FOOTNOTES PAGES PAGE TWO MAY 2014

5-4-14 Model Theory 1. Too Random... , 2A. Pare a digM, Pair a docs., B.Kant we get along..., C.A Plan to B-Team

5-7-14: Re:Knee Calm Pend E Um, A E iou

WTF or WTO: Re:above 5-29-14 branching under consideration.
i.e. trek checkers and di-men-shuns. Knot to mantel brought.
A. Presidential SOTU / NSA: No Saviors Associated or rather change agents?
B. C. de ?  >< <>  These last 2 indicate that I rarely read if ever actually notice my listed blogs if they are even accessable to others.  Which is very demonstrative of my work in progress, as I cannot easily even locate them.  Oh, they are under my Reading List, obviously. In other words, they bare know baring on my bearing.  I pun you not, 4eye have truly yet to read these latest.
BTW:  similar sent'meants to a host of other hosts.  Randy, Thom, Norm, to hint but 3 or malloy.  Not to trail off but local matters also pertain: Cantwell, Murray, Smith etc.  

Pre-Post

Er-US! 
Found in Transcription.  (i.e. preemptive translation*)
The new FC is the old FC. 

Why did the chicken cross the line?
Because it was yellow!
(Emphasis on metaphore[mixed messaging] not fear mongering or offensive dynamics.)

 * hint: Senator Murray (added mid-read)

Fear and Running

in the Republican Party. 
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment 1-  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2-  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution.  But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument.  "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**.  But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.*** 

Post asterisks:  The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]

* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality.  But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.

[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one.  But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation.  It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments.  Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]

[Follow-up of sorts.  But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term.  I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above.  However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch.  Guns don't kill people, people do.  Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law?  Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad?  And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric.  I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course.  This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]

[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]

[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]

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.)

Message to the House.

There has been a March On Washington for the Public Option.
Here is the message to the House from Ed Schultz.

Thank you Senator Cantwell
Thank you Senator Murray
for supporting the Public Option if not signing the letter.

Links back

Health Care Summit: Tomorrow live stream
Everything on Table?: Bipartisan Realities.
March on Washington: Call for Public Option*. Who signed up for Reconciliation.
Hit by Pitch: Big Pitcher Economics.
February's Posts.

* Contact: Senators Murray and Cantwell

[Is everything really on the table? I mean I can understand a starting point or even a middle point, but if you want movement to an end point, you might need more points. And to clarify a different point, there is the Bennet letter, there is the public option, and there is reconciliation. They are not linked at the hip.** Starting from scratch is not an option unless everything is on the table including up or down votes on everything. That would seem ** to be how politics should work or it is more about politics than hope or change.

* i.e. some are hesitent to sign the letter supporting the public option and reconciliation, some are for the public option, but some can be for reconciliation to let their votes count and the process work.

** point blank: reconciliation, nuclear option and up or down votes are all Republican platforms for progress until Democrats became the majority.[Speaking of preemption***, knowing the rules is not the decision to enact them, but one should follow precedence.(*** as Rachel Maddow)]

Health Care Summit

Live Streaming THURSDAY 7AM - 1PM PST
Senator Patty Murray's Website.

House Bill
Senate Bill
The President's Proposal
Unofficial summary starting with the Senate Bill.

March on Washington

Ed Schultz, Norman Goldman*
Whip Congress Dot Com
Sign up to support the Public Option.

Ed Schultz has been arguing for a march on Washington ala Tea Party.
Pardon the last crack but we should listen to some of what they say.
Norman Goldman has more suggestions for addressing issues that are not being faced.

Contact: Senators Murray and Cantwell
* Depose Harry Reid: unless (I will add)he has progress and the Obama agenda (such as I hope it is) up his sleeve.
Update 2-22-10: That was fast! Two days actually: Maddow and Olbermann point to the movement politics taking effect.

[Boehner reply kicks legs out from under the table of summit. Put simply, the House Republican leader has knocked the president's proposal, even though it addresses many of the complaints that Americans have about the differences between the House and Senate plan. We are not starting from scratch but presenting and addressing proposals.]

Health Care NOW

Well... after break. Public Plan?
Senate HELP Committee Bill 97% coverage.
To be sold.

Thank you, Patty Murray, on HELP Committee.
Thank you, Maria Cantwell on Finance Committee.

Thank you, Charles Schumer

MINI-MAZE v. Mini-Mobs
[Senate HELP - FINANCE Committees.]
[The Awakening...Now we know.
Still...coasting.]

[Retro Laugh - Retro Stats]
[Amy Goodman- Wendell Potter - Whistleblower ]
[Dean Baker- loon tune land - Sarah Palin]
[The Cure? Patriotism is progessive.]
[Last Bit - AM1090 - Moving Forward ]

Eastside Democratic Dinner

[The military course and just desserts.]

Navigating the sensibilities is what comes to mind as I belatedly note the excitement surrounding the speakers, Senator Patty Murray, and Retired Major General Paul Eaton. What follows are three perspectives Perspective one.
Perspective two.
Perspective three.

Auxiliary links:
The General in the Darcy Burner Camp.
At the NW Progressive Forum.

[LATEST: Darcy Burner Newsletter Report on the General and his plans for Iraq]

[10-17-07: I must note that I am excited that the author of Perspective 2 has found this site and commented below, and also that he now links a video of the heart of the excitement,as well as a Washblog link on the event. I hereby add two links I have yet to read:
12 former captains on Iraq
"out of control"??
Speaking of more than one perspective, I also added the subtitle.]

Kyl-Lieberman

1st I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for voting against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and express my disappointment that Senator Murray supported it. While it is commendable that some things were removed...

2nd I would like to suggest the following interview (The president has accepted ethnic cleansing) be read in relation to this push on Iran.

But just as Hersh feels "that it has been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows," I feel that Hersh has underestimated the intentions of the Administration, giving it a little too much altruism, when "return on success" explains it better. The problem is who is getting the return on this "heckuva success".

3rd: The urgency of this is easily dissipated by accepting that it is just politics and everyone doing as much as they can, but read the last paragraph from the interview and hope that we don't miss it again.

Meanwhile I had to get this out so that I could MoveOn.

[Update: 10-9-07 Wesley Clark supports vote for.
Hillary Exchange (similar to a recent Senator Murray exchange
Hillary statement
"Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" spell corrected for google sake.]

Update: Hullabaloo!

[Sent to Seattle PI, 12-23-02]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM

The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.

If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?

If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.

[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]