Tacky, tact, tack...

Who let the Dogfish* out?
Apology Cruise?

* not exactly [!]

Apology Cruise?  First, a Dogfish is a shark and I must admit to participating in their demise as a fisherman.  A billy-club or gaff hook is the tool of choice.  Second, Akin to fishing trips or the Romney Embassy gaff is Juan Coles hook to "Jumping the Shark".  Irony of Wrong Knees**, "legitimate rape" is almost long forgotten, what with the "empty chair" and the "Leder" Twain. 

** I am not implying Right or Wrong, only Diploma See.^

^ of Right and Wrong
S.E. Cupp
Evan Kohlmann

[9-20-12: or non-Prof-etiq et tu?  AM Clint 'n's Worlds?]

A win for nuance?

Not yet[!]

Co-Op-Ed

A Deeper Mess Age.

Yeah that's the ticket! An Op Ed from "The One" and "The Prince". No Diplomat I, but I'm not jest punning. A joint op-ed is no joke, but beyond imagining what the two could say. Or maybe it is the imagined reaction to more involvement by outside forces, more local or not. I am generally in favor of the two suggestions, the joint Obama/Al Nahyan op-ed and an Obama Al Jazeera appearance. But it is not just the awkward sound of the suggestions but the concern for an over-reaction and how and who receives it, in terms of further inspirations for, or resistance to change.

Odyssey Dawn

began 8 years after the recently concluded Iraq war began. The original Odyssey supposedly began 10 years after the Trojan War. The dawn of this Odyssey is more appropriate than crossing the Rubicon. As Hal Sparks pointed out on The Stephanie Miller Show, it is precedence not presidents.**
[Missing Message of the Week]*

[Footnotes not necessarily to follow.]
[Meanwhile here is to the brave or sometimes insane journalists who are putting themselves in harms way. But it should be kept in mind that their intelligence as it is leaked is not only a strategic but diplomatic part of the engagement. This is a dynamic akin to a double edged sword, that may assist or interfere with the mission no matter who may understand it. This comment aside, it does seem another precedence as opposed to being embedded and under the influence. Or aren't they?]
* "of the day", "of the week", does not necessarily denote regularly
** on "verses" under the table(a nav guide)
[3-25-11 here is to the brave...journalist link added: It is important to ask the hard questions, but it is important not to negotiate or spill strategy to the enemy.]

Laughter is the Best Medicine?

This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.

*on disagreement with involvment in Libya

[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]

[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]

** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.