Re: Sabbatical

Why Vote?
Oh Sasha!

Buck Up!
Compendium.
Mandelbrot.
Fox'd! [insert link 10-22-10]
Separation of Constitution [But for Bush Inserted 10-31-10]
Good and Evil
Oh Sasha!
au contraire
Debt and tax cuts
independent comment
Revolt of the Zombies
Obama v. Foreign Legions
Game On! [Post inserted 10-22-10]
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
interview with [Generalization Warfare 10-27-10]
The Bully
Buck up (II)
The Red(Turn)Coats
Back up to Buck Up.[Obama v. The Economy Stupid 10-29-10]
[Parting or Pausing Post.]

Benoit Mandelbrot

May he RIP! Here's to nature. What about sythesis of competition and cooperation? Do we now have the 4 C's?

In plain FOX

Ctrl F "Dino Rossi"
(in the latter link)But it really seems that Dino Rossi is a radical in moderates clothing, not really courting the tea party, but certainly following in step, to woo the big money low* information[vote].
*not really low, but not always comprehensive or comprehensible.

Return of the Fed

update[But for Bush? Separation of words and meaning. Harry Reid did not say "but for me" but the Fed did say but for you.
{re:sabbatical timeline in question for this post}

[[But for Bush Inserted 10-31-10]
[Happy Halloween!]
[Mid-sentence construction of a comment which I will not now paraphrase, as I never finished the sentence, the term "hortatorical* injunctive" came to mind, and a quick search found this. My point is that it is just as valid to say that Reid said "but for me" as it is to say that "separation of church and state" are truly not in the constitution.]

*11-2-11 spelling corrected to "hortatorical" "but for" missing c. Meanwhile there is an important hortatorical point embedded in "this" that follows. [Weaver of hortatorical injunctive and subjunctive. The cause and effect of government, let alone the media.]

Separation of

Church and State is not in the constitution... technically or more accurately, verbatim, it is not. I really thought that Christine O'Donnell was smarter than this. Oops I guess I am too, that was her point. The video does not do justice to the article. Not that that was its job. Bottom line, the real issue is a confounding of science and religion. One is a method or process, the other a structure and sometimes authority. But I think a better verbatim is...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" If I may be so bold.
(And then there are other* issues.]
*How no means yes (Ctrl F link)and the relationship of science to authority(or is it soveriegnty?): an imbedded yet incomplete theory.)

Nature is an Oxymoron

By Definition a Paradox.
When a noun, it is usually a mother...
But ask for a third opinion.
[Pairo'docs]

Oh Sasha!

Norman Goldman fielded a call[**] from a very enthused non-voter. Change has not come fast enough for her. It is reminiscent of my tent link.
[Re: big tent, small tent or mess tent, there is a mixed message and metaphor. A tent requires a few poles, and it is hard to believe that Sasha was a big "D" Democrat, but I hope she was there at the precinct and district level having her voice heard and supporting like minds if she found them. Then she might also understand the small "d" of democracy. If not, she might not begin to understand[*] but can certainly make a lemon from the lemonade.]
[Other.]
Nonetheless:
[*] 10-20-10 The American Prospect (Special Report)
["There's a sucker born every minute." That does not make them billionaires, but it might make for billionaires. Re: Peter G. Peterson "Ctrl F" i.e. some are nurtured
[** 10-20-10 just inserted there is also Erin at about 27 minutes, Sasha at 34:44 Also see Norm at 34min. "Dems do not act like Repubs, militarist, top-down and unquestioning." VOTE! Because those on both sides will keep the Phoenix theory from working. My way or the highway, unfortunately is only the low way.] Also see Bill 53min on past 53:33 to 56:45.

au contraire

Pardon my Cheney...(name calling and deleteds aside) it is not the "loonies" but the dis-enthused and profits of train wrecks* who may cost the Democrats.
[Post post con tent, i.e just in from my Inbox]
BTW: Cheney does not deserve a pardon, but my French does not need one.
* Barbara Walter's term for what sells or gets covered

Debt and Tax Cuts,

debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.

Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.

And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800

Independent comment

Senatory Patty Murray and former state legilsatore Dino Rossi have held two debates of which I have heard more comment on than snippets. I could relate to the charge that the questions may have not been answered directly even though I fancy that I may have undestood one more than the other and if you think it is simple then that is the side that might be wrong. This is the perpsective I take from what has been exchanged in the ad campaigns. So if you haven't seen the debates keep that in mind, not that I am independent. My point is that there is a need to counter the so-called facts that come out as well as answer questions, while some of the answers are just plain incomplete. My reference to independent comment above refers to close to neutrality here but sympathy with one frustrated with the party representatives(or rather only a choice between the two), who incidentally was a libertarian with socialist understanding. I won't parse that but at least the individual had great scepticism for the so-called tea partiers, even though I find a libertarian socialist to be even more idealist if not a fantasy. On the other hand, while some want their cake and eat it too, there seems some extremity of balance(if not irony) in this combination.
[Cross Reference to be inserted but it has to do with fuzzy math and fuzzy language.]
[For those who think that they have to know better to vote, vote anyway*, at least there is a shot at cancelling a vote of someone that does not know better enough not to vote.]
* in some races the first link was neutral or gave dual endorsements, rely on this one and then the other to fill in if any questions.
[If the choice is between a Democrat or a Republican and that is usually it**, vote the Democrat as they can be counted on to be more flexible than the Republican. The time to influence them by sending a message was in the primary.]
** technically it is not the rule but the result that it still happens that way even though concievably the top-two could be of the same party, the political calculus or lemonade making does not work out that way, and third parties are even more in a pickle(I mean lemon.)

