Over Helming.

[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]

Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.

* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]

Debt and Tax Cuts,

debt and tax cuts,
go together like love and cha-nge...
you can't have one without the - other.
Well...not exactly but close enough for government work. BTW, what the heck does running a business have to do with running a government? Well one important feature is investment. While profit is not really the purpose of government, let alone the main point of any needs related services, let alone infrastructure, health care, education, insurance and banking.

Investment seems a basic feature that even those in business don't understand when it comes to their own tax situation. And when it comes to taxes cuts it is a no brainer that they increase debt. It is a fallacy that cutting taxes increase revenues. That only works on one side of the Laffer Curve not the other. i.e. it is a bell curve.

And apparently no means yes in some cirles, while apparently the tea party does not understand "taxation without representation". A prohibition of legislative change to an initiative means that what is not in the initiative can be in the future. But not without the legislature paying a price they do not want to pay now. In other words the only way to prevent the possibility of change is to takeaway the possibility of representation and politics to have an effect. When it comes to what is not in the ads or not on the table, it is as ridiculous(if not more so) to claim that supporters of I-1098 are not telling you it is an income tax, (5% over $200K for single/$400K for couples or 1% of the tax filers) as it is that the same ads don't mention a 20% reduction in state property taxes and an over 1000%* increase in the B&O TAX CREDIT which will bring the benefit to 80% of businesses.
* actually this is my calculation of $420 being raised to $4800

Independent comment

Senatory Patty Murray and former state legilsatore Dino Rossi have held two debates of which I have heard more comment on than snippets. I could relate to the charge that the questions may have not been answered directly even though I fancy that I may have undestood one more than the other and if you think it is simple then that is the side that might be wrong. This is the perpsective I take from what has been exchanged in the ad campaigns. So if you haven't seen the debates keep that in mind, not that I am independent. My point is that there is a need to counter the so-called facts that come out as well as answer questions, while some of the answers are just plain incomplete. My reference to independent comment above refers to close to neutrality here but sympathy with one frustrated with the party representatives(or rather only a choice between the two), who incidentally was a libertarian with socialist understanding. I won't parse that but at least the individual had great scepticism for the so-called tea partiers, even though I find a libertarian socialist to be even more idealist if not a fantasy. On the other hand, while some want their cake and eat it too, there seems some extremity of balance(if not irony) in this combination.
[Cross Reference to be inserted but it has to do with fuzzy math and fuzzy language.]
[For those who think that they have to know better to vote, vote anyway*, at least there is a shot at cancelling a vote of someone that does not know better enough not to vote.]
* in some races the first link was neutral or gave dual endorsements, rely on this one and then the other to fill in if any questions.
[If the choice is between a Democrat or a Republican and that is usually it**, vote the Democrat as they can be counted on to be more flexible than the Republican. The time to influence them by sending a message was in the primary.]
** technically it is not the rule but the result that it still happens that way even though concievably the top-two could be of the same party, the political calculus or lemonade making does not work out that way, and third parties are even more in a pickle(I mean lemon.)