Where does this fit?

Two Congresses less than one "do nothing"? RMS*
-/-
Congress sues the president for not implementing a law they wanted to dismantle. 
They didn't want the mandate, but they wanted it now. 
Proof of the Rove strategy, it's political. 
They don't want to impeach because Democrats would want to run against that.
They want him to not follow due process for the border crises that is a result of a law they passed.
But proof that it is not political, that's the ticket. 
It is not political because they are sticking up for the process exactly on a law that they don't want to process.  Which is exactly why the congress is so popular and the president only relatively so. 
It's political, and it's not political, but the people need to decide which political non-political game they want congress to play. 


DEVO?*


Where does what fit?


*also V insert 7-31-14

Doxology

Somewhere in my reading I stumbled* upon the word: Doxology.  Not that it was used in the strictest^ sense, but it seemed to frame my model of understanding.  Not that there** is a tangent or parallel(nor aster [!]?). 

*yet to locate (1,2,4) latter inserts(5, 2, 6)
[unrelated ?]
** actually there may be !
[Huff Po ? ! ? ]

^ 1-7-14 it seemed useful in the sense it was used *** if I can find it.

*** from googled: theory of understanding (not it)


Trickle Down

 

Triadic Equations?

Running with Scissors

or Rock, Paper U? 

Not to pun or unglue [!] (FP1)*

*[(FP1) pending] or suffice to say 2nd link breaking and NFRY(post punctuashun or pre cautions)

Our Story

Not history (2)

or her story...

but Kant (1) we all get it rather than go all gotcha?

No daylight means no dialogue and only darkness.

(1)   De-Cap #Sine**  (footnote*)
* just NOW! (Hegelian Philosophy)
** Re:Kant?
(2) Re:Heading  Post "don't ask, don't tell"^ ?

The other ground game...

<*>

I am for some reason unable to put my usual* into this lately.
Not to quote Martha Stewart but it might be a good thing, or I just have other things.

I have two submissions saved in draft:
IMHO ^
Turn Around(F'N 3.0)
Time Stamp: 8:19 10-9-12

*  Don't you mean refreshingly in accord with "your perception" of reality?  OUCH.  I did not mean to hit so close to the bone of reality or nuance, just making a preemptive comment based on a reading of the first few sentences, where the logic seems... interestingly framed to say the least.  And while I might read more, I might not have more to say.  It just seems to fit a playbook of sorts that may or not be written but is my "perception" of familiar tactics.  BTW:  Sorry "F" "bailed"^^^ so-to-speak,but I will not feel the need to fill his loss.  

OCCUPY FACT-CHECKERS**
Yeah... that's the ticket.*** 

** well... the anachronism of my asterisks is my usual (as well as links inserted)
***  To the Obama campaign: an unembedding of diplomacy and humor, stay the course (Ctrl "F" 'n zingers.)   Far be it from me^^ to tell people not to be them, but I don't think Joe Biden will go overboard with humor, I think he will be taking things serious.  Make it about congress, and bi-partisanship, and the dynamics of cooperation and compromise, without being too patronizing.  Substance seems to be the football that the Republicans Lucy to our Charlie Brown.  
    
^ posted(and links added) post-time-stamp
^^ latest M'bed (The irony is steep.)
^^^ FB link removed @*

A win for nuance?

Not yet[!]

Happy Fourth of July

Steve Clemons points out that the tent will soon be bigger for Duty, Honor and Country.

SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE)

Martin Bashir on Aid to Pakistan [To the President:]

So before he is tempted to cut all forms of funding, I would like to remind him of the wise words that he wrote back in 2006 in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Speaking about the circumstances in which terrorism can flourish, he highlighted failed states and poverty as the two most important factors.

Not to raise any suspicions** but the mission has not been so clearly defined in original reports.

CIA Chief Leon Panetta, later Tuesday told NBC News, "The authorities(sic*) we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed."

But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.

Using stringent language, a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States."

This is clearly a nuanced not "stringent language". But if,(and I mean A BIG IF) Osama bin Laden has been hiding in this compound for six years, it is difficult for the Bush administration to take much credit for the success of this mission, (let alone waterboarding). And while President Obama has been clear on the issues of failed states and poverty being part of the security equation, it is hard to expect Pakistan to be totally free of corruption or political and intelligence intrigue, let alone competence***. It is much easier to speculate and develop tin foil conspiracies that may actually be based on some evidence, and to use them to destabilize, than it is to change things at home let alone for another country. As the right seems to paint themselves into the corner of hypocrisy, the President has the responsibility of being the cherry picker and decider-in-chief. And in connecting the dots of the likes of the latest Right, (remember A BIG IF) then there must be some logic that the Bush administration must be further scrutinized for their part in a $1.4 trillion escapade of terror. How can we hold other countries responsible for competentencies when ours (and often rightly so) are so political?

* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]

[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]

[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]

Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future

*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.

SHOCK and Awe!

Shock to hear the anouncement by President Obama
that Osama bin Laden has been killed.
Awe at the amount[*] of celebrations[***] that have sprung up.

UPDATES AS DATED:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011

President Obama Announcement
Rachel Maddow , National Outpouring
Temporal Importance

[Daily KOS
The Telegraph McCain and Bush Too.]

Slate: How White House kept a secret.
MSNBC Pakistan "Double Game"
Today Show Yesterday Bin Laden is Dead!
Ed Schultz Fired Up!
the operation
Politics of death.
Executing the operation
Remembering the fallen.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Ground Zero
Pakistan
Bi-Partisan Dinner
Rhetorical Coolness. Just Desserts.
The Rewrite.

Monday, May 02, 2011
President Obama, No Osama.
MSNBC
CNN
FOX
CBC
Let's MoveOn!
Mean While

Thanks to some friends of Facebook for some of these, and some I thankfully don't use.**

Huffington Post
You Tube
C-Span
Salon
[Think Progress]
[Center for American Progress]
[Center for America's Future]

In defense of FOX News, a caller to the Stephanie Miller Show, claimed that there was absolutely no mention of President Obama on their home page. That is not correct. He is noted 4 times. And the video and transcript of his announcement about bin Laden are one of those, the second is a generic label for "In The News", the third an All-Star Panel on his emergency response, and the last an expose on "the one" letter difference between Obama and Osama. (Now Six*)

Navigational hint: go to bold links for Presidential material.

Speaking of live blogging: FOX Ups the Anti.
KARL ROVE: After Bin Laden's Death, President Obama's Next ...

[*] appropriately inserted last
[**] or rather last... noting the FOX Terrorist Threat, I am reminded of some inconvenient unfinished sentences or unintended sends of my own(De NO RAH O'Donnell tweet), but I mean reAlly?

FYI:
The news broke to me in just the right manner, straight from President Obama on the late night news. But if I had been online... Or a tweeter?

[***] celebrations

[Parting Shot?: Thom Hartmann has Gareth Porter on for some history. The point(Porter's) is that President Bush had no plan or intent to get bin Laden, not necessarily embedded in these links. My point is that Osama bin Laden could have been old news in 2001 but for the grace of Bush. If we had had different Pre-9-11 thinking, we could have had more justice and less tragedy and cost.]

[Updates: Ledes, Links and Labels added]

Clause Wits

...war is politics by other means
I'm sorry... someone*** has made a point of my tangents. But it might be Germane*, or was he Austrian. No.. Prussian and Hegelian.
Could it not be said that economics has been the same, politics by other means?
What about religion?** Is that a valid spin?

*intended spelling
** in an evolutionary sense

[See update paradox of congress regarding line item veto]

*** also bowing to someone I include a definition from spin link:

Clausewitz’s trinity comprises three specific elements. The identity of those elements is readily evident to anyone who actually reads the first paragraph of his description: It is "composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason...." (emphasis added). This set of elements is usually labeled "emotion/chance/reason"; sometimes "violence/chance & probability/rational calculation"; or, even more abstractly, "irrationality/nonrationality/rationality."

It would seem that this creates our reality as opposed to an original intent begetting results, let alone values. Oh, but I guess it does. But some just have a different ge oh me try.
[12-15-10 Speaking of timing or tangents(footnote)the original purpose of my blog was to record such leaps, not always capable of recording their inspiration.]
[In the above footnote I succeeded in not loosing that inspiration, though it was close, but we have lost a very important piece in our power portfolio in Richard Holbrooke, may he rest in peace.]

Italics added:

to Eschew
Paradigm? still in draft...
a thought divided:
Theory of Peace?
Reality of Politics.
The preceding two lines are a pun on the paradigm in draft or rather on the references to uniting or dividing. It is obtuse because I have not included the Facebook comment for technical sake, but have summed it as noted. And of course reality is a concern for all of us, but politics? (Ouch, did not mean to transcend or actually hit the point of intersect.) And rather than embed a point in the bracketed hint, I will simply say may Chalmers Johnson RIP! If only it meant Rally in Progress!
BTW: The a4mentioned "still in draft" is in the 4M of raw notes, but I will by way of segue post the preface.[last link added 11-24-10]

Buck up...

the slippery slope!
[and riding the wave of nuance and law]

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to the Democrats
and Happy Boxing Day to the Republicans,
not to be PC or leave any others out.
Or other coping havens of hope.

