draft posted today
Fungible Sabbatical
Todd *
[7-28-09 Frank , CBO , Daily News? , Closer , Not . ]
[latest inbox: Wiener blasts critics of health reform ]
[And Palin - Thank You ]
[7-29-09 Palin missing something, and it's the beat.]
[link to previous post below]
* poor journalism just may foment division not there (my opinion not Todd's)
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Who needs Republicans
with fungible Democrats who don't even know they are at the table. Well, consider that they may have pushed themselves from the table and no scraps for the blue dogs.[*] But if and when they vote for the bill or not, they can be considered bi-partisan. I mean that is the fungible logic that has come from Republicans**.
[7-24-09 * asterisk and link added(and bold to first link) of this saved in draft QCON which I now post with the addition of two perspectives: Obama at Shaker Heights / Spinning Health Care: A Bad Case of Vertigo Norman Soloman - Truthout Perspective
** I need a better link to the logic of previous Republican claims of their bipartisanship, but I think fungible applies to their logic almost across the board. And I am not suggesting we remove the Blue Dog scraps and Republican amendments, but you might better see the link I make depending on how they vote.]
[7-24-09 * asterisk and link added(and bold to first link) of this saved in draft QCON which I now post with the addition of two perspectives: Obama at Shaker Heights / Spinning Health Care: A Bad Case of Vertigo Norman Soloman - Truthout Perspective
** I need a better link to the logic of previous Republican claims of their bipartisanship, but I think fungible applies to their logic almost across the board. And I am not suggesting we remove the Blue Dog scraps and Republican amendments, but you might better see the link I make depending on how they vote.]
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Fungible Heading.
Fungible - Sabbatical
White House: TARP Money Might Not Be Traceable
This is a misleading headline. The words "traceable" or "untraceable" were not used by Gibbs in yesterday's briefing.
They know where the money went. They were then unable to follow it. *
Gibbs: "...It's a little bit of a push and pull, right -- is the economy going to expand until or unless a small business can get the credit it needs to expand, and vice versa." **
* italics all my words.
** both bold mine
[Speaking of push and pull: Investigator Rules Against Palin in Ethics Probe I mean, why is it so expensive to defend against frivolous claims? And which comes first the dismissal or the legal fees? And is the law followable or traceable by Republicans and vice verse us?***]
*** not to mention "a check of her accounting" and the media's not mentioning that although only 1 of 19 charges have been successful the bulk of her bills (see oops) was to mislead (Oops, that's fungible as the expenses were Alaska's(not her bills) in investigating her false claim regarding the successful "troopergate".)
White House: TARP Money Might Not Be Traceable
This is a misleading headline. The words "traceable" or "untraceable" were not used by Gibbs in yesterday's briefing.
They know where the money went. They were then unable to follow it. *
Gibbs: "...It's a little bit of a push and pull, right -- is the economy going to expand until or unless a small business can get the credit it needs to expand, and vice versa." **
* italics all my words.
** both bold mine
[Speaking of push and pull: Investigator Rules Against Palin in Ethics Probe I mean, why is it so expensive to defend against frivolous claims? And which comes first the dismissal or the legal fees? And is the law followable or traceable by Republicans and vice verse us?***]
*** not to mention "a check of her accounting" and the media's not mentioning that although only 1 of 19 charges have been successful the bulk of her bills (see oops) was to mislead (Oops, that's fungible as the expenses were Alaska's(not her bills) in investigating her false claim regarding the successful "troopergate".)
Monday, July 20, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Seriously
The bottom line or link is today's post referring to being back on sabbatical(Farewell Guv..) and here are yesterday's update page, and last week's.
Here are two rough drafts which I now post as is or as R.
Speaking of 'splainin, I will round out the month with the first.
Speaking of magic.
Here are two rough drafts which I now post as is or as R.
Speaking of 'splainin, I will round out the month with the first.
Speaking of magic.
Farewell Guv, Hello Energy Welfare Queen
I may have more to say about Cap and Trade but Palin's Cap and Tax hit needs only a check of her accounting.
Maybe I won't, but I will be back on sabbatical. Meanwhile I leave with this segment of an email exchange:(slightly adapted)
I should have been reading this but maybe not.
