Just a position

to pun on opportunity.  [?]

Let alone to read later... 
or knot [?]

(FP1)  

TMA

Too much or Tuesday Morning Associations.
MDA Memorial Day Associations?

Glenn Greenwald The Intercept.
Lede or Ship? 

A. quarter backing
B.  NYT Trumpets US Restraint Against ISIS, Ignores Hundreds of Civilian Deaths
C.  Noam Chomsky: Are the Media Still 'Manufacturing Consent'?

B was read before ABC were footnoted such, and pre-A~QB. 

The inspiration was anticipation of perspectivism on the part of these sources.  After reading Greenwald, the subject was perspectivism in the face of restraint. 

Update:  Sunday Related Difficulties Resolved*
*not exactly. 

OMG

Chomsky Harris : Dis~course?

Exceptionalism and the Slippery Slope

Two / Posts.

Epoch arrival ?








FN~ 1, 2.


May day ;-) 
Running Joke, We got it!, Now Dat's..., Post Inserted, Update, The Other News as Noted Prior.
(Thrasymachus and* Tergiversate)

Red Bull...

Humpty Dumpty

Pink Floyd ? [!]


* OW ? [!]

Taughtology or tut-tutology?

Stallin' collectivists ?
Knot so fast.

Bad cop, no cop. 
In reference to the divide*** and the "end justifies the means" irony.

A. The end does not justify the means. 
B. That does not mean that the means is not justified. 
C. Or that all ends don't need means. 
Or that the person who said A. justifies B.
Or that C is justified or not in B.

Now back to the Cop word play.  Amy Goodman with Noam Chomsky agreeing with Ron Paul.  The irony is platonic^socratics in an Aquawhynian(stet)* way.  Antagonist to bad cop is Chomsky. 
Protagonist of no cop, Paul ? **


***  Spoiler Alert uniter? (also click later ABC links)
New Label : hoodology
^ Need to Re-read or De-context: Slate.
* UW (unique words)
** OW
[Not to be branch dividian.]
mea cul...pa ? [!]

Speculative Physics

Math is next to Godliness? ^
Or sixth sense?

Not just^ another Sunday ! ?

(Not that Socrates is alive[!])

[eff'notes: As of this time there are four lines above. Links inserted line 3, then 4, then 2.  Not to force or farce the model, but there is an event horizon.]

[ seg weigh ? ... is tough to track down ... ? ]

1-27-14  Not that I had any* mocumentary intent. But there was the Pro Bowl with intent to do something different and I had run across a YouTube on a different singularity.  Note that** my "sixth sense" is reference to the six edges of a tetrahedron which has four points.^^  My point of departure or parsing is that we may have a chicken and egg, not to mention crossing the road and sky dilemma.  While the singularities of Chomski and Hawking are different, that does not mean that we dismiss clause wits [!][?] ***

 

* Caging Godzillas 
^ or amer mots? French for "bitter words"
** further tangents?  (math and intelligence)
^^ at this point I will note that I have still to read three:
It's About Blackmail, Not National Security
Get Ready for Rand Paul
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All
Related ?




*** Our Hierarchy of Needs

[OW ? ! ? ? ]
And the past four ?
Foot notes ?
Not that there is anything in HeyDigger[!] butt ... ? [!] ?

^quote is my creation (recent search and non-related googles).

Better him...

than US!

How could Mitt Romney possibly have been good for the country if he does not understand his own* message? It smacks of entitlements.  Politics is everything.


Mitt not us or humpty, but it should be clear that even kings men or horses...

It has come to my attention that I might not be a member of Beyond the Norm.  I will look back at that later.  In the meantime, David Sirota has become a permanent part of the Norman Goldman Show.

*  3-14-13: his own

Academic Freedom

Not the best heading**, let alone lede.

But not to be preemptive, I am being rough*drafty.

BTW: I don't know if I should have a disclaimer as I have "liked" Noam Chomsky on Facebook.*** Now should I wonder if he needs a disclaimer from this being on a youtube page he is featured on.

But I will note that I have only viewed about 30 seconds but find the heading provocative. And I will pull some words from a thread I contributed to recently: We can not pick the personalities of the sources(or the sources) that might influence our thinking. That does not mean that educated people can't have bad ideas, or that less educated people may not have better ideas. Nor that some people don't have a mix of good and bad ideas and that others may not be suited for choosing from them.

In the mean time(pun), that thread extended.

* I hope to find a more colorful and humorous link in my BS(blog search)

** see "extended" reference: not a bad heading (round and round)

*** not to pin the tale on this dawn key ode (Ouch those frackin' wind mills)

[Bottomline, not to ode on economics or hummin' resources. BTW2.0: I have two "disclaimers" considered above, one in relation to Facebook and Chomsky in regard to the "pulled" words (in grey high lite) and the other in regard to the "this" on YouTube, which I only previewed a bit. I do not claim it a fluke as that is probably the nature of the technology in another A word regarding math and search engines. Dont' trouble yourself to the fluke as it is just another "A" word.]

Anachronistic Reasoning?

Rational Actors?

The X-Factor?

Not Exactly.

[Note: it was not my original intent to post so much comment. A reading of the asterisks in order,(* through ***) may help the flow of reasoning, such as it is. (i.e. get to *** before reading asterisks.)]

