Red Acted Month

That's not the ticket [!]

The point of the seqester was to force a grand bargain.  Now that Republicans are using it as leverage, the Democrats may use it as leverage.  That would be to not go piecemeal.  Democrats can vote on their conscience and their constituency.  The House can field a budget, the Senate may filibuster and the President may veto.  Witch plays perfectly into the DNC* of getting her done.

* gnot [!][fp ? ! ? ] Bazinga Alter Bashir!

Me a

cull pas? 

To heck[**] with the ge oh me tricks,
of sorts or lede or ships.
Knot!*

*anacronistic license

[** individual, state, iron knee]

At what point is

the Scalia of Justice?*

Rhetorical trivium or grammar of logic?***
(Declaration of Properties ?)**

*foundations @ PoliticsNation 
**dig at site
*** "Society's interest" irony of labels
[found Youtube 1st Link @"Scalia"]
[Scalia Iron Knee?]

[When did absolutism become a label or banner that some don't know they are under?]

Thank G-D for GW!

Speaking of Cherry Tree.

[note: must update* hatchet BS]

[Note lack of link to GWB in current campaign, yet...]

(hint: the bottom line is the important link in the last link)

* this link's 1st two links are expired, yet are currently mysteriously prophetic**. (See "hatchet" for MSNBC proxy for what Xfinity currently links to.)

** I truly cannot be sure what those missing links were, but here are more recent possibilities.

[update: found proxies]

[Although George W. Bush is no George Washington, we may have him to thank for bursting our bubble economy***.]

*** Stiglitz

[mana from / the field : OK, these are lame leaps. Forbes predicts that Obamacare will not be overturned. See "Money" line 4. / See Thom @ "*" there and continued re:ALEC and BS.]

[BTW: Toure's Turn^: The New Jim Crow fits right into this Good Old Progress. For reference we have the War on Drugs, started when? When we were winning it in the early Reagan Administration. Happy Good Friday!^^ ]

^ yet to link

^^unexpected link

(And MS on Hardball is real zinger.^^^)

[Politics Nation: Raw Money Clash, it is not Harvard that is the problem but the Faculty Lounge.]

^^^ Winter/Spring Trending Fall Flexibility and the Big Zipper.

{Rachel Maddow shoots up War on Drugs: Republican declares Ronald Reagan unpatriotic[!]}

Supreme Court Jest Ice?

Where is the ice going? Well here is where it is coming from:

The New Yorker*: Rational Irrationality.

Well, not exactly: Obamacare Supreme Court Case is a Bad Joke.

Actually I will be intentionally preemptive**.

Is it some form of martial arts political calculus?

Maybe I have too much hope for Obama or too much faith in The New Yorker.

Bottom line, I have yet to read the article, but wanted to jump*** on the band wagon.(NOT!)

Not to make a federal case out of it, but I do intend to read more on this later.

* not that I have read it yet, but I like the heading.

** Jujitsu before reading.

*** case study[!] Reid sarcastic[!] Me...not read[!]

(also see "federal": not to mention Romney on Russia and Leno.)

[Seattle Times ]

[3-29-12 ALEC: Stand your Ground, Supreme Court Activism/ both sans comment.]

[Follow-up:

Seattle Excerpts, interesting hodge-podge of exchanges. If the constitution is not a living document, what is federalism? Killing two ironies in one comment?

Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler: Well ...

Times "seemingly split over ideology"/

But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.

Activism: "Justices Split".

Intentionally: Read Healthcare Jujitsu, Political Jujitsu, what's the difference? The party and the people. It would seem to me that Obama is the master, even without single payer as a goal. It might be called "free market" jujitsu where that is what could be flipped by even an option. The "free market" economic fantasy is under threat of being flipped as the fraud it is, under even the offer of competition. Maybe there is the jest ice.

Tangent of the day.^

[See original lede: Bingo on Faith, in paragraph two. Almost Bingo cubed !^^]

^ now that is an irony

^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^

^^^ or penta coastal or cost us [!]

