I wouldn't go that far.

On the verge of declaring that the CNBC motto should be Lean BackWords, (I did use the term Fauxword), it is interesting how the words(** )play out.
[AM OC "DNC Uses Dressage Horse to Hit Romney on Tax Returns." Hiding behind the skirt of the issues.  Jeb Bush continues the Lyin' Eyesin'.]
But how far should one go? Not* that I was starting from there.**

*the Jansing&Co links aren't there yet
** Oops maybe I was.
(Note anachronism of asterisks-adjusted.)

[Here is where it started and how far will it go? See AM above.]
[This post needs some serious footnoting***. Re: Labels.]

*** V-8?  [under RNP (viii) links are being sourced re: labels and oops, I have a heckuva lot under construction.]

[Post Roman numerals is The Cycle & "It Takes a Village", and understanding(Bane) more than exceptionalism. Mean while... speaking of Hoover. (para-phrasing meta-ramble)The former president on Fame & Power, a puppet in the headlights or swamp gas? Blast from the past, MED or Axis of Awesome, Reign on Parade of Rove 'n Nordquist.  Hal-C-on days?]

[Re:NorMan GoldMan Show (my)comment below, oops, maybe it is hyper-bully?  Speaking of shows, a technical glitch makes his first hour a veil able. (Featuring Third Party candidate and Morman on Romney. Speaking of dissin'genius.]

Jansing&Co,

Thank you for having Grover Norquist on your show today.  Shame on you for not having anyone hold him accountable, exactly.  Yesterday and today Richard Lui sits in for Chris Jansing.
(yet to insert Liu/Norquist:  here)
Earlier Segments.

Then came BraveHeart*: (or vice verse'em) Lui via Bashir
Not to mention Cantor's checkered comment or Little Bo Peep.

*speaking of herding** cats***  or dogs [!]?
** Ctrl F "cats"
*** not that I found the one I thought I would of Clinton herding cats.

Hours later:  No Ticker Tape.
This is to Ed Schultz, Senator Schumer and Plato's Cave.
"Jobs, The Economy and Income Inequality."
Let us hope that there is no dancing in the streets for congress doing what it should.  And as for a Ticker Tape parade for the Iraq war... the military does not suggest it.  Of course it would be about supporting our troops, but the location in the Canyon of Heroes and through the financial district does not seem that main street.

12-23-11 
(See Little Bo Peep: verse us Can't or dancing streets[!] [links added])


Reading Room:
Ron Paul Ghost Writing
Politifact Weird Ranting Whiners
Fair and balanced.
Corporations are people.
Happy  Holidays!

12-28-11
Bubble or Boom, it is in the pop.
A Tale of Two Countries.

12-29-11
NOW with Alex Wagner: Keep quoting polls.[*]
Not.
Mitchell Reports: Huntsman hulling Iowa.
They pick corn? Awe shucks.[**]

[*] must find segment with poll
[**]Ctrl F "hull" in last two, must find Huntsman in prior 7 of last 8.

 < previous post >

On the Other Plan(s)

[Originally I was amending or running on the last link.]
...on the other hand: while I am not advocating Independents or Single Payer, they just might be the way things need to go. As the Reverend Al Sharpton said this morning, it would be unseemly for the President to be an advocate for any separate interests, as I paraphrase him, and as others would call it leadership in reference to the parade. This was linked anachronistically. Note the tetra of DRIP, (now that was manipulated: Democratic Republican Independent Progress), not to mention the Bloomin' ** Fringe. And an earlier thought about this field, Creationist Recreation Applied Properly, no CRAP. Speaking of anachronism, if someone turned water into wine, who turned whine*** into trickle down? Answer? Just a Laffer. No disrespect to the good nature and good deeds of Reagan and Nixon or vice verse us, but they have certainly been proved to be relative.]

