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

Bricks and stones

no bones about it?

Too many threads.*
Still in the process of reading the links embedded and woven aknew[!]***

*2-24-13 

[a different Handy**]
[not to get a degree in Bacon but sometimes shelves are handy]
** found on one of my shelves.

***  Rhee-Marshall-Handy
In Charles Handy's The Age of Paradox,(**) there are two chapters I navigated to, but first I would say that every age is a paradox, as that is the nature of nature. Anyway, they are The Federal Idea p. 109) under Practicing the Preaching, which referenced back to the Sigmoid Curve(p. 49) under Finding the Balance.  I would like to weave in the Paradox of Choice by Bob Schwartz to determine if management of information and business is what education should be based on. 

Forbes Thought Of The Day
“Money never starts an idea; it is the idea that starts the money.”
— William J. Cameron

[See under degree / on, (b.s.)finds "tetra+heed+run" / "Platonic+plank" = Education/Business/Government loopiness. Not to suggest nonsense or SixSigma, but a Six Edged 4Mat of dynamics and what matters and is the point, balancing change and individual freedoms.  (Platonic Platforming and Planks Constant?)]

Not to suggest a tipping of the tetrahedron, or BEG the work of N-title meants but which comes first? Business/Education/Government slash results or causes and affects of design?

The Bully...

Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.

[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.

** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]

QCON: TruthOut

Quick Comment On the News or Question Context:

The following pieces deserve a more careful read, but for me, not yet.[*] TruthOut does a filtering of sorts, and I notice rather heavy reliance on the NY Times. Not that that is a bad thing, just not necessarily a liberal thing. The left, right and the middle can characterize a source as from a different perspective, but that should be the mark of good journalism. Again, not that they have hit the right mark, from our own perspectives.

While Super Delegates are an example of a problem that voters wish they could fix without being a part of the process, so are the choices of primary, or caucus, and financing and electoral college procedures. These are all complicated by the nature of our goverment, its three branches, a bi-cameral legislature, and the individual composition of state governments and their rights in relation to the federal government. And have I thrown in partisanship? This is not a civics lesson, but it would be nice if it were in schools.

For me this is the first time in 24 years I have not come out of my precinct caucus a delegate for some candidate. This year it was by design or rather lack of design. I was for Edwards. I ran the caucus as a PCO and was a decimal point or voter or two shy of ending up an uncommitted delegate. This is more than I intended to say today, but I guess it ties in. Because even if civics were in schools, the media and the voters would still have a very big job to understand what mechanisms are operating in each state. Did I mention partisanship? Not to mention the constitution? I won't go there, but too many feel that there is a conspiracy, and there is, only if you are not part of it.

What is represented in the following articles may very well be best efforts to represent reliable pictures, but that is not to say that other perspectives and sources do so well. [*] While some of the tactics candidates use are not appreciated by many, they are apparently working on some. And it must be remembered that we filter as well or poorly as the media or format we use.

I would like to close this comment with the feeling that it is hard to unite when the leader is still unknown, but it is better than being party to having a leader who will unite without knowing who the enemy is. If there is any obtuseness in this, maybe it is a riddle to solve.

In Two Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times

Ballot Shortages Plague Ohio Election Amid Unusually Heavy Primary Turnout By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
A Clean, Fair Fight
The New York Times | Editorial

McCain Clinches GOP Presidential Nomination By Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin
The Washington Post

[Update: Just as I put the finishing links on this post, breaking news on Thom Hartmann Show, about the Texas crossovers that Rush Limbaugh encouraged. (Guest David Sirota) Where in the primary, voters got their ballots, and if they were Republican and wanted to vote for Hillary, found that there were no Rebulicans on their ballot. Hmm. Who needs a civics lesson? Well, of course it seems wrong, but parties should be able to decide their candidate not a talk show host who wants a circus. Republicans were disenfranchised, by trying to vote for Hillary while not intending to support her in the general election. They could not vote for Hillary, and hope to influence their own party on local elections too. This "monkey business" is why the parties and the process is so complicated. It is further complicated by the electoral college process not to mention the winner take all nature of that delivery system. Independents and third parties are so hard to fit into this picture without major changes that themselves are so hard to bring about, but I really don't want to go there.(the link not the idea). Oh and that ploy by Rush Limbaugh may have hurt some local candidates and I won't hurt our heads by figuring that out, but it is a way to sort out some math.]

[*] I have yet to fully digest the four links above, but apparently the press have nibbled on some ribs. (Links, sausage, democracy: get it?) But I did scarf this down and indeed have had my own beach party.