[Fixing News: as opposed to breaking, I must update the Fixing . But what kind of market is it when if you don't participate you die? Ask Raw Money. On the other hand, he is correct: "We can't play the game like that." Let alone are banking and insurance really commerce? I they aren't, maybe they aren't people, maybe they are Leviathan? i.e. governments bailiwick or not!][Ed on Hannity: the journalist calling the journalist read, or the con calling the convict con(pot meet kettle/camel meet domino) ]

[3-30-12 Justices Meet...

Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But I will depun a bit on the self-fulfilling profits. ]

Neo-Perspectivism

It is hard to say which niche this arises from.**
Neo-Nuanced is one trigger.***
Even if retro actively.
No silver bullet.
(Or Lone Ranger)
(I, II, III, IV, Not nor note.)
(Far From It)

Less embedded:
It is not just to Pop Culture but social engineering.
If that is an aphorism, you have one hint.(ouch)
But Freud and Hitler were both Austrian,
but the latter-day Austrians are economic transcendentalists.*
(Emerson, Niche& Rand?)
Some credit may be due to "Plato Not Prozac."

[Just in.]

***

Notes to Asterisk Readers:
It may help the flow if one reads the asterisks in order and after a full read of this piece, but scrolling over links as one goes will be useful.
* no Emerson
** last link inserted: Maybe way too much of a D'Ribble or G'Ribble?
[Apologies for Neo-Euphemism.]

[Breaking News:  Herman Cain will give an "unconventional Endorsement just prior to the South Carolina Primary. (Ctrl F "best" under vent) I hope it is not another one of his tours or projects, but if it is not a third party run or candidate it might be someone from out of the blue if not a write-in.  Huntsman or Bachmann also come to mind.]

***  The irony of taxes, GDP and debt. Is it in the charts?

> Previous Post <

Long Story

Short :  The Clash
Mission Impossible.

Not to 4close this post, but an earlier mental riff came on threes.
Third times a charm.
The third way.
Good/Bad things come in threes.
More often the latter.
And before I insert any links in this a4mentioned riff, here are four.

The Table
Republican Flip Flop
Machine Killing Medicare
The Mess I uh[?]

Oops!
Original In Tent.
(see MKM)*

Now 4 the 3.
Not only to note the passing in 3's,
but to bring it down a level,
not to be Dante'in,
but polarizing,
with Hitch'n the middle. **

* Geo Me Tricks
** not my original link to get to the Hitch
but as moderator of poles, or Czechs.

[update]
[not]
[or knot]

< previous post >

Churned Media makes me...

C...(sic)
I was thinking conservative or conspiracy...
then cynicism of Common(Sense)
Actually the Last Word was not so churned, it was rather calm.

But here is the Capper to be Fair and Balanced.
[Piece Out*]
[Speaking of see change]

* link updated there (speaking of Sea)

[Not to mention Countdown]

Justice?

It is more about narrative than justice.

Many will agree killing bin Laden is justice, some will call it an execution. Some say President Obama did not give President Bush enough credit. Some will say that he bin Laden deserves more. I think the poor ridge is just right. And to summit up:

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

This is more than a mixed metaphor or mountain out of a moldy nursery tale*.

* link updated
[I have been meaning to focus on labels, updates and other project improvements. Here is a New Label**, The Golden Rule(also my photos) Also I should note my evolution from a lack of links to way too much linking. Hence the not so middle ground of this piece.]

** Now Labels label needs to be edited and updated to only New Label references. Now that is Poetic Justice or is it? It is another need to update or scroll over, to see the difference between search and labels.
[needed footnotes?]

[QED: Movement in one data point does not correlate with movement in another data point, especially when they are not in context or adjusted. Math is not a narrative, it is a process. Equations are more of a narrative but require enough data points and sufficient interpretation. There can be more jobless claims and more jobs added, which are independent of each other. OK, I have not QED'd anything but a hunch I just described and which apparently the data shows.]
[Semi-related? Calling it a gutsy call is not spiking a football. Let alone an improper linkage.]
[...not to mention right column navigations, scroll overs, see comments, labels and bold.]

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.]

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?

