CNN

Climate Nothing Nuance ! ?

(F N ?)
(b.s.) a. Enough Smirking!, (b.) No Bearing?

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.  

Certain Sources...

(now there is a sticky wicket)...
(like "some people")...

...or Filters need Filtering.*

But my point of departure is the cutting word.  "Certain" itself is parsed as I have bracketed. 
My bottom line or actually my sub-heading(un-Tan-Gent-Ed) was that some people cannot possibly read all that they pass on, but it could be just me. ( update** )  Labels do not do justice, but again that is probably me too.  Bloggers*** should be called something other than journalists, infotainment may be the ticket.  But again my point is that the devil is in the details, sometimes between the lines, and certainly not absolute.  In some cases, not certain, full reads are not required.

BTW:  It was not my intent to cast aspersions on the prior post with my photo.  But it is relevant(bull) and an appropriate image(below) that I cannot even return (1) to all I might like to read (2) or reference. (3)

* (bracketed inserts in the flow of conversation and reading the heading)
** approximate timing of update
*** leaving mainstream and cable networks aside



(1) "two points reference* a line
(2) "This is one to savor"
(3) NBC / Text
[I have viewed the 2nd inaugural speech, but it bears review and revisiting.]

[Lunch hour stop at The Cycle, finds Hillary testifying in Congress.  Bearing in mind who should sack certain someones. ]

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.

McCain Cover(age)

Image controversy.
It must be clarified that I am using a technique often used by the media. "All Palin, all the time..." Tweaking the headline.
The Atlantic Issue, is more about the work of the photographer.

An image has been rattling around my head.
American Neo Con But it is a composite of McCain and Palin, and they are not covered in lipstick, but what pigs are usually covered with.

And speaking of their only shot.

Reading the fine print or between the images, there really is more "straight talk" than the McCain campaign. The cover of The Atlantic is supposedly not doctored, but some of the other images should not see the light. Others are out there doing photoshop, it should not come from a professional. It demeans the journalism. Of course the Republicans demean politics and government, so the public should ask, who is de meanest.

Under the covers:
Jeffrey Goldberg : The Wars of John McCain

Marc Ambinder What We Learned This Weekend

Speaking of Age, it is a bit whiny to complain about tough ads. It seems that McCain not only hides behind his own attacks but his defense wreaks havoc with his own experiences. Bearings are crucial to a pilot and that he loses them is not about his age but his leadership. His age and Palin's gender are no excuse for not standing up for vets or women and facing the issues and the media would go a long way to correcting one's bearing. Bearing is not just something in the woods.

No Bearing?

Good! The president's words have no bearing on the 2008 race.

[In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."]

Last read? (nfry)

[Embarassing is a reference or interesting usage in the top link here: "ABC News' White House troops point out..."]

[Embedded and unembedded, but pulled up? See inserted block quote above.]

Earlier Rant or Ramble (and back)

Better to flip-flop than to completely flip or flop.

Judge and re-judge thyself,
lest thee be Re-judged and De-judged.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(The links were added as after thoughts, or post script. I now find a core theme for these seemingly out of the blue thoughts. Bold inserted hypocrisy -(?) and thanks to GoLeft.TV below.)

Compelled* or expelled ** for flip-flop, my point is that it turns on politics.

*to go on... stated plainly flip-flop is explained by nuances and if nuance is not applied will be hypocrisy or just flip-flop. Long story short: Nuance is just flip-flop, while flip-flop can be just hypocrisy. But justice is not just _ _ _ _ ! (fill-in or leave blank)

But underlying this duality, is that politics is not a dirty word! No more than is power or money, but it is about having a choice and better than choosing between tyranny and anarchy. Using it or loosing it may have bearing, but will not indicate ones bearings.

A careful look at Barack Obama's bearing, as well as his choice of words and their meaning will highlight what will be found in the dictionary under bearing(s) [especially the 8th]. There is no reference to age or marbles or balls except as in page, carriage, heritage and language, unless one digs into heraldry and a likely escutcheon but as a pilot McCain should know better and not be so touchy and defensive. Or is it just offensive?