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]

Major Deal of Minor Gotchas

A matter of direction and degree.[a matter of reading and trust]

Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.

But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."

Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.

A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.

[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]

*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.

Geometry of Purpose

Belated Congratulations for Fives Years
on Permanent Defense
Celebrating 5 years of facing the offensive likes of the Right,
and the offensive on the government and the middle class by
the likes of those like Tim Eyman.

Not that "3 strikes yer out" * does not work for baseball or should not be used to put repeat offenders in jail. It is too bad that at that rate Eyman is not at least out of the initiative business.

Geometry? Well there is the baseball diamond,
and then there is my paradigm I call The Power Broker Mountain Project [PBMP].
But I am thinking more of the parallel efforts which are being made not always in touch with each other, but headed in the same direction. My recent refocus on the local, means finetuning the approaches.

Two related efforts:
Not wanting to do justice to Culture Warrior Bill O'Reilly, I have coined, borrowed or claimed the position of Cultural Physicist, where everything matters. This effort led me to checking on an Internet parable (scroll down to The Tomato Company) and found the following Global Intelligence Briefing for CEOs found at The Braden Files by one Herb Meyer who by one American Thinker: "knocks the ball out of the park, explaining concisely and clearly the nature of the challenges facing Western Civilization."

And if I may connect more dots(and the ball park metaphor was not what I was going for) but I recall my poems on these parallels of sorts(the likes of who come to mind).

Right Face Left Faith

Great minds think alike
But being alike does not make right
Being right may make might
But more important is thinking
Right?

Being right is more likely
Why great minds will think alike
Thinking may not be so likely
In those that just think might
Right.

Faith is nowhere near alike
The truth that others think is might
Faith is might and more like maybe
Unless you only think it's right
Not maybe!

The physicist point?

Unified Poem

Everything
is but
a Wave
between
perspectives
in Time
and Space

Now to continue the path, and thanks again for the work of Andrew Villeneuve and Permanent Defense.

* just another initiative as segue

Update: "Off The Cliff"

Maybe we are on a ledge now.
But a few things are clearer including fundamentals, except where what Obama said is anything like what McCain said.
[BONUS UPDATE[*]: Organizing For America And More]

In that vein (of the lead update) I append this economic perspective:

And throw out this idea to be reality checked:
a cap in the derivative process.

It seems that the real problem in the financial crisis was the packaging of investments (derivatives) that made them an increasing gamble and risk and further blew up the bubble. This may have already been addressed with new regulation and management, I am not sure. (It still seems a potential for ponzi or pyramid scheme, which furthers government interdependence. But with a clearer understanding of the Cap and Trade for Carbon emissions, maybe this could work for other issues and would have an impacted in guiding our values back to people rather than profits and away from a reliance on blowing things.

While this may be an example of too creative thinking, and too similar to the way I began this dialogue, I hope someone can grasp any threads which they might pull or weave for us. On the other hand a particular part of the Reich piece points to my need for better understanding of an impact. In the area of education reform and Obamanomics: "It cuts subsidies to banks participating in the student-loan program, which is exactly what Bill Clinton did, and it provides some funds for early childhood education." But I guess this just demonstrates the bottom up and balanced approach that in the context of the college tax credits and pell grant increases are necessary. (therefore not "on the other hand")

For a short allegory (enticing heading aside) on how we are all in this together, I just updated:(see ledge now: under construction) (3-18-09)
Since I have possibly dispelled my own concern regarding the one possible glitch in Obamanomics, I leave with another to dispel or verify. How is it that there can be a concern for imagined trickle-down opportunity being dashed by taxes, when business expenses are not really on the table? Food for thought? Or the recycler?

P.S. For a more deeply embedded compendium of sorts, where I picked on Chris Matthews (In an aside) and picked up on Jon Stewart(FNBC). And as far a fundamentals of McCain and Obama it is in the media that the difference lies as much as earmarks when it comes to comparing apples and oranges or pork and ham where we have a rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.

[And this addendum: Go Stephanie Miller! Thanks for being on CNN to balance Tucker'd out. And it is more than just funny, but that I have only stumbled on this now, and it is deeper and more on message than just video or Unsatire as the world evolves.]

[*] CORRECTION: These are not bonus links. At least the first is right on target at the fundamental difference: focus, fix and the press.

[Update 3-20-09: I never really did read Off The Cliff but used it as an allegorical leap, but here is a good point which it may have taken me some time to get to in the link I had.]

Will Safire Replaced by Will I ams.