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.

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.)

Checking In:

The Nation's New 4mat? Yeah, that's the ticket!
Tangent? Or see can't, or inverse of a co-sign?* Even a google of Charle Pride** found same.

* pardon my trig, it was "water cooler" sourced.

** A metaphor for America, diplomacy and justice

[In balance not necessarily a relationship. The particulars are different but is seems that there is a two for one[***] style, Obama if you will, that works in different system. There are dimensional differences in the branches and partisanship of the way we have evolved from the British, that ironically may be 4shadowed in theTea Party/Brown wavering.]

*** sound words that do not necessarily cross the Red C or Atlantic. The more dimensions? The Paul/Sanders Fed Audit Bill, the Palin/Paul Tea Party gap, the Democrat/Liberal dialogue 4knot?
[see update: 5-17-10 Legend Label introduced with Comity expanded labeling. But see Ribble ** I was noting that Pride and Rich find the same tune under a google.]

"just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"

Sotomayor on the letter of the law.
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective

The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]

[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]

The Most Dangerous Game

Maybe We Should Take the North Koreans at Their Word Tikkun.org
Yet Republicans?

(Bring the moral ground back to earth, Senator Graham)
(Quibbling over meanings: Making over interpreting law and policy. *
The issue is the use of words and the foundation of our nation on the constitution for the purpose of justice for the people. After that it takes a village idiot and a dictionary. There are only three branches of government. None supreme, but they have their separations in the constitution after that "it is not a location" but it is out there. There is no department of interpretation, but the courts do decide and the rest must interpret. That all three branches make law is a valid charge in their following it or not and the process keeping up.)

* punctuation neutral but bold links have been fully read and recommended if not bluntly. It must be remembered that any justice, executive or legislator can say anything, but it is the court that answers the question of law whether it is 5-4 or 8-1 and understood or followed or not.

[ 6-2-09: Not what I meant, exactly. ]
[ 6-9-09: No. Newt ]

Countervailing Opinion

A counter from OurFuture.org (not as opposed to irony)
A vailing from the NewYorkTimes
An opinion from Politico
Yet bluntly from HuffingtonPost
Reports are all over the map, but the difference between opinion makers and principles make for lost parsing.
(Defining principles)

So much for safe harbor...

or the silent running of sabbatical.

All men's gains are the fruit of venturing. Herodotus
Analysis: Obama moving to center on some issues.

Semantics a tack a tact.
"I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it."

Rhetoric: Smoking Craft
I am trying to find an earlier reference to Bush using the administration in the third person. Anyway it seems that is what Cheney has done, when "the decision went to the president." Of course it is semantics, and so is any word, like obfuscation.

The Golden Rule (in Progress)

When it comes to war, diplomacy
and legal matters, the truth hurts.
But it cuts both ways.
CIA Refuses to Turn Over Torture Tape Documents
by Jason Leopold / www.truthout.org / Report

"The truth hurts" is one of those aphorisms. Logic requires truth, and it is a method of discerning truth. (A deeper or higher aphorism?) However, it is probably only the lack of truth or hiding it that truly hurts. Yet discerning it is a reversal of fortunes* or the irony of nature or law itself that facing it hurts.

"The first casualty of war is truth.".Or rather see how buried the truth can be.

* a reference to legal matters, diplomacy and war and what one loses first.

[The premise of my logic is not diminished by my misattribution of cross principles, In reversal, Obama seeks to block abuse photos The Guardian/AP...**
OUCH!: In trying to be cross cultural about the references to truth and freedom, I apologize for the pun to the links, but hope that it raises the value of the intersections.] and
[[Construing an INDEX:
The Golden Rule @ "what one loses"
"The Truth will set you free" John 8:32 @ "cross principles"
Selections from the Koran on freedom @ Ouch!]]
[[[To which I cannot vouch but have found some correspondence.]]]

** third link's a charm? or strike out? My original query was "If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many pictures are really needed?" Is that a dangerous penumbra?

He said, She said?

Enhanced Interrorgations?
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.

* meaning the sorts the thing

[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]