I am not seeing it...

The factors on the ground let alone the resources seem too fluid to jump on this band wagon, and seems to conflict with the Try Angle of diplomacy. (Ironically the same source, but as I note things are fluid.* )

* one writer may not speak for the organization regarding Just Foreign Policy/Robert Naiman(and I won't try to keep up with the stream)

Speaking of Ge Oh Me Try

or plane (and not so plane) English...
here is a base of hope, a try angle of diplomacy(Robert Naiman)[UPDATE]:

The New York Times reported yesterday that the US says it does not want to call for Mubarak to step down because 1) it fears losing all leverage with Mubarak 2) it fears creating a power vacuum in Egypt 3) it wants to avoid the perception that the US was "once again" engineering the ouster of a Middle East leader.
Regardless of whether one believes that these stated reasons are the full story, or whether they are also a cover for other US motivations - the Times acknowledges that the administration's "restraint" is also driven by lack of enthusiasm for "dealing with an Egypt without Mubarak" - these are the stated reasons of the US for not responding to the protesters' call.
But publicly and privately backing the opposition parties' call for negotiations would not, on the face of it, trigger any of the stated US objections. It is a very modest demand, totally consistent with previous US statements, which would not plausibly lead to "losing all leverage" with Mubarak; it would not create a "power vacuum"; it would not reasonably lead to a perception that the US was
"engineering" Mubarak's ouster. On the contrary: the US would be raising the profile of a particular proposal for negotiations as a way out of the crisis, and increasing pressure on the Egyptian government to respond to it.

Hope may not be too strong a word for what is not really a base, but a path. The point is that diplomacy must recognize the points and the angles to be effective.

Speaking of angles:

YES! Do not pick on Social Security as part of the debt picture, shore it up. In fact, lowering the retirement age, increasing the cap for contributions, catching it up with inflation would actually improve the debt picture, by impacting federal receipts. (not from Social Security but in income tax on the improved income.) Thank Senator Reid

I may need to take another angle on my comment: Big picture, poor segue, right note. My social security tangent is less than clear in economic or accounting terms, but the issue of State budgets, and the impact of unfunded retirement and health plans is a similar complex of factors that angle back to the nature of our frackin' troubles.

[Footnote * on embedded nature.]

* not (...embedded that is.)

On the level...

playing the field.

It takes three points to determine a plane,
in contrast to the previous cloud.[*]
(silver lining / golden rule)

[Not to mention "transpartisan possibilities" Again thanks to Stephanie Miller.]

[Update More Cow Bell.]

[*] see Oh

Geometry

Ge Oh Me Try?

WTF?*

It is not about me or any of these people, but...

* no balloon head but silver lining?

[My orginal intent was to reflect some social/organizational/vector dynamics. One word image led to another but that is the point, what the heck is the point, when there are so many pointers let alone parties and perspectives?]

"Off a cliff"...?

Chris Matthews on Michele Bachmann.
Speaking of ledership, I don't know where the words "Off a cliff" [*] came from but maybe the push that Matthews is implying, and which I might turn on him. Not to mention a "slippery slope" metaphor of rhetoric. Is it a mix of exaggeration and inaccuracy? Or just speaking in tongue, or the language that some might hear better?
But maybe we could see "balloon head" as a "Sputnik moment" ?

[*] I really thought I heard it prior to post, but maybe it was more mis-hearing

[Speaking of Neitzche: or Lex Lootor]

Breaking or

Peripatetic Justice and Ledership let alone
an achronism ?

This is a ramble on the Wave, aka the 4th Estate as well as a hint for a Ribble. No pun on Reliable Sources but I could have more reliable spelling but not an achronism.

I won't mess with the mutliple bottom lines* but it is about change and finding a silver lining. Changing my procedures will be job one, but as for this content note the bold italics. This is a preemptive note, before I take the time to more fully process the SOTU.

Foot note: fourwords for the two word culture - bane or con text

* last links added: period/pause

[Woof! Ratings are now in for the SOTU, and here are two ecumenical references. Rachel Maddow, a "prayer for the free-market" from as Joe Scarborough put it "the Cardinal". Who let the CEO's out! Speaking of "genre" note the connection to CNN.]

Nadir

or Bane or...

Enhanced State of the Union,
Republican Response,
and the Third Way?**

With minimum of rhetoric I have filtered of sorts. Boy, was it hard work! Googling* is not easy. I tried to find "fair and balanced" sources, but these
were the ones I chose to settle on. There is more than irony in the way the searches worked, or is there? Some might call it a conspiracy. But others might wish for a 4th dimension.