===========================================================

Congratulations on the selection of Walter Williams
to replace retiring William Safire. He is a perfect replacement and has started off well with "Anti-Intellectualism among the academic elite". His match to Safire is in his ironic logical leaps and flight from detail. He claims "It’s not important whether Summers is right or wrong. What’s important is the attempt by some of the academic elite to stifle inquiry".

They both use examples and then project other’s reactions to them, be they barfs [*](valid) or not. They fabricate this set-up for their logical leap, in order to stifle in their own way.

It is of course genetic that women have babies, and men can‘t. But it cannot be concluded that marriage and parenthood are genetic, nor their "economic ramifications" and "opposite effects on men and women". It can further, NOT be concluded that job selection or pay discrepancies are genetic.

The irony is we can never mind, that it is Sowell who is not discussing "innate differences" but "these factors", and Summers who is talking about "genetics". * The disconnect is Williams’s, and ironically connected to where we agree.

I agree that "Universities are suppose to be places where ideas are pursued and tested, and stand or fall on their merit." It is not "leftist religion" to place importance on whether anyone "is right or wrong", but the missing or dismissing of it "that can lead to the return to the Dark Ages".

Further similarity arises in the challenge it is, to reply effectively in less words than they can waste to serve their stifling purposes.
Roger Larson

Moving on:

I never did send the welcome to Walter Williams.

I am not sure it did justice to the confusion, hypocrisy or out-right contradictions. His next piece was interesting too, and brought out more examples of the above. Subject: Federal Charity is not found in the constitution. He spreads the blame but when he says that "That train left the station" on some matter it is funny since it provides the reminder of where corporations got their rights as individuals. It came about around the time when the government was providing lands to railroads to supply the lands that were distributed through the Homestead Act. I guess there is no problem here, given that it is not charity if you give away something you appropriated from others.

Well: Maybe I can just tack this on to the other and still make it worth sending.


That Train Keeps On Rolling.

Walter Williams persists down a track parallel to reality in "Responsibility lies with people, not business." If corporations insist on the same rights as individuals, they have the same responsibilities as individuals. Actually I would like to go a long way back on that track to the origin of "Corporate personhood". Of course further down the track responsibilities are supplanted with unbounded freedoms that will eventually lead to a global train wreck. This of course is confused by the occasional contradiction where our freedoms will be determined or ignored at the highest levels and buried or sacrificed at the personal level.

Roger Larson


(Original three-parter drafted 2-17-05)

* I now on March 3rd, note that "genetics" I believe came from Williams piece or could have been a semantic conclusion that is warranted either way. Semantics is not a cop-out but the crux of the problem and in how one concludes. Being provocative is not any better a dismissal in either academics or journalism.

[* I could not imagine my leap in looking back at Summers]
[1-30-09 links adjusted]

Throwing this out.

Cut tax breaks for advertising. That would probably make them more efficient, but it would certainly not help Palin's crusade.

As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".

* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.

TRUST ME?

This is a big deal. And before I read all the links which I will provide here I will make my own connections or speculation/questions. Speculation(Slash)questions may be the leap to point, and the connection to the president may be the longest path. That about sums it all up without much of the burden of facts, which is what appeals most to the public and the Bush administration. Another connection? That was it. But now to insert the links for later reading unless the burden of something else moves me on.

Darn. As usual I cut to a connection and missed a few simple points. Which I guess are actually difficult to make given the problems above.

So here are the random "whatever"s:
Security Not a Problem? Ally in war on terror? Follow the rules? Follow the money. Fight them over there? Overseas Corporation? State-Owned Corporation. Dictatorship. Family Business. Corporatizing, not globalizing-- Democracy/Freedom.

Again the "whatever"s are the catch. But this should merit review of more than this transaction as it is more than about who operates the ports, but the process of the administration and (not just) who is making the decisions and how they are being made, as much as why.

Now I will fill in the links, and trust you to review them, and I hope to get to them later.

But wait-- now I find two more than the three I hadn’t finished. But key words especially intrigue me and I will not jump to connections the way Secretary of State Rice might, but maybe I have a hunch. Early Warning- anarchy - - Debate / facts may be the clue. But these I have yet to open.

Later... Now the links to be inserted.

In fact, maybe I will institute my own 45-day period to get back to this or to read and review this- - IF EVER! Maybe the bubble the media/administrators are blowing will finally break through the filtering/job other branches of government are accountable for, not to mention "we the people" and the "Fourth Estate".

Summary of a Flap.

Bailout or Meltdown? [UPDATE: above expired link with likely replacement.]

