Trigger Alert*

Spoiler Alert.

You can only vote for those that run**. 

*background later***

** 3-18-14 Hint: not exactly house of cards
[Not to blurr the lines, nor do I follow the Netflicks series.] 

*** correction: Trigger Warning
Perspective alert.

Crooked Timber

Select Lumber and taking Platonic Form*.

*F/Wittgenstein's Poker, P/House of Cards :

Ctrl F Rules[!]

[Bent Pearl ? ]

FOOTNOTES PAGE AUGUST 2013

Up Date: That's the ticket. 

8-2-13 The blank's the thing. A. Proxymoron?, # That is the ticket!, #?.(FP5) x. Killing Fields of Dreams, (y) Tea Party Down Grade, z. Congress- - to boldly go... ? 
8-2-13 1., 2. a., b., c., d(a), e.(We are at the table. ), f.(Update), g.House of Cards, h.  3. a. b.Killer Ad from Killer Group c.Take On The Hill! d. e.Post-Pyth F. G. h.I'm not saying... i. j. k. l. m. n. o. Just Say O! 4.MessAge 5.(Dime) a. Mmmm MOW, MOW, b.Tin Foil Herman, c. R.S.V.P.

8-4-13 VC, Vinyl Café, Vicious Cycle Virtuous Correction? Pun on VC or Victimizer Congress.
Perception Correction President(shall) Congress(shun)all?
8-5-13 : CePR? math/baker? Perception $knot Reality!

8-9-13 WAR (belated insert) Presently listening to Norman Goldman opening re: Rance Priebus and the Middle East. (5)mess+I-uh(b.s.), (7) format change, (13){Paper U?}, (21) NO!, (37) ! 

8-20-13 Back from Sekiu fishing trip, with dad, cousins, nephew and friends.
8-20-13 (a) [Aeschylus] & how buried

8-21-13 1 wiki(Miranda Warning), 2 (WSJ), 3 Trans Parent Seas, 4 Miranda Warning!, 5 The Guardian, 6 The Telegraph, 7 The Guardian(check redundancy)   Re: Oldsmobile (b.s.)

8-22-13:  That old hope and changey thing [!] (order of insert)  6 2 3 4 1 5 [7]
    (changey old hope and thing That [!]) Ribble this ? (FP2) 
8-23-13 bold added: not to Farce the Wor(l)d or parse SS oar well.
8-26-13: The (b.s.) of lemon ship is already inserted, with later untwist of mangled mixed meta for ... ?(FP2)
8-27-13 Not to pun on Too Bolds or W lines. (1 NOW, 2 The Cycle)
8-28-13 Hecuva post. (wMd?) Crtl F "spectrum" (a, b, g, i) See notes on original post and placement /timing of asterisks and links.  There is an M-bed within this FP.  But to cut the dimentionalism, there is more work. (d, w)

The %th EleFont

Not to jump in the Lakoff, but my original heading was The %th Element*.  Which was a type-oh or capital gain on taking the 5th. Well, not that far.(But maybe we will see.) The 5th Element was meant as reference to Roman numeral "v" for the sake of my table ofor con tents. But it is still to be determined what page this is. 

So with this lede or misspell, it may be prophetic GeOhMeTry. i.e. Seg  Way to my original intents.
(Speaking of See Sea D? An Ed segue Center on Communicable Downers re:caller who thought the court is a dictionary.)

Speaking of Attacks Dogs and hold-ups...or holders?
[This was a heckuva sojourn.]

The original trigger:
Stephanie Miller ;-) Referencing Sarah Palin on the need to decimate the filter.  How who "chose their one" and "ushered him" into office.  Palin loses the God Particle.

Translation from the wings:  Sarah Palin wants to kill the medium.   

pc? speaking of wave NOT! Zed?
[but who knows]

* All of the above was here** before I finished there.  And well B4 Martin Bashir similarly rants.  Speaking of house of cards or Dawn Key Lake Offs!  Not to mention Vast Wind Mills.
** except first three(4) links (re:there)

House of Cards

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Try Angle.

In the Mix.

Not to rant**,

but the Tetrahedron of Will* is involved in the balance of Science and Religion.

They are not on the same field, except as a tool and a wood shed.

* from tetrahedron

** no particular link

[An aphorisms razor to ponder. In pre-emptive context ?]

[A double decker! Or upper decker?]

[4-3-12: Will "instantiation"*** wrought or rot our foundation.

Force of Laws/Nature?

