Kant we get along...

...without going thru Hegel?
Or Knot without Hume or Mill?
Or put Decartes Be4 De-Horsemen.

Knot 2B a needle in a Hayes tack. 

2-3-14  update label Neo-con, Wolfowitz

The Big Cheese

And a block* at that.

With a little corn, Mother Jones columnist currently has the grater. But Mark Block is a bit smoked...out. (with David on Martin Bashir)

Where's the cheese? Well, Rove between the Perry Yeah and the Koch/Cain, not that I con done it. But we could have a spread at the Jimmy/Warren buffet or tale gate, with devils food cake. Not that I am branding but there are three flavors of GepPetTo.
[Segue ? cutcapandbalance? Track record of half-time.]

*the pickle or special sauce is Martin Bashir(Bubba Gump anyone?)
[all italic links inserted late evening]
[Not to mention the cheese link, week old cheese.]
[Not to mention Jobs OWS]
[And one more thumbs up for O'Donnell. It is called bread and circuses and Trump is the latter. Keep on advising those GOP.]

Courting Jesters

Or PEP* squads?
Stand up, sit down, Fed Fed Fed!

But give me a break! OK, labels are boxes, but Bolton, Kissinger? Who wants an out of the box pizza, man?

*No Pun: PEP= Prosperity Expansion Project = Koch-Cain

Re:tergiversate?

One word, that hits the party on the head.

Great Segue!

After Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention,
my first comments are:
So far, so good!
"No way! No how! No McCain!" Now that is a flip-flop.

Seriously...
From "Faint Praise/Criticism" to Progressive Narratives.
Not to mention pragmatism...

but I would like to note belated congratulations
to Rachel Maddow (nfry*) on getting her new show on MSNBC. Rachel refers to herself as a liberal not a partisan. Righteously so.[*] It is really hard to criticize Rachel, but she is the perfect flip-flop of Pat Buchanan. He is sometimes valid in his criticism of Republicans and praise or suggestions for Democrats, only the better to eat you my dear. Said the wolf to Little Red Riding Hood. While Rachel may be the same for Democrats, only the better for the country.** (Embedded in these asterisks are references to their work. Earlier encounters with Howard Kurtz, long time agitation by Pat Buchanan and recent enthusiasm tempered with caution for Rachel. Let me just say that her liberal enthusiasm and hopes may be cast as negative shadows on the pragmatism needed for progress.*** But criticism of Democrats and our process, taken in the right light, can be good for all.)

*The segue is filled with the likes of Howard Kurtz, and Patrick Buchanan.
** not a perfect flip-flop, the Democrats not the country.
*** it might have helped, yet it might not have, to remember the particular comment that I had a problem with, but it was only a comment on the progress of the convention or one of the speakers that caused me to wonder about her perspective as she makes progress. Had it changed or is it what got her where she is?

[A regressive update, meaning only a thought that I had when Biden was announced: That he should well vet humor and plagiarism. Now that is a well contained line. Of attack, for us, and by us, not necessarily of us. And depending upon McCain's VP a wonder of the Republican vetting process.]
[John McCain: An Experience We Don't Need! Thanks to Thom Hartmann.]{Not to mention: Breaking the Yalta Conspiracy}

[* 9-3-08 Update link]

More of the Same?

Meet John "Dubya" McCain[link updated 4-16-10]
All I can do is recommend this analysis and provide the following from others:
Calling Bush's Views Manichean Is an Insult to the Manicheans
and
Regarding a Manichean Paranoia

Manicheans see a reality of good and evil. That "good", will and must triumph, but that it must do so in the spiritual world, and that to actual destroy evil in the real world would be as ridiculus as destroying nature. Apparently not so ridiculus to some, and seemingly desireable for others.

[Next question. Pre-empting self and knowing. Where is the spiritual world found? No question, knowing rules out faith, in this reality.]

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

Featured DO NOT SEE!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. *

Idol Chatter: Pre-Screaming.
Reuters: No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary Post comment.
Angry Astronomer reports.

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

* OK, see the trailer, which is admittedly more a mocumentary.

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?

Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]

[[If the above ramble is hard to follow, maybe reading the following will help.
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins -- Maybe not, but it may make it seem easier. (It may also be helpful to point out that this is only an example used by unwilling participant above.) ]]

[04-22-08: more links on Expelled - -
PZ Meyers Expelled, Gains Sainthood -
Lying for Jesus - (nfry)

It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Faith in doubt and inquiry -
Related video link:
'New' American Theology of Civil Submission - ]

Red Labeling!

Maybe I need to point out the irony in A Wonderful Conversation.
Baiting Obama [*]demonstrates the tactic of fear mongering.
The Republicans who label themselves the Grand Old Party really are the Red Labelers by relying on Good Old Phobias of labels.

They utilize guilt by association, but run guilty of no association. It is really fear of any meaning. FDR in his first inaugural said:

...first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

I will point out that this was in the depth of the depression, and he points out:

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things.

Now it is said about FDR, that little was know of his plans. So do not take that as any swap at or comparison to the current candidates, Democratic at least. And of course Republican plans have been shown to mean little anyway. Bush in this blog, and McCain in his Flip-Flopper-Krafting, it is plain as the red on their faces. And the only thing green is the buck which is past and the envy behind their angry red labels.

[There is nothing humorous about the situation, except that humor does present an approach which should be investigated as a cover for anger. I presented a perspective that Swift Boaters have sunk the good name of a branch of the military-- Swift Boat Veterans-- (not so directly), in The New Wave, but Andy Borowitz (thanks to Thom Hartmann) takes it to the delta.]
[*] Henceforth the bold links will be the featured article I will be sure to read fully.