A Shot in the Arm?

A collegue recently commented on the difficulty or the desire to be objective.  This nails perspectivism on the head, or is it the cross?  From neo-perspectivism through neo-nuanced and neo-platonic we do have a dynamic*** of global balance.  More sorting later*.    Thus spoke Niche?

* 1-9-12  correction (not two Chinas: two perspectives.)
BTW:  Thus spoke Adam Smith.
D'Ribble[!] Which came first the crossroad or the chicken?**
Henwood/More?  More's the Pity?

[On the other arm, a nemesis may have stubbed a tow(sic) on the plank the nail sticks out of.]

[Speaking of Ice, Thom Hartmann is in Iceland and provides some of the neo-perspectivism.]

** 1-10-12 link added (plural)
*** also maybe plural(see Hartmann/neo-relativism?) dynamics?
[edit notes: Ctrl F "the cart"]
[Also Ctrl F "Descartes" and the four horsemen?]

[Note: I have been lax in my boldness of links as an aid to navigation or sense of the thread.  In that regard I finally bolded two.< now 3(!) >  Also my asterisks and [brackets] are time relative or sensitive. i.e. to flow of the read. Now I will also note the relative flow of neo-platonic, neo-perspectivism, neo-liberal, neo-con, neo-nuanced and neo-relativism, not to end with six, name names or Ctrl F.  BTW:  Excuse me if I don't go to the trouble of flip-flopping the tetrahedron, that is the point.(Ctrl F "the people" and "the constitution".)]
[Speaking of a4 or timing, my 4a brought me another F, if not CF.(Note grammar, numbers, shapes, timing, etc.) F is TBA. Not to mention ? Nor Kidding. In closing (?)(!) Or too close to the 4close or Bane?]
[Third Bane's a charm? i.e. convention, congress, cain ? ]
[Speaking of Bane and Try Angles or Flip Romney and flopping it.
BTW: Under the Flip link there is an accounting or statistical trick that is not unknown to the debate.  I won't play upon it, but it involves the "average tax cut" versus "the middle-income American."  It is mathematical hyperbole as well as reasonable, where reality is even more confusing.  It is more accurate to say that the richest are paying a lesser per cent of their gross (actual tax rate) than any other income category after the  standard deductions and other taxes are accounted for.]

> previous post <

What the Beck?

[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.

My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.

I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.

Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.

[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]

* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]

[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]

[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]


** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus

Loose Lips and Sinking Metaphors

Footnotes PAGE Under Construction:

1-25-12

From loose lips to sinking ships. The Last Word hits the nail on the arc. Actually that is not the nail, but lip schtick, was on the horizon. It regards the history of the Republican Taxpolicy visa-vi debt policy. Not to mention Paw-lenty of Pie and Metaphor On.

1-26-12 [spin off of above...]

On the horizon, from G.H.W. Bush's "read my lips" to Bruce Bartlett's point: "1990 is the last time you had a leading Republican figure or President who cared about the deficit..." It is ironic he points out that the US is under the lowest tax burden in history compared to GDP.

More on Pit Bullies, in con text. Not that the gap in context is part of the con text, but the in con text(links) provide tripartite context**. In less embedded prose, bully for the Clemons piece, the Austrian pitting of Obama/Brewer, in relation to the Bush years, Iran con, and economics texting. While the final con text is the Standard and Pours[!] of the Neo-perspectivism on flip-flop and nuance. One try angle, another try angle. Not to call an odd man out, nor 4wo***man, but under the con I(above)ran a Just Foreign Policy sample, that takes a look at the dynamics of diplomacy. *

* not to be fair and balanced, nor brush off or in women,

the last three links reference; Hillary Clinton, Joan Walsh and Susan Rice.

** there by allowing 3 links to follow the pit bullies dynamics (2+3=5)

*** not to con grew an arc

(I plead the 5th in regard to irony[!])

[1-27-12: Related irony or booked signing?]

< previous post >

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.

Bush has done more for credibility and privatization than any president has ever… with irony.