I think I will agree with much of it, but I think my last email covered the change problem. But don't worry. I do not think that capitalism will be destroyed, and socialism is just a boogie cognomen. Just how do you think it would work if we could find anyone that could fix the economy who had not been a part of creating it? I don't know if Obama has the right people but others could be standing in the way of potentially right or left people. I mean if the complaint as O'Reilly put it is that somebody will make billions, well duh. Doesn't that support the system? Well not the system, but as most conservatives argue for it.
Maybe I won't, but I will be back on sabbatical. Meanwhile I leave with this segment of an email exchange:(slightly adapted)
I should have been reading this but maybe not.
I think I will agree with much of it, but I think my last email covered the change problem. But don't worry. I do not think that capitalism will be destroyed, and socialism is just a boogie cognomen. Just how do you think it would work if we could find anyone that could fix the economy who had not been a part of creating it? I don't know if Obama has the right people but others could be standing in the way of potentially right or left people. I mean if the complaint as O'Reilly put it is that somebody will make billions, well duh. Doesn't that support the system? Well not the system, but as most conservatives argue for it.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Update
Since my sabbatical began, a lot has happened. Palin is trying to escape from hot water, Cheney is finally getting warm and the CIA has its own bubbles, while Supreme Court nominee Sonja Sotomayor begins her confirmation hearings.
[There seems to be a misuse of words and wise old men and wise old women in the attack on Judge Sotomayor which is actually an agism. For it is context that matters and wisdom is hard to pin on age. In fact it is hard to deny that experiences are a key ingredient in wisdom if not related to age.]
[Jeffrey Toobin CNN: "applying the law is not a judicial philosophy" after defending the right to decide confirmation on ideological differences, yet it seems similar to the judicial philosophy of the right. Republicans sure can complicate meanings, like having your cherry picked apples and oranges cake and eating it too.]
[7-14-09 Bold added to begins (The Uptake: Sotomayor hearings... Huffington Post) and old men (LA Times Blog/Text of Hearings) links
in addition Sessions miscounts * right meaning.]
[Things could not be more muddled from 3 takes:
The American Spectator: Ricci: A 9-0 Rejection of Sotomayor
The New York Times: The Opinionator
Slate: The Fray
It seems the Summary Judgement hinged on the Second Circuit Court getting it back, and that it was a 5-4 activist court which did not rely on precendence. The only 9-0 would have been if Sotomayor and the Second Circuit would decide the issue rather than the Supreme Court. It might even be said (per curiam) that we have a failure of trickledown and a slippery slope in the ability to act.]
[It might now be clear that for Sessions experience is prejudice.]
* The above analysis not counting the 3 takes just might make Media Matters (See miscounts ) more clear. Failure to account for failure to remand must be counted.
[There seems to be a misuse of words and wise old men and wise old women in the attack on Judge Sotomayor which is actually an agism. For it is context that matters and wisdom is hard to pin on age. In fact it is hard to deny that experiences are a key ingredient in wisdom if not related to age.]
[Jeffrey Toobin CNN: "applying the law is not a judicial philosophy" after defending the right to decide confirmation on ideological differences, yet it seems similar to the judicial philosophy of the right. Republicans sure can complicate meanings, like having your cherry picked apples and oranges cake and eating it too.]
[7-14-09 Bold added to begins (The Uptake: Sotomayor hearings... Huffington Post) and old men (LA Times Blog/Text of Hearings) links
in addition Sessions miscounts * right meaning.]
[Things could not be more muddled from 3 takes:
The American Spectator: Ricci: A 9-0 Rejection of Sotomayor
The New York Times: The Opinionator
Slate: The Fray
It seems the Summary Judgement hinged on the Second Circuit Court getting it back, and that it was a 5-4 activist court which did not rely on precendence. The only 9-0 would have been if Sotomayor and the Second Circuit would decide the issue rather than the Supreme Court. It might even be said (per curiam) that we have a failure of trickledown and a slippery slope in the ability to act.]
[It might now be clear that for Sessions experience is prejudice.]
* The above analysis not counting the 3 takes just might make Media Matters (See miscounts ) more clear. Failure to account for failure to remand must be counted.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Rough Draft (Update/not)
[Posted AS IS 7-15-09]
democrats come through?: Reid to Baucus The Magic Number?