*** Theory of Forms (Ionian Enchantment and Negative Trumping Positive?

A Round Table? ]

Reading between the lines...

without reading the lines. Not to just pun, but will the Super Committe fail?

Maybe it is already in the cards. Not that I have marked any C A R D. Bush tax cuts must expire. That is already in the cards. Using it as a sticking point is a joker. The president has been dealt from the bottom of the deck. Congress is the house, are we the vigorish? But actually my idea is that we use the Republican rhetoric. They have claimed he has gotten everything he asked for, and have blaimed him for not using the Simpson-Bowles suggestions. In actuality, they did not come up with a concensus, and the president put it all on the table. So the Super Committe does not have to fail, it just needs to report a non-consensus, and Congress can do their usual thing, and they can risk failure, which might be still better*. Ideally there will be up or down votes on parts of it whether they reach consensus or not. Then it will be the peoples turn to deal, at election time. It that is bringing in politics, that is what brings in the people. And that "my friends", is the name of the game, not to channel McCain.

* embedded "kick the can" misplaced

Where everyone needs to read...

local that is, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and Joel Connelly**.
But* not so fast.

* related facebook comments: Since the original poster had little context, I will only post my replies here.
< Here is to Herman Cain: "Stupid people are ruining America." Then he attracks them like a moth to a flame. The irony is that corporate persons already suffer from a sort of cultural innoculation. Or is it "the hash they have made" or "in...difference" to reality". OWS, may not only be a breeding ground for what might "thin out the herd", but of "super" bugs that may just be the new yogurt or intenstinal fortitude that bugs king context. Flavor this economically pathological.>
< ‎@K.O. Kudos for replying in mixed metaphor. Nice shuffle of the birds and the bees, you may have picked up on the "social Darwinism". But I am not sure we agree who the dealer is, or rather who counts, and who are the cards. Let alone who lives on borrowed money.>
< ‎@K.O. BTW: I do believe you missed a "dis" or something, as V.H. pointed out. As in "How dare you dis Scott..." etc. And you are correct that Scott was neutral in the original posting, but if "context is king" then M.J. was not the royal pain. The original was a mere "'reporting", but that does not mean it was not leaning on some con text, as reactions have shown.>

Not so G(AB)W. C-fields.
[anachrogate? And more. Also KUOW with Mayor McGinn.]

** Original intent: local ledership and rail issues(see *). Bit*** of a stretch? Not really.
*** Rachel Maddow: debunktion junction. That as for a junction: Europe is not U.S when it comes to austerity, infrastructure or other investments.

[11-15-11: OWS/Reporting. Free Speech and Porta Pottys.]

[MSNBC: Rachel MadDow [!][and Aye of Newt?]
[Articulate.

How can one make light of a tragedy?

By looking for a silver lining. I think that is what we all want to do. We just have different perspectives on what preemptive is. But remember the silver lining requires a cloud and a light and it is always darkest before the dawn.(Not.)

My original trigger for this thought was a satire on the recent Seahawks loss in Chicago. But please note that my weapon of choice is words and I often have too full a tool box and grab the wrong instrument. But there is a difference between a target and a gun sight and I am sure that they meant surveyors or navigational equipment. Then there is the questionable use of a muzzle.

Back to Seattle: I feel I cost the Seahawks the game by not wearing my cap till the third quarter or so. But then maybe it was in the cards, or the hand of Chicago that was dealt. If these three downs aren't enough then Plato is a hail Mary and there is nothing wrong with the school of hard knocks.

Who let the dogs out? Not Pavlov.

[As for questionable sources: here are some earliest comment.
And more recent.]
[Speaking of rhetorical change*... what about repeal of the Dole-Romney Healthy Deficit Reduction Act, aka Obamacare.]
*see recent link 29:20 and 38:20.

Now Dat's...

what I am talkin' 'bout.
And I had not even found the latter link before I had this line. But the former link needs updating and post dating.

Here it is:

Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Post Inserted Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.

[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

NOW FOR THE FOOTNOTES: Who Dat? Chuck Knox. The Saints were no cards but the Seahawks are no joke! Now I will not try to trace back the rest of my ramble, but it is what I had in mind. But I will make a further association. The party to remain nameless, was asked for a label for himself(Constitutionalist). While others may be Tea Party Republicans or Libertarian Free Marketeers, to label or not to label that is the question. Whether is is nobler in the minds... Regardless we can associate 3rd partiers that may or may not associate with a party as having common strains* if not roots.