[President Obama Hails Reform/Salon]
[Here they are! The Bills side by side. Detroit Free Press]

[Note that the above two links were read and inserted after the rest of this post, except ** and ***, not to mention David Sirota ]
My comment:

It would seem to me that Congress should be able to "get 'er done" without the 60 votes. Either as some suggest by "going nuclear" (I am against Nuclear Power but) by blowing up the filibuster or somehow utilizing a reconciliation or conference process to do it. Failing that, there are probably enough progressives to kill the bill, but that may not be necessary[or advised**]. Removing the mandate, just might put this in the category of a budget issue under reconciliation, but failing to remove the mandate, might just put this on the track for constitutional review and modification, where it is imagined that a public option just might be the only option. It just might be wise for the Republicans not to push the constitutional issue and settle for a public option now, possibly with a 10-15% buyin margin on Medicare. In the alternative, giving states an option to have a public* plan, and freeing those to sell out of state, might be another crack in the (just say no)[***] armor.

[TruthOut/McClatchy -- Steve Clemons/Huffington}

* one Representative mentioned that the option would have a name other than public, and that could just be non-profit or within the caps imposed.

[In a bit of Re-Mythication, I might say: From hurding cats to a real cat fight, this is no sausage or hot diggity dog eat dog world. Or from Real Mythication to Real Miffication in regards to others, it is better than FAUX News.]

[** semantics are more than a quibble between liberals and progressives, but between principles and progress (side note: some claim that "progressive" is just a label to avoid the "liberal" charge but both are needed, while labels should not give cover for inaction or misconceptions.]
[***(late insert) also: or just say now]

RETRO NOTE: The Ed Show. Not to mention Miff Maddow.
[1-7-09 Hit Ping Pong (see Shhhh!) on the table.]

Rubric's Cube and Rhetorical Realmifications.

you google*
Caution...The Goose for the Gander.(6-13-12)

[Kant We All Get Along Without Going To Hegel?]

It was the worst of times, it was the best of times. [**]
Steven Clemons: On Olbermann
Palin and the Pashtun and the Dickens it is.
Lawrence Wilkerson: on ibid. [6-22-12 Link Corrected]
A Christmas Carol meets A Wonderful Life.

Credit Olbermann, Clemons and Dick Cheney, not to mention Charles Dickens; the tales aside. It seems that we are broaching the American Dream from the nightmare of history.

footnote: Hegel Can't
Not to mention, D'Cart before Newton.[***]

[*] e for go figure; i.e. oops, ironically coined a word - NOT - how's 'bout realmystication? (Perhaps Realmythication?) But the question is, by the goose or the gander? More disambiguated, google may have adjusted as it no longer pops up "ramifications", but it could be my lack of foundation between the geek and the street. You might ask, what about google? Maybe a ribble, search me.

[** 12:08 PST 12-6-09: OK, I am not going to rhyme or jiggle but should I be glad I've maybe been read or mad I my might have been borrowed. Now that I have read the body of the work, the pop quiz it concludes with is rhetorical or at least left open, but least it had 4 options plus all of above; while a Republican Survey misdirected to me, was a push poll of yes, no and no opinion, which does not have as much wiggle room as their questions.] Along these lines, giving the "locked in" a "what for", as in not exactly any contradictions there.]
[Also 12-6-09 note that I was trying to determine if there is such a thing as Rubric's Cube, it was not a mispell as my previous post did refer to Rubic's cube.]
[12-16-09 Update made "go figure"(also 12-14 Realmythication apparently coined.]
[*** 12-23-09 link inserted ]

1-9-14 Kant we all  ... ? Roots / Branches / axe knot*? Is it not that some are so lost from their roots they cut off branches?  No.  Or create limbs that leap? Ask if there are more primary fields than four mats: Physics, Psychology, Philosoply, Politics?  Aphorism or fact: Truth is a determinant.  Math is next to godliness, and religion parting from Platonics.  Speaking of fields they are more than planes, knot too categorical lee.  (G'Ribble Label?)

Preemptive Comment

Only slightly: Pardon Cheney, he doesn't know what the "legal definition" of anything is. Pardon me, Chris Matthews, we need a new word for "beyond hypothetical". He asked a guest what they would be saying if Bush has just given the same speech. Since Ron Reagan was one the guests, it might have made sense if the other guest had been a Republican but maybe not. My point? This is not a speech that Bush could have given or ever would have given, no matter how similar one thinks it sounds. At least not on Cheney's watch.[**]

Speech - TEXT
CNN video
Biden support
Republicans agree. (OK this is a tangent, but I earlier thought that Cheney is getting too much coverage. If his comments would be filtered to what was really news and reasonably accurate, he would get none.)

