Course Filter!

[Or finer filter file]
A funny thing happened on the way to this breakdown.

I was going to adjust my processing or filing routine and here is where I will leave it for now. TWO LINKS OR NOT TO READ! (in fits and starts is how this should read maybe, but my concern was that "OH NO!" what is this email from some organization.

Well here goes the rest of the course.
[Two links from that email.]
http://www.americansforhealthcare.org/
http://www.americansforhealthcare.com/bhctprinciples.cfm

As I began this filter I was barely into the filtering myself but after putting it down or rather cut and pasting and transferring to a file I read the second and found out the who. It does not matter, or does it?

The principles are the start. And just because some are seemingly on the "other side", that does not mean that all and more do not need to participate. So if you are a Union Hater or a Wal-Mart Hater, drop the hate and lift your mind to the possibility, but you must be a part before you can turn down the filter.

Maybe in conclusion for now...
A dialogue broke out
While I was just on the way to file it.

Funneling Crisis?

William Safire’s “political analysis” or channeling of Richard Nixon from purgatory is scary. It is refreshing he (Nixon) refers to “electablity” as an issue emanating from the “jackasses yakkin’ it up on cable”. Electability is no more a real issue than the “gravitas” he supplants it with.

Given the influence of the media and polls, the impact of Dean’s scream was more a funnel on these secondary issues than an issue or filtered perspective. The record low number of Bush press conferences should be more an issue. It may be an accurate charge that the media is a subjective filter but that is as elusive as intelligence analysis or polling.

Hopefully the electorate, the people, can be their own filter and resist the final charge, when Safire again draws his channeled Nixon back to the question of issues in the campaign and we get the disturbing Quemoy-Matsu syndrome or “October surprise”. The conclusion that “most crises help incumbents” must be turned around given the track record of this administration. From their ample experience at failures they should be making some progress in avoiding them in the first place.

The ability to handle surprises may be a valid tool for analysis of an administration or candidate. But the incumbent should get no more credit for the opportunity to face a crisis than blame for having it to face. The occurrence or lack of a late crisis should not be another filter clouding issues or the clogging the filter of the electorate.

Muffin-Gate

[MIFF IN GATE?]

Fire the Filter.
Heads should roll over 2 cents.

Bill O'Reilly: "so we should shoot them".
[Caution: This is not True Ledership, but spelling intended.]

True ledership, would put the fired up rhetoric as the headline. Nor is it true journalism, except for the 2 cents.

Speaking of firing the filter, google might be the problem. Of course it is "hard work" getting words just right, and here is another exception to the rule, or what I was so fired up about. FOX10TV.com actually had an update that did headline the correction.

[I won't call it inconvenient or truth, but the so-called journalistic links are in bold, while the roll and the filter are ingredients of more than just rhetoric. Speaking of brown-and-serve or oven or shovel ready.]

[UPDATE: 10-12-11 The bored game.]

Much ado about democracy.

President Bush claimed that the media was just a filter and I cannot agree [with] him more, especially when it comes to events just now coming to light. Sometimes I think that the filter is all in my head, but it is better than the president thinking the law is all in his hands. A careful look at his words and we see that at times there may be a calculated absence* of a lie as well as a careful navigation around the truth.

Much ado about nothing? It is only about the rule of law, the concept of checks and balances, the conspiracy of the messenger, the cherry-picking of intelligence and the preemptive war on democracy.

[* comment inserted after footnote]
I cannot help but feel that there should be a bigger distinction between leaking intelligence and declassifying them, and I have long asked, not what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he decide what he did not want us to know? This leaves aside the issue of other lies, and whether outing an intelligence source was part of the authorization, whether anything was documented as authorized, and whether Republicans and some Democrats have the stomach for a government of laws with checks and balances. It also leaves aside a lot that he was up front about and the poor filters we have.