Revolt of the Zombies

On Demand.(currently on Comcast)
"When right ways disappear, one's person must vanish with one's principles."
From the movie,(also Mencius) not to be taken out of context or from the prespective of Confusionism. (...or)

Obama v. Foreign Legions

Chamber of Commerce enables foreign investments or...

Game On!

[POSTED 10-22-10 10:37 AM]
Good Cop, Bad Cop Over:

If the Democrats manage to hold on, for the first time in a long time they would have an incentive to fight back against a system that is rigged in favor of the rich and the powerful. Because those same folks just declared war on them. If they don't join the battle soon, they are going to get wiped out in 2012. If you thought business interests spent a lot of money in this election, wait till you get a load of 2012.

To be clear, of course not all business interests are nefarious. They are a very legitimate constituency to consider when making policy. But when corporations use their power to kill a bill that would have stopped subsidies for offshoring jobs, then that is exactly the kind of abuse of power that is hurting this country. And that just happened last month.(Cenk Uygur)

It should be apparent that if so much money is going against the Democrats and for the Republicans, then there is a major difference between the two, and voters may know that more than the money and polls will tell.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The papers apparently are green.
Undocumented foriegn contributions for political attack ads.
[Belated related and Foxed.]
[Update Post Inserted 10-22-10]

Generalization Warfare

[Posted 10-27-10]
and Characterizationalism.
Unmarketed forces.
What's Christopher Hedges' problem in this problematic read?
Class warfare? Liberal is not a class nor the answer.
VALUES ARE THE ANSWER and politics the process. Liberal as "object of public scorn"? Yes! But a word does not make an object, nor a class. Nor do they adequately describe the institutions of the church, press, academia or party.
Now... "low", "middle" and "upper class", may be a more proper use of terms, especially when it comes to labor, incomes or wealth and it is no more fair to blame the class as a whole. But it would seem that the middle-class bears the brunt of any blame if that is the game. Where were they when the so-called liberal class failed them? Satisfied with their progress and taking the liberals for granted, as well as the powers they thought they wielded. But warfare is not the right field of political correction.
[It may have been just over my head, but it seems a cheap shot at Chomsky.]

Interview with

Noam Chomsky: 'er Speigel[Correction]
My first or maybe second impression is that Noam Chomsky is the anti-thesis of Pat Buchanan. At least in respect to the idea that maybe only I had that when Pat Buchanan says something** that both sides of the political spectrum agree with he might have something. In Chomsky's case it might be where both sides have a bone to pick with Chomsky he may be just right. At least in the respect that he lacks from the two quarters not in fractions but perspective. He is either a tool of the forces that be or their nemesis, but he is not Goldilocks*, any more than Taleb.

*self-correcting or twisting a metaphor, I did not mean to bring in the tea party or mama bears
** at present I don't want to dredge up what one might be as I could be wrong

[American Prospect unrelated?]
As of posting, I have not fully read the Chomsky piece on The New World Order(see correction), but did finish the American Prospect piece, Old Image, New Portrait in paper form, and found the other links for later or earlier(in respect to Keynes and Taleb not bull-lies).]
[Unintended Bully link. Please note that Wednesday's Bully post preceded Thursday's Last Word here, but the Chomsky piece above was much earlier.(when corrected a little less so, maybe accounted for by jet lag)]
[Not really an update but a link 10-27-10]

The Bully...

Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.

[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.

** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]

Buck up...

the slippery slope!
[and riding the wave of nuance and law]

Red(Turn)coat Express

Or Turn(Red)Coat gathers no moss.

On Sabbatical.

Marching in Spirit!
[One Nation]

Obama v. The Economy Stupid

[Follow-up Posted 10-29-10]
Fair and Balanced.
[The Daily Show, President Obama, Austan Goolsbee]
[Are we the people we have waited for or still fearing?]

Buck Up!

The 2010 campaign has just begun. It is very apporpriate that the politics has just become fired up. After all, Democrats have been busy doing their jobs*, and there are so many checks and balances from the big tent diversity of the likes of the Blue Dogs or as some would say corporatists or others say capitalists, (the right are just prostitutes(some used a different word) for the trickle-down. [Pardon the in-your-end Oh! NOT!]
* see word link and campaign link
[speaking of Taxin' Questions and graduated billionaires and less of a persons(10m 26sec).]