For some reason the abuse that is so “abhorrent” to Bush and the administration is not a shock to me. I was wondering why, though I like many have not seen it all yet. For the reason one may see Molly Ivins, “Putting the ‘con’ in neo-Con” which I have not read more than a few paragraph of, but it hit a spot that had crossed my mind and the title may be sufficient. Though not in my immediate experience, there have been reports of abuses and tragedies that have occurred on or just off college campuses as well as similar abuse that occurs in the military and for some reason have even been institutionalized and rationalized to some degree. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001924049&zsection_id=268883724&slug=ivins10&date=20040510

More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.

It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."

Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.

Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.

Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.

Neo-changian?

Naturally Evolving Order !

2-24-15 BIN~GO[!]
A fifth dimention or shun*. See (e,r,s)

C-BIN: Neo-con Pope?  Saint maybe, you can't have a dead Pope, but it would be more convenient.
Not to mention RE:cc(card carrying; Nietzsche?)  Methane?(~)

(~) wordplay @"BIN" especially :50 mark.  Eggs in one hen?

FP here{in one}.
(egg,road, sky: a. FP4 SEPT 2014 , b. Work in Progress , c. Egg/Road/Sky* , d. Speculative Physics )
Self- anomaly
St. Maybe[!]  Rooting^ for Strauss[?]

^Pla(N)tonic(~)
*  Forward (Ironically) (S~hun~T[!])
??? 

Culture War

(Humorous side swipes.)

Bush is a character with probably a spit personality or other problem. But unfortunately the two characters are fictional. Captain Picard and Larry the cable guy. He flip flops from "Make it so" to "Get 'er done".

Of this Neo-Con administration they are certainly no borg.*

Note: Hit and Run (Label) is similar to QCON label meaning Quick Comment On the News.

Comment Two: On potential Newt Gingrich candidacy and comment by Randi Rhodes about him not getting the support of Neo-Cons or the Bush backers... He is the natural heir to the policy of Hit and Run, his comments are carefully crafted to seem to be critical yet stay the course of the War of Terror.

* [5-23-07]Just like Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy... but borg is a Startrek reference to a Being Organized or Best Organization at least in my understanding if not in the creators intentions. Now Q was another being.

Neo-Perspectivism

It is hard to say which niche this arises from.**
Neo-Nuanced is one trigger.***
Even if retro actively.
No silver bullet.
(Or Lone Ranger)
(I, II, III, IV, Not nor note.)
(Far From It)

Less embedded:
It is not just to Pop Culture but social engineering.
If that is an aphorism, you have one hint.(ouch)
But Freud and Hitler were both Austrian,
but the latter-day Austrians are economic transcendentalists.*
(Emerson, Niche& Rand?)
Some credit may be due to "Plato Not Prozac."

[Just in.]

***

Notes to Asterisk Readers:
It may help the flow if one reads the asterisks in order and after a full read of this piece, but scrolling over links as one goes will be useful.
* no Emerson
** last link inserted: Maybe way too much of a D'Ribble or G'Ribble?
[Apologies for Neo-Euphemism.]

[Breaking News:  Herman Cain will give an "unconventional Endorsement just prior to the South Carolina Primary. (Ctrl F "best" under vent) I hope it is not another one of his tours or projects, but if it is not a third party run or candidate it might be someone from out of the blue if not a write-in.  Huntsman or Bachmann also come to mind.]

***  The irony of taxes, GDP and debt. Is it in the charts?

> Previous Post <

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.

Change in the Age of Schism[!]

Not to be disarming, but I did not want to use "insurgency", because it would relate to belligerency, as I had begun to wiki.  The field which I do not wish to alarm[!](pun on arm /disarm) is international relations in the age of transparency.  (to be continued**) relative to scholasticism nor go mid-evil.  Would that be olastic***?  Think Snowden/Soros v. not* exactly^^ neo-con.


[Links (asterisks) bold added 2-11-14]
*I don't think this was on my radar (25:00)
(31: 32:00 "crisis of authority" Howard Dean folks, 37:00 cure "municipal libertarianism" "conventional Rawlsian liberalism"? 38:00 )

** I've lost the inspiration^ for this
^ a few links that triggered the concept
^^ sort of the ticket

The sequence of inserts
not*, Twilight of the Elites
nor Philosophy 101 
that General Theory of Reflexivity

... A.Primary Boogeyman, B., C.AM Calm PACtification,

***last inserts (~48:~55? Left Burkian? )

Kant we get along...