"There is an institutional interest and ultimately a public interest in having these decisions documented," said Ronald D. Lee, a Washington lawyer and former general counsel to the super-secret National Security Agency. "You can't have a government where everything is sort of done in people's heads."

* I hope to run across the specific words again, that were not a lie, but it was only because leaks were legal in his mind that he could be weaving what seems the truth. And I must add that I came across the quote above after making my comments, but having noted that the first link was very uncritical and hence must be what Bush called an "objective filter" or a co-conspirator in preempting intelligence or stalling the messenger of preemption.

QCON: In this case Quick CONcept!

TALKING POINTS:*

OURS: Things we should talk about.

THEIRS: Things they want us to to talk about, so we don't have to talk about what we should talk about. Their best talking point: There are no talking points and they better not get out.

Another name for talking points?
Bu-- Sh--, either way you abbreviate it.

What we need is a B.S. filter, a gold standard filter for news.

Could it be Air America Radio?
Could I nominate Jon Stewart as chief or first anchor for a Real News Network?

Media Matters is certainly working in that direction as well as the Center for American Progress and TruthOut.org
Even post-Bush we will have more Bu--sh-- to deal with.

Maybe we can use more than one filter, maybe we just need a reality bug, as in a Reality Certified Logo. Heck, could we settle for "Fair and Balanced Certified", so that we can really decide?

*I provided the Talking Points link above as I am sure they are doing part of the job I describe, but I do my own filtering of filters and this distinction/denial is not just a DeLay tactic or "talking point" or Rather pun.

[link to the future: label and link added 8-17-07 GoLeft TV ]

Borrowed Comment!

* * *
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *

* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *


Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.

On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?

Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.

Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.

* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.

Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!

[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]

Hitting Snooze Button

Meme or and um.

Just a little stepping back on the previous post of mine. First: it is always in the words that you find what you Google. Second: then they must still be filtered.

[ 8-20-07 * * * SEE PREVIOUS WARNING: CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * * Wake Up America * * * ] caught my interest, and hit some spots that were familiar and where I often go.

The particular page on Rove and Hillary along with the new filter as I note above, Meme or and um , spells it all out. But I still have a ways to go, and it is not that clear where it is coming from. All I can say is that it is a filter. What it fertilizes is still up to the "hard work" of the people. Which is something I need to get back to... later.

[Heck: Oh and I did not even read the reference to language [8-20-07 * * * CLICK AT OWN RISK (in comments to Wake Up America) * * * ]
and ended mine on vocabulary,
but "there I go again". [[11:08 AM Re: Bill Clinton as a cuss word versus Cheney a pardon for such, is just a hint at a difference in perspectives, which I had missed earlier. "Pardon my Cheney" as in "Pardon my French."]]
Here I will preemptively hit the nail on the head.
Mother Jones, you see hints at the point in the title. Alleged White House-Petraeus Arm Wrestling Over September Report a Ruse? At least that is my point. And TYT. From other source or my general filtering, Patraeus is dancing around "the turd blossoms" of information and politics. Now I will read the report.-
Now that I have, it comports with my opinion and the facts. One thing that must be remembered, there is no obligation to tell the truth to anyone in the media. Even the media has the right to lie. And apparently in this case there may be two stories ** both in public and behind closed doors. And this goes directly back to troop involvement with the facts and whether their opinions matter, whether they are in or out of the military.]

[10:37 AM - My initial impression needs to be filtered, as now I see that Wake Up America has a perspective that still needs more sorting...]

** This is already being denied.

Filter of Sorts

Consortium News
Thanks to Peter Werbe
Thanks to Nova M radio

My earlier filtering: A control F for filter.

To Filter

No Comment or Preemptive Filtering:
(Akin 2 to read)[**]
OK, I will have something.
What did we know and when didn't they know it?

Punchline: You have to break* eggs to fix with sausage.