Note: changed "changes" to changed in ref. to Dragnet line.

BTW: whatever happened to the Gatorade for Carrol? I guess that is for college. But it seams a crack at the changes or no whine team. But in regards to the whine, I know parties that did not think a losing teams should go to the playoffs, but it is the way the rules were made. It is the process that matters whether you like it or not. Results of course matter, but you can't always change them.

*strains: on another thread elsewhere

Post Inserted

Rough ramble old style.(pen and paper)[*]

NO LABEL (constitutionalist)
Dragnet: names are changed (no association)
Bubble Up(Still) Party
No Champagne, but trickledown of whine.
Private Corps./Adam Smith
History / Our foundation.
Guilt by association, innocent by No.
Social Darwinist[Fundamental wordist}
Free Association, Not a Force.
Free Willie? So who(said)dat?
Play the cards, dealer.

Post-Sub Title: Buddie to remain nameless,
can you (S)paradigm and Party Less.
[The above will stand alone, substantially as originated and linkless so to speak, and for others to Google or search(of blog) themselves.]

[*] edit to two words "changed" and "remain".
Editor Comment: This post is dated as is because of the time it was written but it was posted closer to this time and updated near this time.

Case Study

Headlines under question(marks)!
Some filter so other don't have to?
Please read, as I haven't yet.

CAUTION: Sarcasm warning! Or as "some people" might say "nuance"? Or was that missed metaphors* or hypocrisy or as I noted "equivalence"** as a challenge in this revolving rhetorical not revolutionary world?

* more likely sloppy punctuation, or logic and grammar?
SUBSET OF CAUTION: I make no equivalence, Google found these Trivium, and the punc is likely too heavy metal or irony?

** just posted "saved in draft"

[There are deeper and lighter case studies, but they are under investigation if not pending prosecution.]

[No Teaser but Prophetic? But dig that Newsweek "V" of triumvirates, the deck of emergence is at least missing the "mark"(?) as in Rand(y) Childish Partiers. I used to be overly sceptical(and ahead of the curve) in the area of Mainstream Media, especially more so in print(I won't mention the big 3) but their first initials are N,T & U or is it nuts? But they are just playing to the market yet the fair-E tale is always in the making. All on deck, even if you have a couple(decks) or are missing a few cards, they just might be only the jokers.]

Wage-Productivity Gap

Dr. Ravi Batra: New Thinking on the Economy

It is hard to see what is new about this thinking. It seems to be how it works. Without the tinkering of the Federal Reserve, the boom and bust cyle would be busted.

It must also be remembered that now Secretary of Treasurer Geitner is in the Obama administration while his prior position was as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the Bush admininstration. That may not be an excuse for any unwise or erroneous moves, but it does put the cards he was dealing with under the table, as we see know that the government will be holding the cards on the table. This is not just a gratuitous slam or partisanship but the basic difference in the view of government responsibilities. The finacial situation was so serious, that some action was necessary before a complete change in administration could take place.

[11-4-11: Move up link(hold) and update link]

Bottom Line Update

[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]

On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]

On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]

The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.

* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?

[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.

[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:

The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.

"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.

Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]

[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.

Support Senator Webb's Bill

THE MAIN POINT: Even with an accurate reading of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, there are still reasons that such a move is not wise in giving the administration a stronger hand in diplomacy. An auxiliary question is where is the legislation that spells out that he needs to come to congress before attacking Iran,
AND THEN being able to rely on how he does that.

Congress should deal no more cards of diplomacy to the administration,
but I have hope that they have gotten the message.

Hopefully the Webb bill S. 759 - will be enough,
but the record is not hopeful.

Hillary has signed on will others?

House info may follow:
[UPDATE; 10-13-07]
H.Con.Res. 33
H.J.Res. 14
Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group: Take action

Recess War!

While war with Iran is hopefully on a far back burner, Bush has turned up the heat at home on the domestic diplomatic front by appointing Sam Fox, for "voluntary services" as ambassador to Belgium.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), another member of the Foreign Relations Committee -- one of three '08 presidential contenders on the panel -- made it clear the White House declared war through its recess appointment.

My last post, $hotgun $abbatical refers to a focusing of my scattered thoughts and a breather to focus on more local realities. I even noted it would be hard to hold to, but it seemed appropriate to note some recessed topics.

