Skipping Geometry

11-6-13
To Read List
Salon Christie v. Teacher
Brian Beutler GOP v ACA
Joan Walsh Rand Meltdown
David Sirota Single Payer v ACA
Josh Eidelson Michelle Rhee revolution.
David Sirota  EdU-peoples cash
Or Not Too Rant List?

Saved In Draft: posting anyway
11-3  Kant we all...
11-4  olds mobile
11-5  Rough Philosophy

Un-Curving Geography* (FP1)
* post FP (OW) "Ge" was found under Rachell Maddow's expired link @ The one thing.
Graphy link was an email inspiration for heading. (FP2)

Future Bubble?

The gist is a pun on Future Shock.  I was going to use Future Cushion, but here are three segments that seem to run with that theme. 

A Conversation With Al Gore

The Interfaith Amigos On Death And Afterlife *

Michelle Rhee: A "Radical" On Education Reform

*I have only caught portions of the other two.
**(Ctrl F "rubric")
*** anachronistic ironic insert

(The theme? See labels.)***
[Missing Tangent.]
[Ironic Gotcha Journalism. Point Counter-Point(?)**]
[3rd asterisk from the bubble?  Three links for which I wish I could track my original train of search, ergo? ergone? KNOT!]
[2-24-13 Rhee Test of Filter?]

Primary Boogeyman

Rule to the Exception.
Freedom / Hardball
Mitt Romney wins, Paul 2nd, Huntsman 3rd.
Gingrich and South Carolina next.
Huntsman ticket to ride or flavor of moment?

Yeah that's the ticket, but here is even more.

There is the old adage "divide and conquer",
but then there is the exception that proves the rule.
If Republican political calculus is anything, it is attack strength.
Economic Freedom is the key.
What it means, is the meme.
Absolutism may be the red flag of the Teddy Bull,
but the cape* of the progressive.

*Ctrl F "Nietzsche"

[Romney indeed made history as the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, but given recent history, Fukuyama and the Neo-cons, it seems to fit the Primary Boogeyman frame, not to mention unprecedented Bush the Uniter.]

[1-11-12 CBS Christie Does Cynical Well, "Jersey-Style" **
CBS Poll Romney beats Obama,
Michelle Beats Anger.]
[My original intent here yesterday, was a Primary Colors reference, and a pun on Exception to Rule, not The Rule, but don't step on my blue suede shoes. (Reference post-**)]

[** I mean the Governor of New Jersey does "lame" well, if as Romney's "hit man" he is accusing Obama of not doing anger well.  Is that Neo-Boogeyman?  A flip-flop of the Doom and Gloom, and more of the Fear and Smear.  Governor Christie is the Sarah Palin with Lip Schtick.  Ouch, that was not to imply that he is a VP choice, but given the frame maybe.  When I use Hyperlink, I use Hyperlink. ]

[4a continued:  Freedom is not a tool***, but an end that doesn't justify economics.  This is my riff off of only the 1st paragraph of The Economist, on Economic blogs and "A less dismal debate." After reading it more fully(see ***) a funny thing happened on the way to the for 'em.  Actually it only hinges on the "tool" concept and the nature of "innovation" and the nature of economic debates.  Not that I have more than glanced at the debate example, but it also hinges on the nature of people as well as material or ideological forms.]
*** again note anacronism of 4m (see asterisks and bracketeds) as I evolved the post comma segment.[being in magazine 4m another one of the 4a.] (Note technical difficulties, uncertain if any threads or hyperlinks are lost, but I close in the middle of reading Marginal Revolutionaries in hard copy.)]


< previous post >

Bottom Line?

Who gets it?
The line in question is in the last link or post:
"subset of sovereignty or tangle"
But I wonder if Michael Hudson really gets it? Post G-20?
We all know it is about who gets it(materially), but some realize there is a question of values(spiritually) but where we mix things up regards the democracy and economics and a devaluing of politics, and the powers that be.(the people and their relationships) In this regard, I mix the allegory of the egg(Humpty) versus the wall(Dumpty) and working on lowering both rather than breaking or knocking both down. Keeping in mind, the pragmatic and incremental, and the cooperative and the competitive dynamics of the whole process. Given that there is more of a bubble problem than the wall problem when it comes to numbers and the creative derivative situation, it seems that a leak is in order, and that might be in the form of tax reform. AKA: Entitlement reform. (not really AKA, more like biofeedback* wise)
*simply a very complex dynamics
[To sum it up, there is a very interesting exchange on Face the Nation where a new congressman (Rep.-Elect Mike Kelly) presents an interesting "reality": "running" the country in the black (sounds like the country is in business **) vis a vis a gory alley.(a flip-flopped allegory) In an aside it is truly more than about left and right, Democrat and Republican, for it seems the Democrats have been acknowledged to be split in their approach including Obama in terms of being accused of being for or against business(it is not that simple) but the representatives in this exchange are "running" from their party in regards to responsibility,(Michelle Bachmann & Kelly) as they may not have voted along the lines of what their party has, in fact, neither did the Democrats in regard to the compromise on the Bush tax cut extensions. In this case being on the same side, does not make both right or wrong, but only both being there for different reasons.]

** link added 1-24-11

Wake Up and Eat Some Breakfast.