* or any search engine depending on the words chosen
(and original intent) as original viewing was CNN but sometimes it is not just me.

** 1-26-11

[1-26-11 Woof! Ratings are now in for the SOTU, and here are two ecumenical references. Rachel Maddow, a "prayer for the free-market" from as Joe Scarborough put it "the Cardinal". Who let the CEO's out! Speaking of "genre" note the connection to CNN. My bad, I can't located any embedded references in by blog to a recent Republican Debate sponsored by CNN, but it may be there somewhere. But this does link to the question of the genre of the networks.]

Genre Clash

or Mutation?

FOK'rs (Friends of Keith'rs) were noted on the...STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW, along with a rumor from above. Un...like the fabled "unexpressed thought".*





* not to make fun of dog killers, only the forum of Tucker's in second video
[and I did not mean to rhyme]
[and for "some people", genre refers to the medium(& mutation) of the mess age.]
[for others...]
[ and back to the future...express]***

*** this is an overpass to the "turn" spike [With the parsing of the great genre in Keith, the rise of the Young Turks, Matthews is the Oddball in my book. Too cute by half, but not these haves.

[Afternoon update, from my Oddball book, aka Edutainment and speculation, from Ed Schultz the President Obama's 5 year "in non-security, discretionary spending" budget freeze: actually the speculation is mine that many things can be on the table as security and many others are not as discretionary. But it may be a Peter, Paul and Robin' hood scenario. AKA a spin on our past presidents. But seriously or rather flippantly, the book is also about false equivalents. Rachel is no Jon Stewart, Olbermann is no Glenn Beck, Matthews is no "fair and balanced", and Ed Schultz is no Rush, though he does get flush at times. It is about the dialogue, even if it is grand sitting at times.]
[And an earlier crack at the table...aka footnotes of pre-ignition.**]

** and this is an achronistic asterisk i.e. just have to make sure that there are three, and to note that the Mutation link and all that follows was based on only seeing the first few minutes of The Daily Show. [Achronistic is timely in a third way as the third asterisk is placed earlier and regards another post. Not this one though. (At least in toto and one sitting.)]
[Parting asterisks of "past presidents" I like Teddy. Oh Bear Man?]

[1-28-11 Update]

The Challenge?

A legend for the Road map.[**]
[1-26-11 Update Dated below]

Are we there yet?
Pit Stops or Rest Stops?
Don't just spin our wheels.
Not that the squeaky wheel doesn't...
locating progressive perspectives may be in need of a key.

[Walking the line...w/Sam Stein, a tangent of empathy or introspection or straddling it with w/Paul Krugman, or neo-alterior line?*]

* there is some cognitive dissonance in this; America as a business, the private FED, and not just to pun on read or black [updated]

[** 1-25-11 Not exactly a huge effort to find the Republican Health care plan [Plan] but... here is more of a reply all, to the challenge, thanks to Rachel Maddow.]
[Not exactly up to the challenge above, nor exactly pro-rated, but still pre-speech... the challenge was the sources and keys to them, and it seems the media is not really up to the challenge or it takes more hard work. However, part of the challenge is the political nature of the media itself***. While attention has been given to a third so-called party within a party as a reply to the State of the Union, where is the so called Left? The Republicans have divided themselves to conquer so to speak, is there a voice let alone plan from the left in there, other than the pundits of lean forward? Or is Obama the Middle Bear's porridge? Just right.]

*** follow-upHowever: a turn spike.

[1-26-11 UPDATE: but just a hunch, as I pause the video, as the applause is still rolling, as the President enters the chamber, in the Welcome to the Enhanced State of the Union, the point is immediate: Winning The Future. Competition and Foreign Policy will not be foreign to Coordination.]

WWOS

"What would Olbermann say?" Thank you, Stephanie Miller.
"Tone matters", thank you Vice President Biden.
Influencing it...priceless.
Not to be ironic...
Thank you Steve Weber for the "introspection"
and "reflect(ing) the difference" Mitch Bard and the "globalgrind" of Russell Simmons not to mention coco who? And even David Schuster and back to Steph...anopolis*.
[Note: Bookending Bold Read. Meaning I may have only glanced at some the rest but will update the font later.]
* I'll let the spelling stand(although the name is Stephanopoulos) in a nod to the poison Ivy of the FOX league.

The best laid plans...