** EPA = Expletive Properly Applied.
*** Needlessly(sic)

Underlying this thinking is a reaction to those that think we think we know better, and those that think they are we. I directly refer to the rhetoric of the Right and the fact that they are the minority for a reason, continually evidenced by their behavior as well as the fact that polls change and they had better.* Wow, I think that was anti-sic or at least freely punctuated, but who the Fringe knows or is it the Shadow or Charlie McCarthy(**)ism?
* Bold summary and link(correction: reference) to other asterisk not to mention runonwordplay.
[belated ** talk about prophetic gathering of moss I am not sure I know yet.]
[Well...not exactly, but close enough for Hurts work or Wads-worth.]

Pawlenty? Pawlease.

Listening to Howard Fineman and rumors that the Republicans may need to reschedule their convention it seems that Obama has rained on their parade. "A base irony" as Olbermann put it, "and a hoot", not as I would put it. Apparently Obama has struck the cave that counts. Chris Matthews has been a hoot as well, thanks for the secret weapon or whatever the reference above. His hint that someone may be in hiding or leaking, but what I add is a reference to an adage. The land of Pawlenty? Is it any reference that leads to streets paved in gold, or is it just follow the yellow brick road?

[Rather than be too obtuse, the implication is that the tone of the Republican convention could not match that of the Democrats so their lack of spirit will be in honor of the suffering victims. Either that or their prayers backfired. I won't even joke about what to pray for, but I do hope for a parting of the ways.]

"Thank You VETERANS!" DAY

I was going to say happy Veteran's Day,
but that has always been awkward,
no matter the times.

HONOR OUR VETS!
The Living! The dead have their own day.

Thank you for your "hard work"
and the best tribute would be
to do our "hard work" at home.
If this sounds redundant or political,
that is becaus it is.

They have fought for our rights and
what better way to honor them than
to use them. Our rights not the troops.
Before there is neither left.

OK... enough of my ramble.
Thank You for your particular combination of "hard work": 1st Lt. Ehren Watada

Thank you Parade? That is really hard work.
But some are jeered.

More Hard Work?

Speaking of veterans, Thank You Major General Paul Eaton(retired) for speaking up. I have yet to comment on the events of Saturday, but continuing on the Ray of Hope theme, Admiral Fallon is speaking out and General Eaton expressed confidence in Secretary of Defense Gates, and while this report(link) is not too informative, it agrees with the General's emphasis on diplomatic and economic approaches and some hope.

Thank you Vets! And those who serve.

About the Parade

As Thom Hartmann just said:

It is not about the leaders,
it is about the parade.

That is what I was reflecting in the pervious post.

He also says: Tag, you're it!

MUTUAL OR CONGENITAL?

Sent 9-2-04: [Speaking of timing, this has been sent to a local paper, but not likely to see print. I can see that it assumes that the reader is informed of too many things which I do not have room for in the limit of 250 words, which is what the paper suggests and I happened to have hit. But the previous post may be a useful on this measure. ]

One thing both parties agree with is that this election is the most important in history. It is a choice between a man accused of flip flopping and one who can’t tell nuance if it came out of his own mouth. Cheney was right in that it may be mutual, or is it just congenital that one side sees two Americas and one cannot see nuance when they do it themselves.

But Zell Miller certainly did not do nuance. He was a poster boy for flip flop and candidate bashing or dare I say hate? He belied the hope and humor, which previous speakers entertained us with and which may have even opened up some waffling minds. Can a whole group of people not see this or was he just there for contrast? He made Cheney look mild mannered. He made Scharzenegger look brilliant. Not that these and others on parade did not share these qualities, but he even made Michael Moore seem like an angel.

More confusing than nuance and faux diversity should be the wonder of who is in charge. Do they have a united message here or just calculated theater on behalf of a leader whose best defense is inarticulateness? I for one wonder about the difference between bringing down a president and the freedoms I thought men and women not only won medals for but died. At least I can feel the freedom that lack of military service doesn’t relieve me of righteous anger. Vote anyway.

BUSH AD
Demos can make a gain
[Printed 3-10-04, King County Journal]
My title:
Freedom, Faith, Family and Sacrifice Reminds Us.

From what I have seen of the first Bush ad, it is surprisingly honest. The words freedom, faith, family and sacrifice are prominent principles on parade. The images of victims and heroes bring feelings that are shared by all of us.