Here are more links, which I have not filtered, meaning taken more than a glance at:
Since the above quote raised Senator Dodd, in my mind, Edwards should be noted as doing well in my mind. Not as the Right would say "out of sympathy", well actually Edwards said that(they flip-flopped that), which is the point, it is about how he dealt with the media and and now his Efront operations. Not just the money, but the media.
Also sideshow smackdowns are good for the process if they steer debate or even take others from the need to distract. Kerry, The Gingrich Washington Post

IRAN POSTS:
Not the most recent Hersh post: The New Yorker

Who's paranoid and who's out to get whom? SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS

LATE RADAR
War Games: Who will blink, and will it matter? Atlanta Free Press
Is compromise something in anyones deck of cards? Or
can a mad man blink or who should he blink to? Deepjournal

Flip-Flop of the War on Terror. Huffington Post
A cautious horror, the "Samson Option". TPM CAFE

Not exactly beach reading material...
Oh, somewhere up in these links may be the concept that Pakistan has an interesting zone where who knows what is going on. Outsourcing terror or Iran Contra anyone?

"Secret Plans" sounds too much like Nixon.

Hit and Run Republicans are not exactly being cut and run from the process as they know it is difficult to avoid a vote.

But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)

The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.

I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.

More Heroes Needed.

Words I saved in file yesterday:

From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.

WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.

Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.

We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.


This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?

How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?

It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.

While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.

Yesterday was "a victory for the American people".

What Senator Frist called a stunt is probably only the first battle for which the Democrat's powder has been kept dry. The Republicans are outraged at the unprecedented use of Senate rules and leaving the public out of the process. The irony is woven so thick even my head hurts.

The charge that Democrats are criminalizing politics is an indication that it seems they feel, that all is fair in love and war. Leaving love aside, since there is no love lost, they feel that rules are only for losers. War is only an extension of politics where the rules are only for others.

The complaint that they were not consulted and that the public was left out shows that they would love others to play by their rules without questioning their war. It is laughable if it were not likely treason that somehow they make light of revealing the name of a CIA agent while being offended by a request for a closed session concerning the use of intelligence, while VP Cheney is not only at the heart of the current inquiry, but was able to keep his energy panel secret.

If this does not make your head hurt too, see my earlier baseball analogy, and the recent indictment analogy by Fitzgerald. And the next time they want the public not kept in the dark, call their bluff and put all the cards on the table.

Beating around the Bush:

My view of the recent claim that Richard Clarke is lying is that the administration would not know the truth if they saw it.

But this is not another charge that the administration themselves are lying, but that they truly do not know the truth. Exhibit A: Rumsfeld says "facts change". That means that he can rely on what he wants, not on facts. Exhibit B: Intelligence is an opinion. That means that they can pick and choose the facts that they will rely on. To top it off they can even rely on facts not being reliable to safely cover their bets or rather conclusions, actions or the lack there of.

My conclusion, not having seen the previous 2002 testimony, is that they still cannot tell the truth when they see it. Further investigation and testimony may not clear up the truth, but further point to the problem that they cannot work with the cards they are dealt. After the fact, Monday morning quarterbacking is easier than 20/20 foresight. But so is Monday morning scape-goating.

Here we have an administration that wants to be able to act on a threat based on their own picking and choosing of intelligence but could not clearly conclude from the intelligence that is being presented; prior to 9-11, during current testimony, and likely during the 2002 testimony
[update 6-8-09 link label only]

TO US ALL:

A subtle responsibility needs more active duty.

A few days ago, the French foreign minister said, "one does not have the right to be discouraged", but there is hope only in action. Yesterday President Bush called an end to diplomacy. He laid his cards on the table and other’s hands do not matter.

He was given a free hand by congress to behave in such a manner. Absent a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council, they are unanimously behind this move as well. The fact that any new vote would not be heeded does not seem very diplomatic in nature. But only a new resolution and vote would change the approvals that were previously given.

So, in silence the president is proceeding with the support of these bodies. The purpose of such efforts was to disarm Iraq for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. For this the United States congress and the United Nations is responsible. The threat of war was to bring this about. It was being successful.

The fact that it has failed is also the responsibility of these bodies, not the protesters. The inability to succeed in the face of opposition is not diplomacy. It is making excuses. The inability to get a resolution passed is not the fault of those that might veto but also those who would write it. The fact that a new resolution is not being pushed that the United States could veto and be outnumbered anywhere from 11-4 to 14-1 may be diplomacy. But it does not avoid responsibility and hence cannot be said to be irrelevant.

[Heading and link updated 3-21-10]