I get back from some errands and instead of it being 15 minutes into the Greenbay /Chicago game it is 14-0 Green Bay and almost the 2 minute warning to the half. See post from draft, and on my honor I do not have a parallel post, but must get to my game food.
(life goes on[**]... see Vinyl Cafe)[*]
OK so 3PM Eastern is Noon not 1PM. My bad.
[meanwhile: lost in some notes there is the booer and the booee of a Floyd Little interview] SEGUE..That "capitalist community" Green Bay pulled it out over all those references to Chigago and Platonics.

Well...Congratulations to the Steelers(24-19 over Jets) and all that rooted for them. I may wax philosophical later. I'll take Green Bay, may it be a hecuva game.
[* 1-24-11 links not complete yet, not that they will]
[** foiled again: a word tetradox or pun on pair o'] Speaking of plans, this was not it. Nor Lonesome Roads.

A shocking departure.

I am not talking the departure of GE,
but of Keith Olbermann from Countdown.
Aliterally a calm cast.
Just a hunch. "TO EACH OUR OWN".
Or Ribble? Adjust pause.

[UPDATE 3-3-11 Rachel Maddow on Keith Olbermann on Bill Maher.]

Green Bay / New York

Just for the fun of it, these are my picks.
No brilliant insight, only hunches based on interests.
For Green Bay it is fan ownership.
For New York it is the USC quarterback.
But what really matters? Finding meaning in things.
Then change.

What is the link here? The final two links regard a Sense of Events, by Donald Sensing. Quality satire(above) and comment.

Well... it is ironic that I have possibly been too fair and balanced in my view of the latter selectin of his. But his comment on the former may be the key:Stephen Hawking’s philosophy is so deficient that you have to wonder whether his science is, too. It would seem that only the reverse could be try*, but even that is ironic.

[This post pulled from draft at this The best laid plans... time.]
[*not exactly tried but...true, evidence of draft nature]

A day to reflect on.

Fifty years ago, Kennedy inaugurated.
Thirty years ago, Reagan inaugurated.
Through the looking glass and no Camelot.

An achronistic commencement.

[Wow: Speaking of tangents or anachronistic.]
[Other Input]

How can one make light of a tragedy?

By looking for a silver lining. I think that is what we all want to do. We just have different perspectives on what preemptive is. But remember the silver lining requires a cloud and a light and it is always darkest before the dawn.(Not.)

My original trigger for this thought was a satire on the recent Seahawks loss in Chicago. But please note that my weapon of choice is words and I often have too full a tool box and grab the wrong instrument. But there is a difference between a target and a gun sight and I am sure that they meant surveyors or navigational equipment. Then there is the questionable use of a muzzle.

Back to Seattle: I feel I cost the Seahawks the game by not wearing my cap till the third quarter or so. But then maybe it was in the cards, or the hand of Chicago that was dealt. If these three downs aren't enough then Plato is a hail Mary and there is nothing wrong with the school of hard knocks.

Who let the dogs out? Not Pavlov.

[As for questionable sources: here are some earliest comment.
And more recent.]
[Speaking of rhetorical change*... what about repeal of the Dole-Romney Healthy Deficit Reduction Act, aka Obamacare.]
*see recent link 29:20 and 38:20.

Hint of a Run?

It is just a hunch but former Speaker Frist may be testing his hat.

Freedom of Speech

Or Freedom of Diagnosis?
I don't mean to make any diagnosis myself, but it does seem preemptive to dismiss a killer with a diagnosis and not being political.

In Tribute and Memory

Martin Luther King Jr.
(other notes)

[Associated thoughts: Santa Clausation of the News
Russ Baker or to be fair and balanced: Rush to Judgement]
Note: anachronistic links

"paving the path..."

"...for divided government"...
The Debt Panel? My point is that "paving the path for divided government" means getting everything on the table for discussion. This is in light of the Right's method of rhetoric and politics over ideas.

What is ledership?

Is it really the press? In first amendment terms it might be. This is no pun on spelling, but it maybe hits on being able to follow and keep our freedoms.
Ribble: Actually it might be a pun on spelling, or just looking for a silver lining. Speaking of which, I am sure I have a few to be corrected.

BTW: If you are a bit tuckered out by this, then maybe get out of the kitchen? But I lay no claim to being an original intender but...

Looking back.

[The Arizona Tragedy]
The last link, Awkword! includes three links which I have yet to really comment on: the previous awkward link, Morning Joe on Sarah Palin's "reprehensible" video and President Obama's Arizona memorial speech.