** Mocumentary and stranger yet later and more, and surfing the net.

[5-14-08: In trying to shore up a weak link (one of the above did not connect) I found a stronger link to what started this offensive narrative(McCain claiming Hamas endorses Obaba). Stated more correctly McCain endorses Bin Laden in his argument for his bearing down on Iraq. Of course this is just a trick of words, but the emphasis is on the trick and the focus should be on the meaning, and the tack. (A midcourse correction saved me from a tactical(no technical)error with tact) Specifically of course it is about our course and the choice between A. Obama's tact and B. McCain's tack and how we deal with attacks or a tact.]

[ 5-14-08: Since this originally seemed out of the blue, here is one out of the red (nfry) to be "fair and balanced". ]

(?) 5-14-08: even I can't recall the reason for the "bold insertion" reference unless I'm lost in italics but hypocrisy is noted in the out of the red above. And now I add a spin for the ages titled E Pluribus Nixon and a note on "positive polarization" and find irony in having a bearing without a (w)hole or a shaft to spin on.

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

Featured DO NOT SEE!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. *

Idol Chatter: Pre-Screaming.
Reuters: No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary Post comment.
Angry Astronomer reports.

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

* OK, see the trailer, which is admittedly more a mocumentary.

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?

Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]

[[If the above ramble is hard to follow, maybe reading the following will help.
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins -- Maybe not, but it may make it seem easier. (It may also be helpful to point out that this is only an example used by unwilling participant above.) ]]

[04-22-08: more links on Expelled - -
PZ Meyers Expelled, Gains Sainthood -
Lying for Jesus - (nfry)

It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Faith in doubt and inquiry -
Related video link:
'New' American Theology of Civil Submission - ]

THE GAME

SEE STAY THE COURSE or
HELP NAVIGATION
See Bottom Line there.
[UPDATE same day]

[5-15-08: Review - The Game is not supposed to be taken lightly, nor always meant a reference to Hard Work required of the readers. The troops are the ones that politics has bearing on most, and the reference to the media troops of ABC seems to take more credit for hard work than they actually do at times.]

[4-17-09: Update Patients for Change reminds me of Sabbatical and other Reviews.]

Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm

This could be referring to the trilogy of wars, but it is more about the times needed to read the article about the Google of Intelligence.[not a number]

To be more direct, the three wars I don’t mean are; Terrorism, Iraq and Iran; the final yet to be. I would have said Afghanistan, but it was more legit. Not that the war on terror is not legit, just that the definitions and terminology still need to be fought. But I did read the link three times, with some distractions, but it really does smell like a rerun.

My point is that the purpose for which the State Department sought intelligence was to prepare a list of individuals and organizations for sanctions, without providing any real link to intelligence.

Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

The bonus feature may be that if they provided the link, it may show that there is not enough to go on. So to avoid the previous problem of "flawed intelligence", the solution is to not provide any, but approve other’s intelligence which do not have a direct link.

None of the 12 Iranians that the State Department eventually singled out for potential bans on international travel and business dealings is believed by the CIA to be directly connected to Iran's most suspicious nuclear activities.

"There is nothing that proves involvement in a clandestine weapons program, and there is very little out there at all that even connects people to a clandestine weapons program," said one official familiar with the intelligence on Iran. Like others interviewed for this story, the official insisted on anonymity when discussing the use of intelligence.

The irony is that there was plenty of "open source" intelligence available before this disasterous course unfolded, much of it filtered here.

One connected dot further: intentions, preemption and their denial are the greatest hazzards to navigate, but one thing is certain, they may be connected, but they can change, and one side always knows the truth, whether it is your's or not.

Now I know it is not just me that can't be direct, but that has no bearing on the reality.

SET UP? WALLED EXCUSE.

"Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest"
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.

Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]

"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."

This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".

This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.

Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)

It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.

President Bush recently stated. "You cannot wage war defensively."

My reply (if I have not borrowed it from somewhere) is: You cannot wage peace offensively.

I would gladly end it there but more comes to mind. It is frequently said, "the best defense is a good offense." This refers to the game of football where there are rules. In war where the rules are declared by the victor and ignored by the participants it would seem that this would not apply. The game of football has referees that impose the penalties without bearing arms. If we do not get agreement on following rules it's hard to see where we can expect them to be followed by others. If the more fortunate among us have difficulty following rules, how can we expect those under pressure to maintain self control, let alone hope? We must work on both the rule book and the game plans.