My original number included some strategy where 41 Democrats can maintain a filibuster but without Republicans presenting anything but opposition it is hard to see progress. But the magic is that Democrats do not need 60 votes to pass a bill, only to end a filibuster. Those are separate questions and in fact supported by the Democratic aversion to supporting a filibuster.
Obama's Clueless Liberal Critics Bruce Bartlett The Daily Beast7-8-09
pre-footnoted
1-12-09
1-28-09
1-28-09
Bang for the Buck
democrats come through?: Reid to Baucus The Magic Number?
My original number included some strategy where 41 Democrats can maintain a filibuster but without Republicans presenting anything but opposition it is hard to see progress. But the magic is that Democrats do not need 60 votes to pass a bill, only to end a filibuster. Those are separate questions and in fact supported by the Democratic aversion to supporting a filibuster.
Obama's Clueless Liberal Critics Bruce Bartlett The Daily Beast7-8-09
pre-footnoted
1-12-09
1-28-09
1-28-09
Bang for the Buck
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Monday, July 06, 2009
Update
Biden Ignores Warnings Of Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini And Others HuffPo
Voodoo Economics Retro Redux: Reagan Recession Stimulus myths.
[7-7-09: Palin v. Myth
Cheney privileged leak to future Franken trippin.
See Voodoo Recession above Re:trippin.]
[It should be apparent that Republicans are totally incompetent if they can understand that a current administration can own the economy let alone the debt of a previous administration. It certainly is not apparent that Democrats are having it all their way. (search needs and eating their own)]
[see oopssee]
[Palin panel and strategy on The Ed Show 7-6-09 And Re: magic number ]
Voodoo Economics Retro Redux: Reagan Recession Stimulus myths.
[7-7-09: Palin v. Myth
Cheney privileged leak to future Franken trippin.
See Voodoo Recession above Re:trippin.]
[It should be apparent that Republicans are totally incompetent if they can understand that a current administration can own the economy let alone the debt of a previous administration. It certainly is not apparent that Democrats are having it all their way. (search needs and eating their own)]
[see oopssee]
[Palin panel and strategy on The Ed Show 7-6-09 And Re: magic number ]
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Off to Argentina?
No. But Happy Fourth of July and family matters, I will be taking a sabbatical.*
Period.
Joke not lest yee be the butthead.**
I guess not so period.
[Update: OurFuture Public Plan Saves Money]
[And presumed hope.]
[7-3-09: back panel ]
[Update 7-6-09 Retro 7-2 Palin & Cheney]
[Morning from Wasilla]
* [7-7-09 oopssee]
** [7-8-09 belated King of Pop, R.I.P. and tangential translation: careful what you joke about.]
Period.
Joke not lest yee be the butthead.**
I guess not so period.
[Update: OurFuture Public Plan Saves Money]
[And presumed hope.]
[7-3-09: back panel ]
[Update 7-6-09 Retro 7-2 Palin & Cheney]
[Morning from Wasilla]
* [7-7-09 oopssee]
** [7-8-09 belated King of Pop, R.I.P. and tangential translation: careful what you joke about.]
Sanford Update?
It is almost hard to believe that Governor Mark Sanford has a book in the works. Many might cry, already? But no, it was already in the works.
Its title: "Within Our Means".
I guess it depends on what means means.[... and within the latter means "roundly mocked" is The Word "noncensus"]
Its title: "Within Our Means".
I guess it depends on what means means.[... and within the latter means "roundly mocked" is The Word "noncensus"]
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The Magic Number?
The Al Franken Show.
No! I mean We Got Ed! [*** UPDATE]
From the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to the Great Left Wing Muddle, the magic number might be 41. That could be the answer to the not so rhetorical question, will the Democrats come through? With what? I presume a public plan. [update: 7-2-09] Unfortunately the filibuster is only a Senate tool and a naysayer* of nattering nabobs.
* a mixed rhetoric if not metaphor of political calculus
** update aka misnomer and new misnewmer.
*** 7-2-09 MSNBC link added with Ed's focus on the public plan over giving Al Franken a hard time about his 60th Senator comment.