Really in actually reading this report[**], I will not cross-check it with all my comments and references. But McCain's panic was a beneficial coherence with Bush's, ironically indicated by looking into their eyes and seeing the same deer in the headlights. I don't know if it was in the reflection or their face as a hole, but the only plus to this Double of Mass Distraction is that "you can fool me once..." or I mean we see the boys "who cried wolf", while others have kept their cool.

LAST WORD: I may have to seriously suspend something as my wrists need their own wresting to other matters. But with that I will reference a guest on Rachel Maddow: author of... Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency The real flap in my view. Now is this a flap that is too out there? Well it has to do with the approach that is being taken and by who for whom, or is it whom for who?
In this flip-flop the people matter and there are only three branches of government and the media and politics are the people's business. In fact the press is mentioned in the Bill of Rights not to mention what is not mentioned in the constitution. How does this connect to any thing close to home? Well, floods and bailouts and who is a fundamental or just under the trickle down. Isn't it appropriate that TARP was the original name for the flap. Speaking of eyes and flaps, why not just face the fact that the people not only want to have the debate, but some think it should be about the economy rather than foreign policy now that would take courage* to face with out blinking.

* not to mention George or Will

[**] 3-19-09 rare editorial touchup throughout, one typo and italics and bold only and the economy link.

(QCON) Cheney v. U.S. District Court

The Supreme Court sent back to lower court the request to get documents from the Cheney Energy Panel. [SEE LINK >> QCON-Cheney Energy Panel]
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."

The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."

The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.

[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.

Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.

An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.

Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.

4MAT Shift?

Hyper-Dig?^

~ of 6 links)
Spoiler alert: ala FP? Or legend of sorts...
The (#'s) below are the sequence of inserting above.
The M-beds within are links to blog searches of this blog.**

(4.) April 23rd, Openly Secular Day!
(1.) The Labor Market Conundrum: The Cyclical And The Secular
(2.) What Would Don Draper Do? Reading Dante in a Secular Age
(5.) Document Proclaims Secular Government
(6.) Mullahs and Heretics [!]
(3.) The Godless Delusion*

* Bingo: Started Reading!
** these italics are bibliographing in progress

Cyclical A. F'N Too Point Oh[!], B. Proof of Life..., C. In "F"n able?, D. Politics is local?, E. Rubber/Glue "Unhinged".
Reading A. A counting Trick? , B. Long Story
Document A. escapement?, B. Absolut(ist)ly..., C. Temporal, D. Two Birds
and A. Reality is the 4D., B. The dig?*** , C. Better Business Bureau
[!] A. Being a Blank "is Hard Work".
delusion A. TIP OF THE FLAME , B. But for Angle , C. Phase II?

*** anomaly of (sc)

Cyclical B:art ~ Rib~L [*~*]

^ 3-26-15
The Dig ? 2b Kantinued ?
1,2,
5, The Vox: Cruz Control?
3,4,
6. Progressive Values: Ctrl F Reich

Firing vs. Hiring

McCain Not Exactly Highering.
[update 9-19-08: bold [*] and link added below]

A recent comment by McCain about firing someone is what I take off from. My point is, it is easier for him to fire someone than hire someone [*] who would raise the standards of government. This seems to shine through in his hiring which lowers the standards and raises the bar for the rest of us. It was also touched on in his acceptance speech in regards to service, how easy it is to just get in there and change things. To me it is rather confusing, does he know enough or does he need a study?

He proceeded to wave a finger about Obama not lifting a finger. I don't have that link(to finger phrase), but I did find what it seems is a bit of borrowing, if I recall. Something about "A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed." said Obama in above link and recently lifted by McCain. The irony is complete in that the lifting was political and a flip-flop when he complained that Obama was using the issue for political gain.

[*] Rachell Maddow points out that the president cannot fire the SEC chairman, as McCain would do if he were president. But he made an even greater faux pas in foreign affairs. Or was it really faux pax pas in dissing Spain.

"OFF A CLIFF"

Dumbest Proposal Ever.
by Joe Conasan The New York Observer

HUMPTY DUMPTY! COME ON DOWN!***

A quick glance at the headings put this together. But preemptively[*] I will say that a friend of mine has had a squabble with a builder over a fence or the height of it. There is a drop off on the other side which anyone would be concerned about kids or just anyone slipping or falling into. Well, I don't know about the height of any projects but as Obama has indicated "We are in this together". Maybe my analysis or faith has been too flip-floppy. But it is better to ride the fence down than to slip or fall off on either side. Riding a fence does not mean D-riding the project as irony would have it the Republicans seem to do, by having it both ways and expect things to not be on the fence and by not working on it. This metaphor may not work exactly, as government is not a business and both sides of the fence are not down hill. But maybe they are, just one is away from the fence (the project) the other is toward it. But my real point is that if you get pushed off the fence (the project) nothing will get done and we will all be slipping. But if the fence is the thing not the people, and it is at the top of a hill so to speak, getting pushed off will pop all our bubbles or maybe it is more like Humpty Dumpty

[UPDATE 3-16-09: "OFF A CLIFF"]
[3-16-09: The Fence? Is Obamanomics Conservative or Revolutionary? by Robert Reich, Salon]

[3-18-09 bold added with update].]