...without going thru Hegel?
Or Knot without Hume or Mill?
Or put Decartes Be4 De-Horsemen.

Knot 2B a needle in a Hayes tack. 

2-3-14  update label Neo-con, Wolfowitz

Politics is local?

Ground Game ? *

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

http://open.salon.com/blog/ted_frier/2012/09/12/losing_gop_in_denial_over_own_failures
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/mitt%E2%80%99s_shameful_libya_statement/
http://theweek.com/article/index/233148/the-death-of-an-american-in-libya

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-embassy-statement-a-tweet-and-a-major-misunderstanding/2012/09/12/a2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/cairo_embassys_statement_what_went_wrong/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press-meet_the_press/vp/48959856/#48959768 ***

Not the usual MO.** 

[ http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/13/house-race-koster-opts-for-the-full-romney/ ]

*Scroll over is sufficient until [fn] and post /under-construction(also redux labels) R done.
** "well" not exactly [!]

*** dropped link [!]

[Unfinished read, refinished read.(perspectivism) Politics over war.  Obama has made progress in foreign policy, but Republicans want to take it back.  The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Iran(an evolution) are the examples of diplomacy(d) over preemption.  It all sprung from the 2000 election debacle, resistance to Clinton policy and the failure on September 11th with the supposed post-9-11 world.  But it is spelled out in the perspective that we cannot expect to teach democracy or politics over there, without practicing it over here(^).  I will refrain from further tangents or links on this post, but I will note that the two reads just mentioned also reflect a bit of a balancing act that is not nearly as cut and dry as it might be written.  One of the key differences in the big picture that makes the previous administration a stand out failure in American History is the combination of the voodoo(b) economics(arithmatic/fuzzy math+fuzzy English) with the neo-con perspective of American Exceptionalism (which is not) exemplified by choosing a war without paying for it.  The success that is so difficult is because politics is local except for them^(f).  This is demonstrated by the current Radical Republican opposition(c) to the Arab Spring,^^^ which removed dictators and is allowing(a) for democracy that might not turn out to be to our liking.  Bush said war is hard work, but just because you want to fight, does not mean that progress and peace(with diplomacy and politics) are not harder work, and more profitable.  That is part of true exceptionalism.

^refrain from a bumber snicker]

9-15-12
(a) FOX wrong about Libya says McCain.
(b) Foreign policy is Bane of Politics: bankruptcy bailout business not an option in either.
(c)  Loose lips? Republican Threat to National Security
(d) not! but whiney!

(^) ibid re^frain [see (d)]

9-17-12 (e) not embedded  i.e. that's right, there is no (e)
Seriously [!] folks ?
[^^ Apologies for sarcasm, but there is a diversity of reliability in the perspectives/sources provided.]
[NOW^^^ w/Alex Wagner w/Martin Basher on America Abroad.^^ But natural track of changing the strategy for Romney of change or status quo. i.e. hijacking change and boogieman status quo. Cam-Pain not working, Obama not running.]
[There is an (f) ]
^^ viscous cycle of anachronism
^^^ then Martin Bashir (NeoMitt)(Mittastrophe of asterisked?)

Brief Analysis and Whose Is Full of It.

"Neocon Job"
By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC Countdown
Marionette, moron or mud in the hole. What a pile.
And who gets it in the shorts.
Speaking of the "snake oil salesman" and Olbermann was, I literally had to go out and rent a "snake" for my other responsibilities(definition 3) . So the metaphors fly and let us wish it were only mud down the drain.
Oh, and I recently bought a few strainers, go filter.

[12-16-07: See commentS (2) believed link related to original Neo-Con report from Olbermann. At present.]

Divide to conquer?

Or back fire*?

This is a geometrical analysis of the partisan nature of politics.  We are familiar with the terms Fiscal and Social Conservative. But then there is the un-like Ike wing** and the Atlas Shrugged foundation or ^ fountain.  Here I may have already divided, to fight on.  I will try to keep the links and notations down. 

From what was earlier work on The Third Way, akin to the moving the center off the absolute, the moderate left seems to be moving the country.(See 1st link).  But is more than about geometrics of the left and the right and there being a middle.  If conservatives have branches(BTW the gov meant has three^^^); the FC and the SC (owe the irony oar^^), is there a third or more? 