There is much more work to do for this to be a "teachable moment", but there is no denying that making it a teachable moment is a political act, at least by those that are working to make it a teachable moment. Of course there will be deniers of both. (Editor's note: I walked this back a bit but still feel it is left a bit circular in logic. Why do I imagine DNA and RNA?)

Awkword!

Of course I mean awkward...starting out the post with the lede I did and then editing it as I did. But nothing compared to the prepared response Sarah Palin has. Not to play victim, it is my intent to use less words, but who am I to think more words are any better? Now that might be rhetorical and not dialectic. i.e. I am not yet commenting on Obama's memorial speech.

A picture's worth 1000 words?

[Italics: Edited next day.]What are actions?
These are rhetorical question(s). Ones which are only the beginning of the dialogue, not that I will extend or finish it. But in relation to the issue of rhetoric and politics and the meaning of words, it might be kept in mind, that if it is so,[**] then what does a symbol or icon say that the politician can't for whatever reason say? And in many cases the participants and our freedoms, in relation to the dialogue and the media only confound this rhetoric or meaning as to the various positions of responsibility or fields of endeavor(arts if you will) they cover.

[AND...How many words is a link worth? Let alone a leap*? I say this in regards to the hopeful turning point, in regards to this walk-back. Not that I have anything to walk back, but in context to consideration of a possible change in regards to the aforementioned arts.]

* let alone a name: Tucker? But actually my intent was to note: "the value of the unexpressed thought" under "mixing it up."[see second video: Mediaite]
[Main context? Irony of what counts.]

[And I don't mean to find reason in everything, but the words and intent embedded (and parsed and paraphrased)here are for all our consideration.]

[**] the pictures worth
[1-12-11 In relation to edited above: President Obama has been accused of using violent language in regards to, in a knife fight bringing a gun. It was a metaphor. We are not in knife fights. It is even a poor metaphor. But when that causes their opponent to use stronger language, that tie in issues, misplace facts and use imagages. Then they are responsible for even worse metaphor. That does not mean it will be easy to change things. Using the original to make matters worse, is oddly justified, but only by way of extending the metaphor and being claimed victim of it and feeling their freedoms threatened. Some people apparently can't handle extending metaphors, and they are not even always meant to be extended. But again it seems that by extending them, they intend to break the original metaphor, for the battle of our ideas.]

"unspeakable tragedy"

Words indeed cannot represent the feelings that flow from the tragedy at a Tucson Safeway. Yet they must suffice and be considered, to matter going forward.

UPDATE[1-9-11: Representative Giffords Shot, 6 Dead]

TO EACH OUR OWN:
Checking our words that is, and our crowd.*

*just to be clear, this is not my crowd, but I will be circumspect, until I escape the circular logic. [Not to jump on a band wagon, but the circular logic seems to be explained here.]

Now Dat's...

what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.

Here it is:

Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.

[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.

Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.

BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.

*strains: on another thread elsewhere

Follow-up

And post insert.[Update]

Old Digs: Slate on Health Reform

Case Study:
If his crime is so clear he should be prosecuted, but that is part of the problem. Part of the constitution involves treaties being the law of the land. I did not get into the particulars of his charges but his treatment is possibly a violation as well. If his intent or principle was to be a whistle blower for international crimes, he should have been more select, not that he would not have to face justice just the same. The likely reason he can't face justice is our country can't face justice. So I am saying that even if he thought he had principles he should not have done what he did. And even if he does, he must face trial, but then there is the difficulty of exposing more by allowing him a defense and having to defend the country. So I do not willy nilly and neither do the PsySR expect that there not be standard treatment for traitors,(which it seems has been gone beyond) but if this is it, then that is another exposure and point of my so called Case Study...Justice and American Exceptionalism.

A calling of Blues and Jazz?

Under the QCON this is a ramble of sorts and news. There is a common thread in the contact of the tangent being others only lightly referenced or embedded.

P.S. A particular charge(PC?) that one side makes is that the otherside has not read bills. I posit two concerns. Have they read the bill? Of course it is valid that they do not have the time sometimes. But why not at least mention what they have issue with. This of course this is especially related to the second link in this post. I will not be reading all of these things, but we can sometimes let others be our filters.