The Democrats could be tempted to hope it is continually run until the Freudian nature of it sinks in.

Why was a fourth ``F'' word not worked in for literary sake? Would it be too much reminder of the four freedoms of FDR? Would it be their avoidance of words like fear and failure, which would fit this administration and its lost faith in processes?

Sacrifice is appropriately chosen instead and we should be reminded who and what is being sacrificed. Since Sept. 11, 2001, there may be a new equation.

But we must do better than the fuzzy math and facts that change for this administration or it is only a dangerous formula. These images and feelings are real and valid but they make little difference, until they are followed up by words and actions that mean something

SHARED SACRIFICE [NOT 4F]

I have not seen the first Bush ad, but NPR reviewed it and from what they said it was surprisingly honest. I did not get the full wording but the words FREEDOM, FAITH, FAMILY and SACRIFICE were the prominent values that were on parade. The images of mangled victims and brave firefighters were connected with this message. While tempting to point out that the fourth F of FAILURE would be more appropriate, the word sacrifice is something that we should all share.

The Democrats are a party of unity not division. We share the values of freedom, faith, family and more importantly sharing sacrifices.

Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?

[Sent to KC Journal, 2-21-03 in reply to upcoming column that had been in the NY Times.] [Link and bold added 8-2-10]

The Yes-But Parade, by William Safire was very good. He made the administration’s case as best it can be made. However if turned inside out, the argument is useful in demonstrating the reverse. It is better to be in the "Yes-but parade" than be following the Butt Head in the wrong direction leader who sees the choice as acting now or doing nothing. Sorry, it was just too tempting to put it in Bush diplomatic terms. It is easier to focus on what we label people than what they may mean. Safire takes the "yes but fellows" label that Franklin Roosevelt used for those who agreed with his goals but had reservations about moving forward in the manner he prescribed. Somehow this is equated with the multitude of questions that arise about the war with Iraq. One could easily turn his argument inside out if not for the need to answer these questions and more.

True, making up words does not deserve the ill repute Bushisms have attracted. However "yes-but fellow" does not really contain anything new. It is tempting, not to mention childish to resort to name calling. It is not a question of acting now or doing nothing, as possibly the strongest argument the administration has, suggests. It does alleviate me of the need to address the serious if not slightly distorted questions that Safire relies on heavily in his case since he simultaneously minimizes the need to answer them. He even simultaneously concludes that the same "yes but fellows" who supposedly share these common goals of the administration would be better off challenging those same goals.

The most important question is why can’t we do something, without ignoring all the questions? Just to point out the emptiness of such labeling for purposes of thinking, is there really any constituency, or consensus, or poll numbers for doing nothing? Is there really a do nothing group we can label? Only in the minds of the schizophrenic Butt Heads, (childish, patriarchal if not abusive parents) who maintain it is my way or the highway, or I want things my way or I’m taking my toys and going home. If only it were so simple.

I am no psychiatrist but this may be an analogy that can be followed, that is more similar than divergent. Both parent and child have their way. They want to get it. They may not be going in the same directions. Being on the path may be better than not going somewhere, but you better know where you are going and how you are going to get there. And making a move is not in and of itself better than not. One fault in the analogy, is that Nations and their leaders or diplomats are neither parent nor child. However it is further useful that they may want to be, and often behave like both.

It may be reasonable to see how carrying a big stick and being on a bully pulpit can be confusing, not to mention from a different Roosevelt. For the plain spoken, it is easy to see the case they make for violence as a means, if they don’t have to answer the questions on the end or the means.

The cost, not to mention the courage, it takes to answer these questions may indeed be high, but we can’t even begin to compare it to not answering them, let alone acting before we do. Safire may be right that there are "yes but fellows", but it can go both ways. He just sides with the yes but head in the wrong direction (away from questions) crowd. Sure "acting now" has not exactly been rushing it, but where has the delay come from in answering more of the questions?

Maybe alternate analogies are more useful. Progress may be in their mind too. But are we really moving in a new direction? Are we really using any new means? Only more questions are arising to confront, confound or run with.