[Pulled from draft "as is" 12-29-10]
Rachel Maddow...and idioms or "tangents" and "connecting the dots".
Filibuster change "fix the senate" on Jan. 5th?
Haley Barbour Citizens Council? Segregation alive?
Revisionist History Melissa Harris-Perry*

*Huckabee Paul? Which Paul? There is something odd about some of the polling. Democrats of course would love to have the likes of Sarah Palin* [** See ** here] or worse as an opponent for the sake of their candidate, Obama or not. But what would be good for the country? Should one party really be concerned with picking the other's candidate? I am just saying that a Huckabee Paul team may be less bad, and have a more reasonable debate than what Rebulicans might end up with based on the calculus of divide and dilute.[lemon in dilute link is a reference to the movement of liquids(independents/moderates) from one party to the other: a moderate Rebublican would have an uphill battle against a real centrist in that Obama's support is coming from the middle while his policies are supported by more than the left.]

*not that she won't evolve or indeed run from herself (i.e. be a force) Not that this theory applies only to running but maybe to the media there is a three bears comparison of MSNBC, CNN, FOX. My tangent is the persective that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes it applies to getting information out and the reaction is the point. [A prime example is Palin/Michelle Huckabee and the right to desserts. But Palin is a force that Republicans have a problem running from. But it is earned media or is it. It is kind of funny how the subject of entitlements or rights(freedoms) is confused here. ] [cnn SMART IS THE NEW RICH hunger is the sauce Hal Sparks on CNN]Home Sweet Home?

[See Asterisks here **]

Nebulous links!

Oh what a web... H.R. 1955 Stalled in Senate
Former Prosecutors Challenge White House Immunity Claim
_____________________________________________________________________

Maybe Michelle Malkin does "deserve a break today"*,
but "What Happened" by Scott McClellan
does not. Neither does the subtitle:
Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception

Maybe the Boston Globe has taken the Keffiyeh Kerfuffle(which I did not know was a title to one of her pieces) too seriously. But that does not mean they deserve a bad wrap.(poor pun) Having found a bit more on the story I will link here and here for later. (But I may not return as I believe the later touches my point on marketing, and what may be viral.**)

* I have no stock in Mc(anything), actually some stock, but not in McSame, or fear of change or a bad wrap.

** what ties this in, apparently fear of wraps, and keeping things under your kerfluffle.

[6-3-08: Hard Core Link? Blowing Bubble? ]

"no such thing as bad press"

Except Michelle Malkin. Or Fox News.
But marketers? Dunkin Donuts and the Keffiyeh Kerfluffel
Speaking of appeasement... NOT!
a debate
Speaking of press and investigations...
But back to the donuts... and no such thing as flip-flopper krafting?

[Lost and found: cartoon (self) and "hush hush... unintended results" and embedded results and earlier.]
[Just what do dough nuts have to do with all this? Not to mention the missing of the whole... but there is the embedded nature of things or nuts.]

Clinton In South Carolina

Rachel Maddow on her show:

Rachel, Rachel, Rachel...
You suggest that Obama must go on the offensive? Maybe. But not in the way that you suggest. Not by making things up. Maybe by staging events or confrontations, but not by doing exactly what the opposition is doing. Maybe that is too much faith in the American people. Hillary and Bill, clearly are taking things out of context which display there intention to confuse or inability to understand. And when they are not, the media is. I may be unfair and unbalanced but to me, Obama is more careful in his context and less offensive in his connections. The Clinton campaign should cool it, and so should the media. Even Michelle Obama's comments could not clear the filters and it is not their fault that voters and the media add their own context, just like Hillary and Bill tend to do. Correcting any misinformation and exposing any misunderstanding is one thing but more of the same is counterproductive.

Ed Schultz on Hardball:
And I just turned on MSNBC to find Ed Schultz and Pat Buchanan and a third character on Chris Mathews, and the latter two fall into just these categories and Ed Schultz sure has his hands full cutting through what Edwards would call crap. [Meanwhile Clinton (Bill) takes a swing at the press and strikes at Obama again. It is like shadow jujitsu. Only good for the dark side.]

Dana Milbank on Countdown: On Obama not being uniter.
(OK, I don't have the exact quote. I am doing the press thing.)

Never has a candidate said they will not support the other candidate. (Although Kucinich missed a chance to be clear.) But to assume that they can bring their supporters is another thing.

[Live with Dan Abrams: now -> What some call politics: "I call lawyering". ]

The Democrats can be united. If they are not they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.

Finalizing in what Rachel Maddow also noted about lies.

[Speaking of from September 2002:
A for

Cowboy]

Give an inch, Take a mile.

Congress gave much more than an inch with the Patriot Act, yet the President still takes a mile or more.

Lawyer, Michelle Boardman says, "The separation of powers is working when we have this sort of dispute." But not when the president signs a bill but plainly makes exceptions. That is not separation of powers but misuse and disuse of powers.

Again the branches legislate, execute and interpret law, but the people or the press must be left to figure out who will enforce the law. Needing both law and politics in need of more respect than the Dangerfield* we are in.

* An allusion to the playing field that we create with law and politics that is now in so much danger as Rodney Dangerfield would have said, "gets no respect".