[Also (nfry) Obama wants G20 to act on stimulus, reform]

[*] Update 3-16-09: Preemptive in that I had not yet read the referenced "cliff" link below or the "Dumbest"** piece on the Republican obstructionism. And still not having read the "G20" but append it where appropriate in text, I think it is safe to say that when Buffet spoke of Obama, and Obama later spoke, Wall Street listened. Not that they said anything. Talk about clarity, I don't know if I should rock or dine.

** since have
*** 3-27-09 update heading inserted here and pre-post-or-us link inserted at Humpty Dumpty

[11-4-11 follow up move up link

Czar Replacement

Tossing this out:
Governor Dean for Office of Health Reform

And what about the Black Hole of Politico. Or is it Red Bull?
Speaking of Politico, Agriculture and Homeland Security.
Governors are CEO's. HELLO!
Of course government is not a business,
but tell that to Bush and to those who voted for the MBA President.
If it was, it would be in the red.
GOOD BYE! Rummy,Rove et al.
How has the Drug Czar and the war on drugs been doing anyway?
Fine for the pharmaceuticals I guess.
Speaking of hurting.

WHAT NERVE!

We know he has nerve, but does he have a conscience. When he was running the first time, his conscience not the law was his guide, and he is still on the same course. The Einstein and King George III juxtaposition about following one’s conscience no matter the state is another interesting twist on uncurious George being worried about his own nerve. He is the state and he has only nerve. While he serves others I might add.

On the immigration tangent, if labor is only a substance to be used by those with the power to do so, then it is a drug where the users and abusers should be reigned in. This may mean a new perspective on the health of individuals and the community as well. Retrogressing to my earlier less footnoted or linked style of commentary, I will try to catch up on these later.

Before closing this post I was going to provide only one link, but ran across a news item where only the title sent me on a tangent to a comment:
What the heck is wrong with having a locally adjusted tax credit for the cost of living, by state. That would involve a deduction for the basic costs of living and then a flat rate based on the cost of doing business and government. More details may be the devil, but not necessarily any worse than requiring health care or pushing healthcare savings plans.

NOTE: The "more details" were not that bad in this case as they were more or less just a I imagined and went off on.

Tetra Heed Ron

of I Ron Knee[!]

What the Frack ?

Mitt: The Real European
Now apparently it’s a “slam” to say Paul Ryan likes Ayn Rand***
Self-awareness, Republican-style
Minimum-wage misconceptions


Mitt-Flop* of Golden Rule and the bottom-line**.


* could have sworn I heard it on Norman Goldman
** I think we should play up the Joint JD/MBA card, vs. the community/constitutional prof.
[I mean what business practices would benefit government?  Profits or Bankruptcy?  It's not six of one half dozen of the other.  However, a card from the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, may be telling.  But this is a far cry from the Krugman/Bernstein crack at the Mitt-Flop.]

Tin Foil Herman

[11-30-11]It's official, unless it's not.

I guess I am not "some people". I wanted a business man to run, for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the debate. For the sake of settling* what the heck market forces have to do with running a government.

* Cain references** in order:
Temporal
No Teddy
Nailed it! T-point Oh!
Never the Twain
From GOP to NOP
Bite of the Big Apple?
Courting Jesters
Apples and Oranges?
Para-Model
Cain Un-Able
Two Points
Sat Ire[!]

** Not the same Cain, or "machine"
[I might not have all the facts, but that doesn't leave Cain*** out.]

[More to sort. Witch Cain first and why did he cross the road?]
*** The "Cain" and "facts" links apparently are interchangable.(that is Jon Stewart and a YouTube)

[Sort: Search Cain is good. NOT!]
[Sorting Cheese Heads]
[Look up
attack strength.]
[Original Break on Halloween?]
Cain is an art project?
Buffet v. Trump
Cain un-Able
Ron Paul Scariest
[Meanwhile: Papa mmmm MOW OW! Michigan is still coming along, but the Bill is the Word in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Takin' out the Trash Men.]
[Rachel Maddow: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I]
[Geez Heads Unite!Ed(!)]

Citizens United?