Equivalence

Principles:
a run on in other words.
Especially important in the rhetorical fields or disciplines.

[posted pre-post 3-1-10]

Speaking of Fudging?

or dot, dot, dot!
This is a bit fringe!
And a bit of a bloomin' concern and not to mention more grown up*attention.

* updated this link today

[Miscellaneous links hotlinked 3-31-10]
Rhetorical
Charges?
Reported
links?
loopiness?

MSNBC guilty of fair and balanced, Radigan guilty of equivalence.

We need two reasonable parties?

Well, of course we don't.
I am being rhetorical or maybe Socratic?*

While I don't minimize a need for dialogue on what reasonable is, it might make more sense to be facitious about what a party is, let alone American or thinker.

Yes, we need parties and different perspectives, but it is hard to pinpoint the reasonableness especially in light of the media's cherry picking.

NBC Nightly News tried to make an equivalence (see cherrry picking) in the back and forth, while only a portion of Rep. Schmidt's voicemail was used.** Also earlier, Dylan *** Radigan let stand a charge against MoveOn(5:05 in) and framed the Alinsky Model(5:50 in).

* we do need more reasonableness if not even more parties, but there is also a bit of diversity within each party (or is it without?)
** the reference to a gun seems "third person" if not defensive rather than direct
(not to condone the call)
*** (same reasonableness link) also SEIU charges being still confirmed

FOOTNOTES -two previous drafts- released today.
Question Marksists!
A funny think happened...
Premptive Crack.

Question Marksists!

[SAVED IN DRAFT: RELEASED 3-29-10]

The marks of the mess age?
This is the editorialist's trick. And the exclamation point of "fair and balanced" FOX "NEWS"? Making a true perspective almost impossible.

Can a "minority" be a responsible leader?

Emphasis: Question Mark!
Focus: Republicans (Exclamation: Minority Leader?)
There is irony and sarcasm in my punctuation, but reality and sincerity in my question.
Not to mention plurals and possesives(period)-or slash?
OK, I got into some messing with the marks of the mess age, but the context is something that needs work, as a sorting of the particulars and relating to the personal, and maybe I should check my dia-critical[s].*

* "s" and last two links added

A funny think happened

on the way to the protest.
[SAVED IN DRAFT "AS IS": RELEASED 3-29-10]

I was going to report to Media Matters Beck's use of a September 2000 clip where(at 2:07 to 2:40) he yells, "Look at this! Far Left!".

I intentionally framed my original protest(speaking of "Hot Standby" including the finger/air quotes)to Media Matters as, "MSNBC let up on Beck!" but now see my own bit too hot of a standby and oops. Incidently, not the oops noted, as that involved other adjustments to my thinking(or spelling), not the thing(sic*) intended.

OK, after yesterday's heavy linked play of words, I had better stand down a bit. BUT...
The September 2009, Pittsburgh G-20 Summit was covered, but the intention of its undercoverage is mixed. So, back to my message to Media Matters(not yet sent and still evolving):

Originally my outrage was over the appearance that it was Sept. 2000, well no one is perfect. Beck still misuses the facts it seems. BUT there is an odd twist which is actually standing operating procedures at FOX. It was a G-20 Summit (2009) and the violence sprung from free speech zones, or the caging of it, so to speak. So I would hate to imagine what Tea Party events might be like if they were corralled or hurded away from a major event or prohibited from getting their message out? It almost seems like MSNBC is attempting Fair and Balanced or is it nuance?

It really seems the mixed intention of the coverage or undercoverage issue fits right in with the fanning or under fanning of messages perspective, not to mention who is running or leading for what.
[Sometimes oops can evolve, sometimes being right don't.]
[Or sometimes you feel like a bloomin' ...]

* flip-flop of intended spelling(this time)
** see the oops of seque(sic)[there]: truly mispelled but I may have no lemony snippets but there might be some natural snickers.

Media Matters

MSNBC let up on Glenn Beck!

They (oops)

O'Donnell/Maddow

Speaking of seque/oops or other sources or cue.

[A funny think happened on the way to Media Matters]
[3-30-10: For the life of me, I could not figure out what the trip was here, until I'd rewoven a bit of my phrasing and links. It is also in the "journalistic" gimmick? Of teasing punctuations. Tantalizing or probing & rhetorical headlines are more "normally" ended with question marx(sic). But my finally found point was that MSNBC was slightly less than probing and maybe with too fair and balanced intentions.]