*not a metaphor for violence or anti-vegan

Note: 3 thru 7 links embedded after-lede threaded.
Frederick Douglass: New Tea Party hero?!                           
America’s imperial decline: Must Dick Cheney always be president?
If They Can Lie About NSA/Snowden, They Can Lie About Syria and Iran
Can the G-20 Rebalance the Global Economy?
A Popular Movement For Higher Taxes? Now That Would Be a Story.

[** 7-8-13 Update: Lede font and bold added with line rearrangement.  Having now read links 3 thru 5 no further comment at this time.  Related To Filter(s), Econ 101 is killing America .]

MEDIA FILTER

Media Matters
Free Press
- Stop Big Media

GoLeft.TV
AM 1090 Seattle [LOCAL}
Air America Radio
Ring of Fire
Consortium News

(to be expanded)

GRIST: Environmental news and humor
Blue Washington TV *
Kucinich TV

OTHERS
The Raw Story
DalyKOS
HuffingtonPost

* This may be an example of a gimmick, hijacking the terms Blue and Washington, which is not exclusively Left or State issues, but with names like Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose, they are not exactly what is called and know as "main stream media" by the media, but may be more main stream politics.

[[A SORTING OF EARLIER FILTERING]]
Network Comedy Beats The News
Gold Standard for News
Under Ed
Switching/Fixing Networks
NewsForTheLeft - Consortium News and more
Can anyone believe this?
Bush Retreat / Fox Attack
GoLeft.TV and more
Recess War!

[UPDATE: 11-21-07 THE LEAK Center for Media and Democracy
Source Watch
My Leaks
My Earliest.]

[11-27-07: Watching the Watchers: "the media's job is to act as a B_S_ filter."

"Vanity Fair" on "the so-called liberal media" ]

[4-9-08: Labels added -GAME,GoLeftTV - see links Watching the Watchers.]

Taking a powder?

Talk about make-up.
What powder is dry for.

The Party is over! [Tentative Plan!]

I must admit as far as timeouts go, I don't necessarily take time to read some of the stuff that others filter. But I do at least get them somewhat filtered* by others and/or read parts of them. Of course with McCain he needs some kind of other filter it seems. I, it seems, have had enough. But I am going by the gist of the sentiment that the party is over for the administration when it comes to lack of oversight.

* in this case I wonder what the definition of suspend is as well as talking points let alone Express leaks.

Above, Below and Betwix the Filter

Good News!
Warning: slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Iraq and Iran
Rice on Iraq:

"worth the investment"

Rice on N. Korea:

"They’re signed on to denuclearization," in an agreement last year that was never implemented. "We’ll see whether or not they follow through," Rice said.

Rice on Iran:

She said she is confident all U.N. members will enforce the sanctions once passed, no matter how they voted.

I filtered the grains of Rice that reflected some hope or catch. On Iraq it is just the choice of the word "investment", not what they actually invest. On North Korea it is "whether or not they follow through", and on Iran it hinges on "sanctions once passed".

North Korea

Here the grain is at the bottom of the filter:

American and North Korean experts had separate talks on the financial issue this week in Beijing, but made no breakthroughs and were tentatively set to meet in the United States next month.

Here is the best news for Bush yet.

Seriously.

Bureaucracy did it.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently claimed that he never told the president to attack Iraq, but that the president knew his feelings on the matter or some such. Just what is the difference, if I have that clear? Whatever the president knew or understood, is the matter. And the chain of command is still in question for the Commander-in-Chief. The president who ran as a Commander-in-Chief now leaves it in the hands of the military to decide on the strategy in Iraq? It is bad enough that handling hurricane Katrina was complicated by a new layer of bureaucracy, FEMA under Homeland Security, but Rumsfeld had his own additional Office of Special Plans, which was another layer of the object filter which Bush prefers over the so-called filter of the media, not to mention intelligence.

If this is viewed as only the game of politics and that the timing is questionable, this piece shows who as fought and who has delayed, and that there should be no shame in taking advantage of the timing, as earlier would have been better. Like before the 2004 elections. The time is now and until the 2006 election when the only solution is replacement of the whole "bigger government" that has distanced our leader from realities on several levels.