No! I mean We Got Ed! [*** UPDATE]
From the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to the Great Left Wing Muddle, the magic number might be 41. That could be the answer to the not so rhetorical question, will the Democrats come through? With what? I presume a public plan. [update: 7-2-09] Unfortunately the filibuster is only a Senate tool and a naysayer* of nattering nabobs.
* a mixed rhetoric if not metaphor of political calculus
** update aka misnomer and new misnewmer.
*** 7-2-09 MSNBC link added with Ed's focus on the public plan over giving Al Franken a hard time about his 60th Senator comment.
Confusion is Right
But it does not mean the left is cleared.
above links in order:
(1) Iran and Leftist Confusion by Reese Erlich
(2) Iran: The World Is Watching by Steve Weissman
(3) A Response to Steve Weissman's "Nonviolence 101" by Stephen Zunes
truthout / Perspective(s)
It should be clear that nuclear weapons proliferation (little did I know it was so little mentioned**) is the underlying concern.
"Some demonstrators wanted a more moderate Islamic government. Others advocated a separation of mosque and state, and a return to parliamentary democracy they had before the 1953 coup. But virtually everyone believes that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power, including enriching uranium. Iranians support the Palestinians in their fight against Israeli occupation, and they want to see the US get out of Iraq."(1)
"...criticizing US policy on Iran, including Bush administration efforts to overthrow the Islamic government. The US raises a series of phony issues, or exaggerates problems, in an effort to impose its domination on Iran. (Examples include Iran's nuclear power program, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and support for Shiite groups in Iraq.)"(1)
(4) Iran: Nonviolence 101
"the Iranian activists want to win. At least some in the America government might prefer to provoke a brutal defeat, a Tiananmen Square, to further isolate Iran and bring pressure within the Obama administration for a military response to the Iranian nuclear program."(4)
"Washington's promotion of non-violent resistance in other countries is already casting suspicion on a number of activists and thinkers who, wittingly or not, have allowed themselves to become pawns in open and covert programs to "promote democracy." Non-violent activists everywhere need to draw a clear line against cooperating with governments of any stripe in this foreign meddling."(4)
"The leftist critics must answer the question: Whose side are you on?"(1)
President Obama's or proliferationists? The world's or being right? These are my cherry branches or olive pits.* Just as it is unclear who the leader of Iran is, aside from the election, so is it a more muddled group than coalition of the willing, that must be part of the solution.
*rhetorical answers and the muddled willing
** hence the fourth link
above links in order:
(1) Iran and Leftist Confusion by Reese Erlich
(2) Iran: The World Is Watching by Steve Weissman
(3) A Response to Steve Weissman's "Nonviolence 101" by Stephen Zunes
truthout / Perspective(s)
It should be clear that nuclear weapons proliferation (little did I know it was so little mentioned**) is the underlying concern.
"Some demonstrators wanted a more moderate Islamic government. Others advocated a separation of mosque and state, and a return to parliamentary democracy they had before the 1953 coup. But virtually everyone believes that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power, including enriching uranium. Iranians support the Palestinians in their fight against Israeli occupation, and they want to see the US get out of Iraq."(1)
"...criticizing US policy on Iran, including Bush administration efforts to overthrow the Islamic government. The US raises a series of phony issues, or exaggerates problems, in an effort to impose its domination on Iran. (Examples include Iran's nuclear power program, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and support for Shiite groups in Iraq.)"(1)
(4) Iran: Nonviolence 101
"the Iranian activists want to win. At least some in the America government might prefer to provoke a brutal defeat, a Tiananmen Square, to further isolate Iran and bring pressure within the Obama administration for a military response to the Iranian nuclear program."(4)
"Washington's promotion of non-violent resistance in other countries is already casting suspicion on a number of activists and thinkers who, wittingly or not, have allowed themselves to become pawns in open and covert programs to "promote democracy." Non-violent activists everywhere need to draw a clear line against cooperating with governments of any stripe in this foreign meddling."(4)
"The leftist critics must answer the question: Whose side are you on?"(1)
President Obama's or proliferationists? The world's or being right? These are my cherry branches or olive pits.* Just as it is unclear who the leader of Iran is, aside from the election, so is it a more muddled group than coalition of the willing, that must be part of the solution.
*rhetorical answers and the muddled willing
** hence the fourth link
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)