FAUX CAMP (II)

My reason for bumping up, the extended portion of FAUX NEWS, is Rachel Maddow and the Constitution, namely the 1st Amendment,
regarding the free press, not my extended references in this blog.
NOT TO MENTION FINALLY THE BILL IS BLOOMIN' DONE>

I propose that Republicans are furthering their childish rhetoric to get attention as they are really running from a free press, in the likes of MSNBC. Not to mention the questions that they would have to face in the likes of Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann(and Lawrence O'Donnell*). Dylan Ratigan and Chris Matthews are no slouches, but the latter is a bit too sophisticated for my taste at times.

I can understand now why Scott Brown in Massachusetts is running against Rachel Maddow since he actually thinks she is campaigning against him, when it is really he who is running on running from her.

* Lawrence O'Donnell catches the reality in this link on Olbermann's Countdown.

BTW: FOX's whole existence was built on the myth of the liberal media, aka The Mainstream Media, and it is a shame that it justifies MSNBC's approach or calling it out and calling on the country to wake-up and behave. And Lawrence, in seque[oops/Segue] to Rachel: not today, but between you and I, yes we did![oops and bold updated 3-26-10]

Faux Campaign

versus Real concerns.
The last post was so extended I have bumped the last portion up to here:

Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is the only method in resolving things, even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And later, Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)[UPDATE], from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

*** asterisk applies to last post

FAUX NEWS!

I'm not in the mood to play with words today.
But it is nice to see the condemnations of violence from some Republicans, while even those that have, don't recognize their part in lighting the fire by their childish complaints and rhetorical run around with the process. Their complaints [***] of not being included and their complaints of unprecedented partisanship should ring hollow, especially in light of the comprehensive compromises and early sacrifices by Democrats for the sake of pragmatism.

The media plays a big part in not better informing the people. FOX is bad enough, but there is so much reactionary programming, that might be valid yet not really enlighten us on the actual basis in fact and correcting rather than repeating. It seems that there is a political ingredient in this as well as a childish back and forth, but also a misunderstanding of the actual difference in taking responsibility* for one's words and blaming others for politicizing their misuse.

My original thoughts were in support of independent filters, or earlier links, and other sources.

Republican Whip Cantor has complaints about the DNC and the D(triple)C using the threats for political gain.** [Boehner see my comment section]

* Andrea Mitchell(MSNBC): today's link to follow (here): now can we not condone whining?(to Cantor not Pelosi)
** The DCCC have now addressed the difference as well as you (the reader) being able to see and decide in the several links, not necessarily in my rhetoric.
Anachronistic bracketed and segue.
[If one could raise the level of "sophistication" and be able to cherry pick the rhetoric, one could see that politics is only method in resolving things even if you do not feel "responsible" for being in positions of leadership: see Ratigan reference and Hardball below.]

[*** see my call to Boehner's office not to mention what is on their "clean sheet of paper" now.]

[Earlier references to the way media works not to mention this last minute source. And Later Ratigan is a bit of a mix of "targets": see link (here)soon, from which I have pulled the term "sophistication" (above) from a Tea Party guest, even though the host, Dylan might not understand community organizing perspectives or "responsibilities" in other matters, while Hardball might raise it too well.]
Anachronistic segue.
[I will finish with two issues that could easily be too political, but would love the exact words in law, to explain the "abortion funding" and "mandate" issues relationships to reality versus the rhetoric. But I believe it is a fungible economics issue or state options and commerce clauses relationship to the foot in the door and opening the door to get the TOW out in the form of there being room for improvement from both sides.]
[Hardall, "the reality is" in the "stirring up trouble"(segment) that media focuses more on raising the rhetoric and controversy gets more attention and distracts from issues(my take not guests)] and then covering it is called "whipping it up" when to naught is only more to blame.]
[OK, I can't say I didn't "play with words" especially in the last few bracketed's]
[On the other hand, I would like to reflect the reality that Republicans will not run against reform, just more reform, and note that they must now reverse Valentine, not as in massacre but in sending messages and bills that will get attention, hopefully not from their "clean sheet of paper"(meaning not rerun or failed ideas), but incrementals that will get responded to, run on, and even occasionally get up or down votes, only not necessarily with the kind of bipartisanship and change they hope for.]