Often it is hard not to stoop to childish refrains that siblings banter such as "you started it", but heck if that is not their policy of pre-emption that they be the ones to actually start things, if anybody is, not to mention will. Timing is also a thing they ignore not just preemptively but when they quote Democrats who said things, the difference is that they were in the past and then actually did thing or didn't and things changed, usually for the better, despite the resistance from the those who then resisted involvement in the world or being a force for good or democracy.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Another Filter:

Informed Talking Points from Mainstream Media
 
Thanks to www.michaelmoore.com see LINK, www.notbush.com
 
WOW!  Not only is the media catching up, but this site now has active link inserts and color. 
  
MY FILTER: 
The long:  Tomgram: Thomas Frank on the failure of liberalism
 http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=1551 
The short:   Re-slicing The Pie  
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reslicing_the_pie.php
The ditto:  A Pause For Hindsight
 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html
See archive: September 19th 2002 for my original comments.

Incompetent Boobs Exposed (02-02-04)

Is it any wonder the media focused on the Dean scream more than answers to real questions? And what about the claim the market place should operate as Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations, an "invisible hand"?

Free speech is out the window if not only buying airtime is required, but now even prohibited as CBS refused moveon.org’s "Child’s Pay" Super Bowl ad, exposing the national debt being passed on to our children. It would be one thing if consistently done, but this calls into question CBS’s professional credibility, not to mention right to airwaves.

Now with the investigation by the FCC into the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake promotional stunt, what does this say, about the market place being the place to determine what is free not to mention visible?

On the other slightly more visible hand, maybe CBS deserves kudos for one, getting more free coverage for the ad on other networks with their rejection of the ad based on their refusal to do advocacy ads. And for two, being so incompetent in their screening of their entertainment and more than suggestive ad campaigns which exposed the hypocrisy of trying to filter or not advocate for causes.

With the uncertainty of what was intended and what was presented the viewers, the voter should keep in mind that they are the important filter that sorts the questions of elect-ability. Is it too much to ask that "wardrobe malfunction" be connected with the "emperor’s new clothes" or budget and intelligence failures?

FIXING NEWS!!!!

as opposed to BREAKING NEWS!!!!
and counter to "Fair and Balanced"
and replacing [*] the MSM
(Main Stream Media)
the AKA or so-called "liberal media"

A project worth what?
The Air We Breathe?

Earlier projections: Media Filter
Congratulations KPTK! WE GOT ED!

[*] minutemanmedia.org

New Hampshire Defeat?

Or Win for progressives?[or change *]
This is my flash analysis prefaced by the note that I have only had a quick glance to go on. I have not even opened the link but looking at only the top three in each race. Literally:
Results at a glance The Seattle Times
Hillary Clinton (D)39%
Barack Obama (D)36%
John Edwards (D)17%
96% reporting

John McCain (R)37%
Mitt Romney (R)32%
Mike Huckabee (R)11%
96% reporting

My point is that without getting into the technicality that New Hampshire is a primary compared to the Iowa caucuses and the game metaphor that this is like a World Series, not like the NFL championships where they play "loser out"; for a second there I thought I almost lost it in paraphrasing, in that neither of these cases are one on one, (dot, dot, dot... pause) anyway -- the point: I guess I got to the point in my second line, and you can do the math.

And if you can't I will be glad to continue in that, I am presuming that it is not winner take all in New Hampshire and that Obama and Edwards voters add up to 53% of the assigned delegates. If I am wrong, well you know what they say about what happens if you presume. Just like assume, you make a pres out of u and me. OK that goes over better on the screen than it does aloud, but you get the gist. Or Rather, we get to be the butt of the joke.

