]

HEAR HEAR!

The Audacity of Audacity by E.J.Dione Jr. The Washington Post

On the Road to Change: The Psychology of Progress by Roy Eidelson Cognitive Policy Works

I was going to make my usual preemptive comments after a glance at these, or headline this "for my coffee table" but read them instead. I have enough on my coffee table, or kitchen table, not to mention night stand. There is no relative weight to these tables but there is enough of an endorsement from the dark side.
(Both "enough" harken back to who is driving the GOP and who is good [see the bill] frum ofor what.)

Off Track Betting

Even when rambling, I find it hard to fall far afield, given the recent matches.

Analysis: Obama's ambitious plans raise questions. Of course google is in the corner. And just who is on the ropes. And this is a less than Swift way to get a few jabs in from the stands:

Competing Views of Government: Universal Medicare or Government-Protected Insurance Companies by Dean Baker TruthOut Perspective
Officials: Presidential Memo to Insulate Science From Politics by Rob Stein The Washington Post

["Off track" reference is a whiff at the analysis.(nfry) And the stands?]
[TO BE EXPANDED: Economics, Politics, Law, Field Theory.]
[I look forward to the transcript of the just finished briefing and who asked what and should have been more prepared.]

[3-25-09 update briefing link]

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!)]

Upgraded?

Three Cups of Tea?

Commission between the Lines.

Truth Commission May Not Lead to Prosecutions
by Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
It seems that the Democrats are intent on a commission and Republicans are mostly opposed. But the fine line is the truth that it is about investigations and if immunity is involved then prosecutions may be hampered. This should portend that special prosecutors are the way to go, before the Republicans flip-flop for immunity. Of course the media would love and the politics would flare* over open hearings, and selective immunity may combine the best of all worlds.

If there is no stomach for prosecutions the only alternative is a full blown international Truth and Reconciliation of all violence, religious, political or economic, beginning with the death penalty off the table**, except for corporations, being their status as wholly created beings of government.

* international scope [UPDATE]
** replaced with a floating Elba or Rikers.

Irony versus Hypocrisy

Smackdown: Shuster Nails Ari Fleischer over GOP Hypocrisy
Shuster gives as good as he takes, but the irony is that Fleischer is there arguing over the childishness of Obama when Rush is not elected by the people, and neither is he. So the Catch 44 is that if Obama is wrong for painting the Republicans with a Rush Brush, then MSNBC is wrong for presenting unelected spokespeople for the Republicans, however it is the nature of the media to try to present both sides, and the nature of the Republicans to use Joe the Plumbers.
Speaking of plumbers and whose job it is...
Several links having filtered through my email box unprofessionally*
bridge the spectrum and filling the bill.

I will not unembed the threads but leap to the next field so to speak.

A more selective approach browsing the TED forum, a spin on the technology of politics and religion by Noah Feldman presents a preemptive perspective on hope. Having viewed less than two minutes, I noted before logging out, the following:(Unmodified but for one dash)
The third leg if not noted here is Economics and the Point is Justice or the fulcrum the Law. Values and their management is the key. Balancing the tetrahedron of flip-flop so to speak. The hour glass of consumption or conservation. Economics Politics Religion Law for the People - Executive, Legislative, Judiciary for the people and the point of balance.

I had my own preemptive concerns which need to be upgraded [3-6-09]and revisited, but how does this connect to the above?(a pun on hierarchy?) Facing choices and nemeses, not to mention the connection to things being in their place, whether fields or technologies and who uses what or whom and for what. Further search may dig up a reference to direct cause ofor[***] systems.

But prepost I read: Staving Off a Great Depression by Dean Baker The Guardian UK and where does this fit? In the fear or faith options; or fight or flight, excuse or blame sections. But I propose that the numbers game be given international scope[Update **].
[UPDATE 3-20-09: The following section remains in its original form but for bold. See BINGO which follows to where it relates to the nature of preemption.]
The honesty of the new budget and accounting now includes the war on terror which was not on the books. So rather than the declare a win or lose the economy bifurcation, the new accounting must include the soft power ingredients that do not come free. I have not seen where this is said, but it should and probably has been or will be.
[BINGO! or rather none other than Warren Buffet gets it.]

*i.e. by friendly nemesies however undivinely.

** Update International Scope and a new link at revisited: "Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar." This guy may be the Rush of Russia but he could be on the same page as Putin, while I feel that economics may be the bailiwick of the Rumpole. "She who must be obeyed" and changed.

*** ofor: metaphysical synergistic concatenation

More Executive Powers to the Team

BACK TO THE FUTURE RETRO UPDATE 8-7-09 *

What was referred to as a Black Hole of executive experience has some more stars in the constellation.

Governor Locke Secretary of Commerce (previously noted)
Governor Sebilius Secretary of Health and Human Services

Meanwhile the Battlestar Gallactica has powered up. (thanks TruthOut.org)
Original sources:
Obama's War with the Right (& Media) by Robert Parry Consortiumnews.com
Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts by Lori Montgomery Washington Post

[* 8-7-9 I insert a segment of an email exchange dated 2-28-09]
SUBJECT LINE: Greenspan is an MF'r:
Milton Friedman that is. At least Greenspan said "policy makers did not anticipate"
But someone did:(Peter Schiff)
That is the problem. (That someone predicted it, but that he does not necessarily have the answer either.)
Not that anyone has the answer but people can profit from any system.
That alone does not make them bad, but it does not make the system good.
Now the question is who will suffer and who will pay, and how much will change or stay the same.
[now back to the future and I might suggest that Dylan Ratigan invent a game ala GO or Chess with this Peter Shiff. But this retroactive exchange was between the right(Laffer)and the righter(Schiff) who are mostly wrong and wronger.]