On the Other Plan(s)

[Originally I was amending or running on the last link.]
...on the other hand: while I am not advocating Independents or Single Payer, they just might be the way things need to go. As the Reverend Al Sharpton said this morning, it would be unseemly for the President to be an advocate for any separate interests, as I paraphrase him, and as others would call it leadership in reference to the parade. This was linked anachronistically. Note the tetra of DRIP, (now that was manipulated: Democratic Republican Independent Progress), not to mention the Bloomin' ** Fringe. And an earlier thought about this field, Creationist Recreation Applied Properly, no CRAP. Speaking of anachronism, if someone turned water into wine, who turned whine*** into trickle down? Answer? Just a Laffer. No disrespect to the good nature and good deeds of Reagan and Nixon or vice verse us, but they have certainly been proved to be relative.]

** EPA = Expletive Properly Applied.
*** Needlessly(sic)

Underlying this thinking is a reaction to those that think we think we know better, and those that think they are we. I directly refer to the rhetoric of the Right and the fact that they are the minority for a reason, continually evidenced by their behavior as well as the fact that polls change and they had better.* Wow, I think that was anti-sic or at least freely punctuated, but who the Fringe knows or is it the Shadow or Charlie McCarthy(**)ism?
* Bold summary and link(correction: reference) to other asterisk not to mention runonwordplay.
[belated ** talk about prophetic gathering of moss I am not sure I know yet.]
[Well...not exactly, but close enough for Hurts work or Wads-worth.]

New Poll on Health Care Bill

49% a good thing
40% a bad thing
And we have yet to run with it,
Thanks to The Ed Show.

[Miscellaneous notes* and thanks:
Chris Dodd
The Fixes
Country First
Reconciliation
Thanks, Keith, Lawrence and Rachel!]
[Yet is this a hitch? If they lose the mandate it could just be a tax.]

* 3-24-10 link added but see run on...

The Truly Historic Moment

Thank You,
MSNBC

And I wish to thank a staffer at the Minority Leader's office for a discussion on the nature of the Republican complaints...(in progress/the process...) I have a message that might be returned regarding a dispute that there were 166 Republican amendments and some rhetoric about what the New York Times came out with yesterday.

Thank you.
Thank you, Very Much

H.R.4872 next up for Senate Reconciliation.[awkwardly phrased, linked and/or sourced]

Comparing an Error

And/or Era?

Baby Killer vs. the Great Society
The Texas Republican who shouted "baby killer" apologized as he was not speaking of Representative Stupak, just the bill. While the New York Times corrects Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, for saying Newt Gingrich was speaking about President Johnson and the Civil Rights Act, when he was speaking of the Great Society.

Minor corrections in both cases, but both seem to compound the point. As the blanks were needed filling, the former is still is for shame and the latter still for irony of whose Waterloo. On the darker side of irony there was the gauntlett congress bravely faced[*]to do their job, while the previous administration protected their leader from the signs of the times.

Moments before the historic signing moments I hear: Maybe the Republicans peaked too soon?

[Thank You - Keith Olbermann for Making History and Moving Forward ]

Historic Health Care Bill Passed

The House has Passed the Senate Bill.
Thank You Historic Speaker!
Thank You Minority Leader for so disrespecfully recording your nonsense for history.[*]

The Senate now has the option of adding a few Republican options or maybe even some Democratic plans.

*[3-22-10] Believe me, I don't believe I could more respectfully record my reaction to Minority Leader Boehner's address.

[In fact, I actually just had a long discussion with a Deputy Chief of Staff reflecting my displeasure with his antics. I may or may not summarize it later, but I can characterize it as a less than heated discussion. My main point was that it is difficult to imagine many reasonable people bothering to call in to respond to such behavior, given the visceral reaction and condescension possible. It might be likened to calling in on a childish tantrum. I was just curious about the decorum of their callers, I think I kept mine, but I did continually get caught by the whining rhetoric. The reported belief that the process was unprecedented and partisan like never before. Ha! Oh and the "blame it on emotions" mixed in with the "need to be heard" excuse.]
[Update: see runaround rhetoric and clean sheet of paper: the Republican "leadership" has been forced by Democratic leadership to be accountable but still whine about the politics while blaiming it on 200 years of heated words simultaneously martyring** themselves in the rhetoric and hijacking*** the word "change" from a "clean sheet of paper". They want history to be forced or a force, as long as it is thier force not the peoples. Which "common sense" would mean, no history, no constitution, no rhetoric, no politics.
** I hope I have not too incautiously used the word, but it might be better to say Cantor makes a rather heroic leap in his rhetoric and "akin" to self-sacrifice.
*** refers to office call]