MSNBC - General Eaton - Steve Clemons - Cenk Uygur * - Howard Fineman - Hardball - Rachel Maddow - also - Olbermann - Maxine Waters - Kucinich - Ed Schultz - Pragmatic
* I am in Karen Finney's corner
[**] 12-1-09 update: which gives short shrift to Bush's natural proclivities.

Nobel Oblige

Prize and Prejudice Countdown with Steve Clemons [#4 The Nobel Savage]
The Myth of "America" truthout.com
Hope and Change
A New Climate
Training for Choice

Update: 8 Most Outrageous Attacks on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Borax Prize ***
[Embedded in my nomination* (Prize; which was a shot in the dark) was an "either or" diatribe by Charles Krauthammer. Decline is a Choice appropriately concluding with the words of Demosthenes:
...when asked what was to be done about the decline of Athens. His reply? "I will give what I believe is the fairest and truest answer: Don't do what you are doing now."
Given the hegemony or decline choice there must be no denial that Obama is not doing what we have been doing. But that is not the choice.]

* I have rendered in bold, read links. And nominated the Borax Prize as the Un-Nobel Prize {comment pending review, or hit a snag}

[Update: Put in con text. Obama lambasts major faiths.**
And surmize. Our Reagan. ]

** a pun on con_text
*** 10-14-09 Renamed: Borax Award

Awkward Segue: Ted Kennedy, R.I.P.

---
Are you talking about me?
..or the Republicans (tongue in cheek).
[This potential post including the title evolved in my head yesterday.** ]
---
[Original title: Winding Down / Cracking Up.]

---
[THE DREAM SHALL NEVER DIE *]
---

AWKWARD SEGUE:
May Senator Ted Kennedy "Rest in Peace" with the potential success of health care reform. He now has the potential to role in his grave at the Republican comments in my first link.

Return to normal programming? My apologies for making light or political calculus(or physics) of the passing of an icon. It seems the Republicans lifted a preemptive glass of whine, and it is time for the Democrats get the bread out. I did not want to break or cast it...metaphorically.

[Post post mourning Steve Clemons: my heart goes out to those closer to him.]

*last update/edit
** timing clarified 8-28-09 (italics here and there)

The Hand-Shake Heard Round the World. [*]

The Washington Note's Steve Clemons on Keith Olbermann
A shift in policy?
See follow up to justice there (ACLU)and
Impeach Torture Architect Bybee here (CCR).

Meanwhile Jane Harman is in for it again. But this time could it be a reverse sting? I don't know if Jane Harman will think of the excuse but this could be an opening into the Gonzales Justice Department practices. There are deeper implications ...

In Uber-Related events: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 deserves mention.
Alt Source: OpenCongress - GovTech - CircleID

Also Socialism out, Fascism in. Republicans (Chris Mathews) "shopping for invectives" (Tony Blankley) "that's silly"

[[*] Apologies if I heard that and cannot credit anyone I might haveor did I...?]

Un-State of the Union

Joint Session of Congress Huffington Post
Preemptive Strike
CNN breakdown.
Unresponsive Reply:
MSNBC In the spirit of NO,
we send our hearts and spirit and must have seen it coming.

In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama. We appreciate his message of hope, but sometimes it seems we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington -- they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the National Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and to create jobs.

Honestly? (my bold) I repeat, honestly? "In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government."
Yet we may have something to agree with here in my italics.
And never forget: "We are Americans" and corporations are not.(at least not a word in the Republican response.)

Speaking of Code.[2-26-09: Lakoff]
And Deeper.[2-26-09: Kerbel ]

To unweave the Rove of the nattering nabobs: It is not the Democratic policy to increase dependence on government, any more than to not restrain spending in Washington, or not empower individuals and small businesses.

And Deeper: [2-26-09: Brewer]
And Deeper
and back again.
Maybe someone has.

And a missed Forward* or Bottom Line a suggestion or Un-Cola

* This was not on my RADAR, I don't know about my SONAR, but it is short and sweet and acts as forward and summary if not update to the Conservative Foray. And may mix well with a shot of this allegory of freedom and fields or courts.

[2-26-09: Bold added where dated and just a note that these are highly recommended. While I have not fully read all links, I have now heard both the President's speech and the Republican reply.]

Label (VIII)

LABELS