Dimentionalism(sic)

[sic] is another tangent or dimensionalism [!]
Dimentions?
Two* Points.

*fore, six, eight

[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...


SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?

Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)

IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.

Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.

Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?

RIGHT TO LIFE?

OR...

PRO DEBT?


Who's your daddy?
[Not encompassing...]
[Who's your maid?]
[Pre-(or Post) Nuptual? Not to get sexist or legal.]
[Oh those (darn*) laws of unintended consequences.]

* darn as in yarn (i.e. I forgot my tetrahedron.)

[Not to pun on intelligent design, but that is the law.**]

**spelled out

Slash Segue

Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate
And Criss-Classification
It is not about right or left but who* is the behind.

*please excuse the just(juxt)aposition of humor

---

For Sagans Sake: I will ungoogle the B. or link con tent:
(i.e. list of links above)
TED: Sandel as noted
Sandel/Soros
BookTV: Hedges on Class
New Yorker: Taleb
Jim Wallis(Sojourners) Sandel
BBC:Sit com? (no pun but Latin roots**)
Taleb Context
*
Asimov context
Mike Wallace: Ayn Rand
Embed(un) Pop Culture
Pre-Decartes or Aristotellian***?

**actual roots are(not) the spin on "darkest before the storm"

*** not to mention the B&A tangents not relinkeds(sp!)
[2-17-11 UPDATE:(not) Talk about a fifth sense? Yikes.]

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?

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]

Who got the memo?

Who reads the script?
LO and behold, I am See Sic again.
The memo, the apology,
and The View?
Apparently FOX has acknowledged some mistakes in the Shirley Sherrod ordeal, while Beck apparently is not too up with FOX*, and Lawrence O'Donnell of Countdown still can't see**. At least when it comes to why Obama appeared on the view.

* the Dean disconnect
[links in progress***]
** link added 7-30-10 Don't get me wrong, no one on MSNBC is anywhere near, a Beck, O'Reilly or any FOX character. Even with stand ins for vacationing hosts, they have more character. But LO in particular was using a rhetorical ploy in his question to why the President would go on The View, while FOX still is on the hook for the Breitbart backtrack. It is my opinion, no one on FOX which includes Sarah Palin has any cred in wondering why, let alone criticizing, from their "gotcha journalism" perspective. And just how should Palin supporters react to her celebrating Shakespeare, who was English, and a living language, in view of the original intenders of the constitution? To be fair, making up new words, American or not, is not the same, as not being able to use or let old ones live. It is however a knew cents of stringing too words to gather.

*** I think I have capped things with "The memo" link, while "the script" link was a crack at Beck's interpretation of himself, let alone biblical error. The context or con text being everything in my View. Speaking of which, there was no memo.

Educat or

Beck:
Keith Olberman brought this to light. My original concern was that Beck was so loose in his grammar or rhetoric that some misinterpretation was almost inescapable(indeed prophetic and not for profit).

It turns out he was even loose with his script. As I transcribed the video from Countdown:

Beck: Jesus conquered death, he wasn’t victimized he chose to give his life, he did have a choice. If he was a victim and this theology was true, then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did. That’s an abomination.

As his blog scripted it:

This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus wasn't a victim, he was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death. He chose to give his life. Jesus didn't come back from the dead and make the Jews pay for what they did. That would have been an abomination.

As a Norman Goldman caller called it: 32:45 to 35:47 or more...
Not that there are soul* interpretations, but there are several that say Judas did pay, in fact possibly to the potter's field.

*floundering mispelling intended

[Speaking of Shakespeare, I must admit to occasional spelling errors myself, but sometimes they are profitic.(Sp!)]
[Thank You CBS: And for refudiating Bush and English while Obama doesn't need a pardon.]
[Not to mention, thank you Sarah Palin for trickling down the language, whild Obama cleans it up, literally.][Not to mention founding words and living constitutions.]