Noting the passing of

Seven Years since Iraq Invasion.
[Update links added 3-21-10]

Revolutionary Hospitals (and Back Again)

Recently a health reform critic(kindly put) claimed that the founding fathers had hospitals and did not mention them in the constitution(awkwardly put), but I cannot adequately paraphrase the rhetoric. But I did wonder at the time if it was accurate. Yesterday NPI, has a different angle on health care reform and technical advances and the baby boom face of more than half of recipients of health care. But an auxiliary question came to mind. When did health care become for profit? But the real question is when did health insurance become for profit? My problem is that there is always a deeper question. Our problem is that too many have the wrong answers*.

Some have such a weak definition of capitalism that it is the nature of economics since the public market. Others don't even realize what the "invisible hand" means? I have not fully read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, but at least I know he waved it. But I forgot who recently said, it is called the "Invisible Hand" because it is not there ***. While other's still... [trailing off] I might have been heading to a more substantial answer, but my point is that some people get caught up in the debate between dirty words and the only word. Too many are taking sides, especially when it comes to the word "progressive" by playing on fears and taking change for granted, and passing the buck, but not the money**.

In memoriam.

* and without picking sides I would add: too many feel they have the only answer. At least when it comes to history and what we are based on, with intentions to move forward.

** ironically these last two links have a good point in common(well not exactly): but in regards to the baseline, the blogger admits to some essentials or entitlements if you will, at least outside their argument for the need for profit, while Milton Friedman (a Libertarian) suggests a negative income tax to balance the social responsibility of companies to make profits. And entitlements are the real subject for the operating table, but so might be the flat tax and overall safety net reform. Actually speaking of dirty words, reform is not the word, adjustments are all that are needed to . Not that major adjustments might need to be considered in regard to globalization and world finance and diplomacy, which really scares the one word people, not to mention communities. It is not about the finger in the dike or the egg on the wall or the face of humpty dumpty, it is about the hands on the foundation of civilization.

*** maybe him but not here

Other links, invisible hand, or the pointing finger
[Sorry to not point a finer finger, but it is all about the revolving perspectives and finding balance without starting from scratch.]

P.S. I did not read these but did run across them prior this blog, let alone realize at the time I would be back. They could be the concrete mixer, mortar or cobble stone of my thinking.

Demon Pass

or Demonizing Politics with Deem and Pass!
At the 3 minute mark I agree the Democrats might be better off with a vote, but it is overly cynical of politics and ironically political to blame the creative process.
But Senator Stabinow defends or explains the process.
[Is that straight? I hope it is straight now, and I thought that the Klein and O'Donnell had fallen for some political spin, even though their intentions might be right. In fact, it is like the Valentine metaphor, but they just send them in one envelope.]

[Here are the demons who don't understand that self-executing is just what they seem to want, when it really means getting it done, and I don't mean Dennis Kucinich.]
[Belated Chalk Up and Kudos to Kucinich ]

What the Beck?

[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.

My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.

I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.

Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.

[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]

* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]

[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]

[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]


** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus

Politics Local and National

Find your local party organization.
DEMOCRATS
Republicans- not so easy
Liberals- at your own risk*
Conservatives
Green Party
Independents (you are on your own)
Libertarian or Ron Paul
Actually this was just a quick search which evolved from "find your(specified)organization" to find your specified "party", and my comments are more about the ease with which they are found.

As a local example: 41st LD Democrats **
Puget Sound Liberals
Northwest Progressive Institute
Progressive Radio
Organizing for America
Democracy for America
King County Democrats
Washington State Democrats

This may seem condescending, but what the Beck!
MoveOn
Think Progress The Final Act for Health Reform
Media Matters
not to mention Democrats.com Save our Democracy!

[BTW: two proposals(rhetorically)
a. If corporations have individual rights, where do they come off as being able to own other individuals?
b. And where does an individual share come in? I mean there is the equal protection clause but an individual gets one vote per share of stock?
c. It seems that congress should tighten up immigration when it comes to such commerce let alone labor.
Actually these could be substantive considerations.]

*if I can't offend my own, who can I offend, well maybe everyone, but I am being ironic with a keen political calculus. Actually my own is "progressive", and we must stop running with(or at or from) words like scissors.