Chomsky/Pillar.

The dilemma*** of dealing with irrational actors, seems to argue that the reason for not allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, is the same reason for supporting the Republicans for leadership: Only irrational actors can deal with irrational actors.**

Ironically it seems that it is the same reason for nuclear proliferation. Nuclear arms are needed to prevent the will of an enemy from being forced on one's homeland. Hence the irrational* also enforces the rationale that Iran needs nuclear arms for rational reasons.

This is not to argue for nuclear proliferation or disarmament, only to expose the paradox of expecting forces to be irrational, except when it is one's own. And this certainly does not argue for Republican leadership, at least as it expects to enforce their rational behavior on irrational bases. Such rationale is only loose talk or worse, intentional escalation of world tensions, and certainly not incentive for nuclear non-proliferation, global understanding or economic progress.

* not so irrational in the foundations here: as it is irrational to claim that Iran is irrational as a rational for preventing their nuclear capabilities. It is rational just attempting to rationalize behavior despite potential irrationality of the players.

**dualing ironies or double down dueling[!]

[or just dualing down?]

*** this paradox is also rational

This piece is based on a reading of the Chomsky and Pillar pieces.(in light of the "Actors" clip) But not before a re-reading of the complete Kroenig piece in a paper bound edition of Foreign Affairs, not fully available here. I had not yet stumbled on these articles, which may shine more light on the exorcise here.[!] From the former of the last two:

Matthew Kroenig's argument for preventive military action to combat Tehran's nuclear program -- "Time to Attack Iran" (January/February 2012) -- suffers from three problems. First, its view of Iranian leaders' risk calculations is self-contradictory. Second, it misreads nuclear history. And third, it underestimates the United States' ability to contain a nuclear Iran. When these problems are addressed, it is clear that, contrary to what Kroenig contends, attacking Iran is not "the least bad option."

--

Kroenig's inconsistency is clear: If Iranian leaders are as reckless as he seems to believe, a preventive strike would likely escalate to a full-blown war. If they are not, then there is no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would be uncontainable.

[Bingo: just in! Generals against of war ! or "loose talk"^]

[No Fluke? Yeah Right! ...and more Breaking Presidential Press Conference ! And ABC Fact Check is not Fact Check.]

^[Under "loose talk" a self-deprecating reference to my occasions to both hear and speak in-person with General Eaton.]

[Note that "anachronistic" pertains to the reading of the sources and the top three lines, not to mention the ongoing nature of who's interests are reasonable or to be forced, in the flow of the rationalizing. (Also asterisks and late found sources.)]

[Not exactly breaking, but Ed Schultz notes that Bill O'Reilly believes it was "No Fluke", that Sandra Fluke did not get "in front of that committee" by accident. No, she was rejected by a House Committee and was forced to appear before a Democratic Sub-Committee.]

Lean Back

Anniversaries from "Unhistory".

4women: [under construction]

Or should I?

I won't get stuck on numbers, but this is an interesting tangent.

Passing the buck in "the culture war"?

One Million Moms claims there is a culture war.

How is one neutral in what is their war?

Mourning in America:***

for the Raw Money* Class?

It's half-time in America.

(RM** w/Chris Hayes)

*Thanks to Norman Goldman for Mint Raw Money, and a Thom Hartmann caller who wanted a new class label for the 1% if Romney is the nominee. Do we really want to go back to where we were in 2008?

**only a coincidence he is in for Rachel Maddow

*** they used to call it "doom and gloom"

[***B:(link added) I take it back, they doo doo irony! Talk about twisted bridge of rhetoric.]

[2-7-12 An Inconvenient Acronym: PU Action as opposed to just PU**^? Actually it is more*^ of an inconvenient blog search.]

*^ a,b,c

**^ Speaking of Bowls[?] (irony mark: a,b,c,d,e,)("parsed"=a+b)

Temporal

Problematics
Rachell Maddow: more than just a perspective. Facts do change with time. Past facts are still past, but present facts will soon be. Not to pun on what will be, but Osama bin Laden's past was really not so much the issue. Nothing will change* the mishandling of facts and choices made by the Bush administration. (By this I mean the importance of not having focused on getting bin Laden when the Taliban made offers asking for evidence before September 11th, 2001)

*actually congress can change and the presidency did (see "hypocrisy" and "flip-flop" under can change link)]

[Dylan Ratigan: Mega Fatwah.The difference* between opinion and ruling.

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]

An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems. Fatwās generally contain the details of the scholar's reasoning, typically in response to a particular case, and are considered binding precedent by those Muslims who have bound themselves to that scholar, including future Muftis; mere rulings can be compared to memorandum opinions. The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

*spirt and letter of the law]

[Speaking of timing, I mean Dylan. It is alsmost as if, I had already read these. Not. Actually I have read the last link here, before this Temporal rant, but the rest of the links in this bracket are yet to be read, yet seem to fit the bill or fill the tetrahedron, and a prior intent, or rather a comment yet to be found. Note on timing thing: refers to monkey see monkey do of original intent, meaning an email going around about the psychology experiment(a seam in time with the Dylan cracks), and how some people think they know better.]
[Note bolds as read in balancing act or narrative of labels and perspectives. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, No Labels, Herman Cain, not in context of "more than as if not to be".]

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]