[Updated References:
a.) the data which I removed from an OpEdNews posting was in the teaser portion of the Seattle Times which I did not grab a hotlink from, because I felt it would continue to be updated.
b.) the following morning I did open the link I provided and found the entire results and followed up on my punditry but doing a Google on [New Hampshire delegates determined] and found
The New York Times Election Guide "Delegates determined after all votes are in."
c.) my intention for those that need hints, was to make a pun on the process not the candidates or the parties, given that it is more of a horse race. *
d.) not that metaphors or data are copyrighted, but I did want a shot at following OpEdNews.com
guidelines, so dropping the actual data and links was convenient. Although the bottom link is now added, but as yet unread.
e.)finally The Stephanie Miller Show played Barack using a basketball metaphor but I do not know if an earlier article had made it to my filter or head space, I do recall using "post-up" in my stand-up work...out. ]

[ * 1-10-08: two changes - - "progressives" to "change" meaning Obama appears to be progressive, but Edwards seems to be the leader in that area and "horse race" to NASCAR "Title Chase Challenge" as it has more contests than the Triple Crown.]

South Carolina Debate Winner!

The Tie goes to Edwards.
Actually it was not a tie,
but I thought I might tie them together.

Yeah! That's what I meant.
Clinton-Obama barbs dominate debate
Early on, but Edwards closed in.
The exchange between Clinton and Obama seemed to go to Obama depending upon whether one can follow the flip-flop and nuance. Clinton attacked Obama for some "present" votes in the state legislature, although they were about 100 out of 4000, and he explained them as technical tactics that seem valid. Edwards brought up the issue again in a fairer way, and it all depends on whether he was giving him a second shot or another shot at explaining, and Obama did. So it depends on who was listening and who was following, but Edwards was not about the barbs, but hopefully tried to sort them a bit. So in my view he deflected them to Clinton, in a way that hopefully enough people caught, while using the issues well.

It is not necessarily that Clinton is a flip-flopper, but that she tries to paint Obama as one, and misses the nuance, either by choice or by filter. (Not only that but she has her own nuance to explain). She could also have a little more patience, in not trying to reply when it is being explained to her.

Parsing Systems

P.S.  Are we Charlie?  Or why aren't we French? 
It is a shame that fame comes under such horrible circumstances.

Not to bury the lede in nuance or labels, but I intend to more heavily edit** insertion of links for the time being.  Unfortunately I may have now buried more nonsense*.  I am not Forbes, The Atlantic or Slate.  Not that I have placed then in any order of sense.  My point was to review any prior use elsewhere that I have yet to place in context~. 

*not that I have parsed the nonsense, be it the Daily Caller, the New York Times, David Brooks or any of their words.

** carefully filter

*~* I am not a Paper Bird! 
Je ne pax The String! 
Nor Car Tunist. 
R we all sat-irists?

RFD? ?[?]  Not to withdraw weapons.



1-13-15 The vig ? ** not fully read IRONY!

I am not Forbes ~!~  Context:  This is a difficult read.  Is it really necessary to disseminate examples to determine that the killings are not justified? Maybe we are more French than we might like[!]  Further context:  Images and cartoons in reaction to the massacre are not comparable to the images or cartoons that Charlie Hebdo publishes.  Not that I have avoided either, I just wished to review my m-beds.  i.e. links I have yet to parse or deconstruct
 
(Now, Romney? The Reid Report, pre-The Cycle. Un-parsed: -)

Future Bubble?

The gist is a pun on Future Shock.  I was going to use Future Cushion, but here are three segments that seem to run with that theme. 

A Conversation With Al Gore

The Interfaith Amigos On Death And Afterlife *

Michelle Rhee: A "Radical" On Education Reform

*I have only caught portions of the other two.
**(Ctrl F "rubric")
*** anachronistic ironic insert

(The theme? See labels.)***
[Missing Tangent.]
[Ironic Gotcha Journalism. Point Counter-Point(?)**]
[3rd asterisk from the bubble?  Three links for which I wish I could track my original train of search, ergo? ergone? KNOT!]
[2-24-13 Rhee Test of Filter?]