** attendance at District Nominationg Convention and Caucus was surprisingly low, but could be attributed to the forgone conclusion that there would be no opposition to our incumbents, satisfaction with work being done, anticipation of the work to come, and the nature of the top two primary holding some surprises if not a field for competition from the wings of hope and cynicism.

MoveOn

It might be the watchword but...
at least a just dot org[See update]
and earlier affiliations:
People for the American Way
American Civil Liberties Union
Democracy dot com.
Democracy for America
Organizing for America

These are just a start.
PLEASE check their messages and to whom it may concern.

I recently said that President Obama has been investing his capital*** rather than spending it like the previous president. Not to mention that capital has something to do with what is working or in some cases not. I mean he has put alot in the pipeline*, and there is much more to do, which involves the nature of politics not just being local, let alone the only blame**. I mean in regards to the nature of our security concerns in relation to the international and corporate complexities of economic and diplomatic processes and our diverse and common interests.

*pipeline in this case might be inappropriate or ironic tweaking of what does not work
** or process
*** not necessarily on this blog

[Update on political complexities: from the Progressive Caucus co-chair on health care, as part of a comprehensive progressive process. On the other hand? And on the complex hand of recovering capital.]

Message to the House.

There has been a March On Washington for the Public Option.
Here is the message to the House from Ed Schultz.

Thank you Senator Cantwell
Thank you Senator Murray
for supporting the Public Option if not signing the letter.

On the road again.

Health Care Reform Now.

[Comprehensive Letter]
[See Irony * ]
[Targeted side ways.]

* and "made progress" -> here

A new day is dawning.

I wish to be circumspect on the Obama plan.
So I will can the hope and hype and just link or google.
No offense google, but what the...?

Well here or here.

[update:Really!Text and video , reconciliation, the new Obama? what to run on.]

Snooki?

With the comments of Republicans recently, like Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Jim Bunning, it was tempting just to call their offices to ask if they are getting many expletive deleted calls. That is a serious inquiry, because I wonder just how many sensible people would even think their call mattered, considering their behavior * which is frequently rude and more commonly childish, and forget having any relationship to facts. Really, it might make more sense to quote Peewee Herman. "I know you are but what am I.(...)Infinity." Especially with the employment of Snooki. Peewee may be on the road to reform, but at least he knows he is childish. "Kids, these days." Speaking of cultural cracks: "Mr. Wilson!"(R)

*in the halls of Congress? Not to mention other whining.(SEE BTW)

BTW: Glenn Beck is a PC figure, standing for Pop Culture as in destroy civilization.
Oh and I have employed a new label, except it would too frequently be applied as it is the Republican Agenda.

(R) a ribble on a recent app

[On the other hand(American Exceptionalism) and foot in mouth, I can't remember who said... what?... but in regards to the fall of the Soviet Union, either before or after, in the thinking of Reagan or the latest Bush, just because a president will not put his actions into words, does not mean they cannot be justified, nor not be changed.]

Comprehensive Letter

President Obama has presented his plan.
Find letter here.
He has taken some more Republican proposals from the bi-partisan health care summit, confirming he is the Fair and Balanced Centrist of the previous post.

Now, I am not decrying his lack of liberal leanings, only contrasting them with the Right, with hopes the left and Democrats get the job done. If there is only one letter between hope and hype, we should know the Y.

Fair and Balanced and Centrist?

Whether you are a trickle-down Tea Partier or a Bubble-Up Egghead, not to mention the victims of ad hominem, ad group'em, ad label'em, add lose'em rhetoric or its perpetrator, The New Yorker might be part of the problem. But maybe it's my problem* or maybe they have made progress ***.

Speaking of bull or the Rodeo Clown, we should ponder who is the bull and who is the cowboy in that self- prescription. Not to mention Irony.

* I'm actually a great admirer but thought it might be too out there **for others

** link is post hock (or add: pre-pawn)

***BOTTOM LINE: If you can get past Newt Gingrich and his "post-modern" interpetations of his "democratic socialist" buddies Camus and Orwell, it is a fair and balanced whack at a "comprehensive" problem, and I think the Hopi-ChangeY thing has a... quiver.

{embedded words: made progress(read link),bull(USATodayWeekend), Rodeo Clown(David Sirota), self (Bill Bennett), prescription(Dr. Dean), Irony(Robert Reich), too out there(Beck),comprehensive(Lamar Alexander), problem(cheap shot), quiver} (->)(see comment & ribble)

i.e. sometimes a scroll over of the embedded words(links) in this post will merit a full read or hint that will assist in context.(<-)