A "friend" is counting on either a Tea Party, Conservative or Republican landslide this year.  But I am concerned with how branches work and how if there were already two, how Godwin[!] might play[?] Which is a sarcasm[!]slash[?]tangent on the hazzards of branching.

* not to target
** un-like Ike (USC)
Tin Foil Herman
R.S.V.P.
Mmmm MOW, MOW

^ oar shrug heads?(sc)
^^ paddle Fiscal Cliff and (YOU)Scroll Click or NEO-CONservative bent

[!] punctuation mark for irony/sarcasm/rhetorical***

*** anachronistic inserts [Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it.]
^^^ 3-body fig Newtons.or Phig Physics

BTW: USC is one of my alma maters.  UW the other.  But here I play on the initialism of "You Scroll Click" and Al Gore Rhythms and anomalies of the (b.s.) blog search[!]   

Final Note: Under wiki of Divide And Conquer ? [!] (or pyth helmet ?)

Go Hawks !

Dateline: August 10th, 2005

[you will just have to trust, that is the date I saved these words]

Evolution v. Quantum Philosophy: FLIP/FLOP
[Black and white or ones and zeros.]
Connections...
Changes...
Absolutes...

They have flipped and guarantee flop. Based on the concept that there may be two types of thinkers: those that deal with reality and those that think it is chosen.

The Will to Power? The power of Will? Intentions play a big role in relationships and this breaks down into the two realms of Science and Religion. Will is recognized in ourselves and the supernatural. Is there really a difference? A relatively easier question is how we relate to others, and well as the world. Maybe a better model would have it as the material and the spiritual worlds. Two realities that are hard to deny but are realms that are separate yet maybe connected. Religions are not the master of the spiritual world any more than money is the master of the material. But there is no denying that intentions play a role in manifesting some reality.

The principle that there are absolutes, and that there should not be flip flop or understanding of others to better relate in this world is the main problem with the Neo-Con or Non-Thinking administration. Bush is reported to place intuition above intellect. Others report that his intuition is flawless. That is easy when one’s intellect does not recognize flaws and hypocrisy is the height of reality in that one can choose between schools of thought that often preempt facts, not to mention cause and effect.

8-10-05
Roger Larson

[Again, trust the date, but the subject I had in mind, may be more obtuse.]

Intelligence For Commission

…on the topic of not reading something fully before speaking up, I've done it again. Actually the following 9/11 Commission Chimera is right on that topic, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/911_commission_chimera.php

(I can start something, not know where I am going and get there, something like osmosis.)

Well the above site endorses my writings on this site in a backhanded way, when it touched on the references and sources of the 9-11 commission and what comes out of it.

See my July 22nd post UNITY IN PRINCIPLE below.

This is just the perspective from an amateur that experts seem to agree with. The point being there were no intelligence experts on the 9-11 commission and former CIA Director Admiral Turner (not on the commission, but an expert) points out that intelligence authority existed, which former Sen.Slade Gorton (on the commission) admitted with a wink, was not used. I do use similar sources (Turner and other posts) and could see what some wink at. That the president and the CIA Director had the authority to be in charge of intelligence.

My preemptive conclusion: who needs another level of intelligence when the one in there is deficient and tried to operate with a bonus level (see B-Team*) which still needs investigating. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073238

* A neo-con strategic group, not counting the Office of Strategic Intelligence (or Global Communications) which was quickly debunked and redistributed.

See my post A Plan to B-Team from Oct. 30th 2002 http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_political_progress_for_people_archive.html

FRANKNESS: SERVING US ALL? Right.

Contribution to a new level of discourse or d’Nile. (Sent to local paper, 6-29-04, Unedited, aside from the appropriate changes in connection with the additions in italics.)

Maureen Dowd sure hit the nail on the head in "Is Cheney losing it?" and I would like to tack on a few of my own. Aside from wondering if Cheney ever really had it, as the media should know he was not one for mincing words during the campaign. The candidate Bush even concurred with his ticket-mate’s aphorism for a member of the press. That is the irony that un-minced words should get out of this administration.