[BREAKING: Not to Lampoon*, but up on READING?]
*no pun intended but this just in my INBOX and upon reading makes it back to the P.S.[and just prior...an update]

[There is more than a Ribble run through this, and it is not just Dialogue or Dialectic, nor wordplay intended, but it seams** American Exceptionalism.]
** see Labels

[In a less uniting manner Thom Hartmann comes through again, not that there is anything wrong. But he does correct a name and give some party history.***]

*** Thom has altered his course in regard to pronouncing Boehner's name despite the principle it was founded on, Bane or Democratic Republic. It is interesting that Jefferson and Lincoln are involved in the history of party name changes. BTW: would it be too far fetched to call the No Labels Party, the Platonic Party? It is not really a party, but then it might be the latest niche in the evolution. I came to this in a reflective(read bounce) way. Would it be right to call them The Republic Party?

Case Study

To be honest, I did not know how to characterize the situation of PFC Bradley Manning. I have not made much of the Wikileaks problem other than a possible jobs reference. PFC Manning is the reported source. I do not agree with his method or the principles behind Wikileaks, except that there are problems with the job of journalism. But that does not excuse the treatment of a prisoner as characterized in the above link from Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and it certainly does not seem to make him any more clear in his objectives. It seems that rather than be a principled leaker, Manning chose not to be the filter, which puts his principles and his defense and assessment for prosecution in a difficult enough position, without further mistreatment. So if this is a case study, it may be one for justice or not for our principles.

Bottom Line?

Who gets it?
The line in question is in the last link or post:
"subset of sovereignty or tangle"
But I wonder if Michael Hudson really gets it? Post G-20?
We all know it is about who gets it(materially), but some realize there is a question of values(spiritually) but where we mix things up regards the democracy and economics and a devaluing of politics, and the powers that be.(the people and their relationships) In this regard, I mix the allegory of the egg(Humpty) versus the wall(Dumpty) and working on lowering both rather than breaking or knocking both down. Keeping in mind, the pragmatic and incremental, and the cooperative and the competitive dynamics of the whole process. Given that there is more of a bubble problem than the wall problem when it comes to numbers and the creative derivative situation, it seems that a leak is in order, and that might be in the form of tax reform. AKA: Entitlement reform. (not really AKA, more like biofeedback* wise)
*simply a very complex dynamics
[To sum it up, there is a very interesting exchange on Face the Nation where a new congressman (Rep.-Elect Mike Kelly) presents an interesting "reality": "running" the country in the black (sounds like the country is in business **) vis a vis a gory alley.(a flip-flopped allegory) In an aside it is truly more than about left and right, Democrat and Republican, for it seems the Democrats have been acknowledged to be split in their approach including Obama in terms of being accused of being for or against business(it is not that simple) but the representatives in this exchange are "running" from their party in regards to responsibility,(Michelle Bachmann & Kelly) as they may not have voted along the lines of what their party has, in fact, neither did the Democrats in regard to the compromise on the Bush tax cut extensions. In this case being on the same side, does not make both right or wrong, but only both being there for different reasons.]

** link added 1-24-11

Post Inserted

Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)[*]

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.

Oh, what a web...

we weave when first we misattribute. "sic"*

But here(see footnotes) is the tangle thanks to Thom Hartmann.**

*not to mention misquote or evolve
** more tangle (thanks to embedded hyperlinks)

[footnotes: Michael Hudson, Six Minutes, Democracy Now]

[More run off or tangle courtesy of "google"(and Ctrl Find)and Thom Hartmann caller.]

[Speaking timing*** and that was another thread, but spins off of Cato and Henry George, or is it Tucker "George Will" Carlson.]

*** apologies for deep or rather unexpressed and anachronistic footnotes and 4A.

[subset of sovereignty or tangle]

Inconvenient

or ignoble* hope.

* original word more bombastic but escapes me
[I will get straight to the point, the bold link is the point, and it will be thrilling if Republicans think they can sustain their gameplan. It is clear that this is an overreach** of analysis and polling to think that Republicans will have a veto-proof House and is admitted in their very next step, a "piecemeal approach".]

** this link is self-reflective not on Krugman's (Voodoo to Dance Video)
No pun intended.

[vis a vis "on the other hand", the fulcrum of the see saw?]
seesaw = pun on perspectivism (Right-Left, Tea Party-No Label, Republican-Obama)Progressive is the fulcrum not the lever, people are the load and counterbalance. In the last contrast; a party with a leader, we may have something. I can't really see No Labels as a movement, let alone a party, but it could have a dialogue at a coffee party.

Sarcasm or (halftime/nadir)

cynicism aside, I will consider the No Labels as follows.
(nfry)=not fully read yet

[1-2-11 Bold= been read*
The New Voodoo(?) Paul Krugman ]

* applies above and leaning forward...Pun on MSNBC as in follows
i.e. bottom line or niching change
(word play aside)