After all, the president did call for Hollywood to come up with some scenarios and solutions after 9-11. He just didn’t know, read or remember the works of the creative thinkers in his administration from the neo-con philosophers to the Secretary of Infotainment Rumsfeld who said "facts change". And for the obtuse I am not equating defense with entertainment, but only in regards to his dissemination of information duties. Then there are the history "rewriters" which they eschew but now employ memo rewriters before it is determined who read or followed them or how they fit in the chain of command. From the Cheney Energy Panel or rather the "X-Files" motto that "the truth is out there" to the "Twilight Zone’s" episode "To Serve Man", Cheney has now contributed to the language of unity, not to mention great debates.

And thanks to Maureen Dowd we should remember a useful "F" word (or few words)and when disturbed cry "FOX NEWS". Then we can finally let the French off the hook. Now those who are embarrassed after a personal faux pas or outburst can just say, "Pardon my Cheney". However, for those who are proud of their verbal and debating skills, it is just about time someone let the facts slip.

I don’t know if that means we found the leak in the ship of fools or the paddle that got us up the creek. But we can probably agree it is not all down hill from here. We just may not agree on the continual trickle or flood of denial.

[4-1-08: Is Cheney Losing It? link added ]

A"neo" Con: More Contra"Dictions".

The President confidently and impressively painted a black and white picture of the war on terrorism before the United Nation. He hinted at having more to talk about in this fight and for progress in other areas, but sovereignty in Iraq would be “neither hurried nor delayed” by “other” countries.

It would have been an unquestionably convincing presentation if not for the lack of clarity on either "black" or "white". Terrorism, WMD and human rights are very important issues, but much more discussion about what constitutes these areas is not likely to follow from the intransigence indicated by such unfounded and contradictory inflexibility.

The Good Fight!

Thom Hartmann continues on the economy . Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter has evolved to the point of doing no good. Man and his government, that is, in neo-con hands or that of the truly free and amoral corporation. Evolution seems to have been demonstrated here, as well as the problem of will. For if man* determines his purpose he halts progress, for the survival of the fittest stops working as well, and corporations reach the top of the food chain. Will being, the freedom to choose between good and evil, with corporations having no responsibility.

*Not to be sexist, but just the reference is to the reality. Also the point here is that some men decide and others just need to survive, and let alone their freedom to decide.

[italics bold 6-1-07 edited and noted in next post]
[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

Reading In Progress[***]

R.I.P.?

Bill Mauer and Sam Harris are the best case for religions.[***] 
Before I exscrabble[!] my case, I note three reference points.  First to Hegellian dialect(ic), second to democracy (Churchill)and the best, and third to Voltaire's gardening and the best.  Let alone the full crumb or hinge pin of tolerance. * (neo?)

[binary references]

[!] Witt gen stein  (and I hadn't even bit on the "binary" bit or subjective/objective "heritage".) Let alone hoist on his own cable. 

*seg way D-fact-oh? ex facto[!] (paragraph 10 militance?)
(p ll clash reaction) [p12 "willy nilly"]{p14 Jell-oh}
"stacks the deck" shelter
Fn1 (original inserts R.I.P. / neo)
Fn2 (shelter / oh)**
Fn3 (crumb / hinge)
** HeGel
Fn4 “Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes.”  George Carlin
FP? : A. Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality, B.(R) F'n P[!] , C. Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.
(R) adjustment>B
1.  Hegel, 2. Churchill, 3. Voltaire (i., ii.)
2b. C-p, 1. 2. 3. 4. What are the Frackin' Odds...
Steal [***] yourself 4 the binary.

 

 

 

 

[***] (10-9-14) NOTE: 3 placements of the triple asterisk:

Heading, Lede and Steal. (Could read *Steele*.)

 

I may nail Wittgenstein to the door Erasmus[!]  Dimentionalism and TryUnity.

Three amigoes and the sine of the cross?   Hume or Confucius? In the name of the age of consumerism to fed up.  The branches(*4) of his(s)tory[!]  Pythagorian, Platonic, Judeo, Christian, Papal, Islam... Every age has a pater and mater. We all need a John. 

 

ITALICS (here)mightB the Paul Harvey... /(Peter Rabbit)  Re:history WholeEness.

(p."Feel the Love"?   / Q   r. R not, R2, R not, R2, R2, R not. )