[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.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query head in the wrong. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query head in the wrong. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Monday, June 18, 2007
Notes from Al-Qaeda
"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.
[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.
He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.
Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.
The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.
Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.
FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
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.]
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.]
Saturday, September 01, 2012
FOOTNOTES: SEPTEMBER 2012
SEE: SEGUE OF INTENIONS...(below)
9-28-12 [un(fn) since 9-21]
Butt bottoms up!
but: Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?
to: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-are-they-calling-elitist.html*
not: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/06/cap-and-trade.html
one: (b.s.) trickle + down
do: (b.s.) voodoo + economics
538: (scroll
compare: over)*
what Think Progress 96%
math (trouble with the curve)
d (w'rithmatic)
(*) satire + mockery
(b.s.): pun + (sic)
(**) total eclipse of the
*under construction
9-21-12 REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!]
9-21-12 Ding, Ding, Ding (rough RE-draft)
[see Devo Mitt's BO*Son below]
9-21-12 Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!
[Pulled from Circulation(Reverted to Draft) for Re-frame]
It is a hecuva job to footnote this. The Dings are about the fight and the perspectives.
4 Now I will just begin UC(under construction)
! Punderous Ponderings
? The Choice (4mat anomoly? )
C not but Al Gore Rhythms (retro ^)
[talk about (fn) nightmare of GPS]
[retro ^ = anachronism/time wrap/warp?]
etc Theology
Re Trinity
Material Off-Cuff
edited Charlotte 2012! [^ C ?]
track (label charts[PAGES])
to (blog search E.B.)
The Hope
darn knit(C ? Rythms ^)
Why OWS is Bigger than Left Vs. Right!
Only Economists Need Apply
hard (b.s Charlotte's Web)
---
risked (INET)
un (obtusity)
prophetic (dimentionalism)
---
Oh Obama Revives Social Security Idea: Raise Payroll Tax Cap To Replenish Fund
Point Professor Warren's Lesson
3 (prophetic/refrain) (NOT)
Ding: A return to economic sanity.
--\-- 4UC (line #3)
[devo]: Mitt's BO*Son (i.e. flip-flop of
--/--
A A return to economic sanity ?[*]
B Self Bernanke Myth (Fed Speak)
C Deflation Jon Stewart (Satire nor Economics)
D (60 Minutes) context
Lede^^: Tacky, tact, tack
Crack: Economy or Economics
"I don't want to be subjective...(but)^^^
^^ 47% Myth
^^^ Fight of the Century (Good Wrap: Bad Econ)
[*] This footnote segues between Ding and A. leaving out the middle and emblematic of Mitt and his flip-flop of economics.(@A) It is Keynesian not Supply or Demand. The Fight of the Century(@but) is a mockery of a satire on economics and the Deflation of Bernanke by Jon Stewart(@C) is a satire of a mockery of economics. .
9-19-12 Re:Focus
TIME Romney Refocuses as Obama Decries ‘Victim’ Claim
NFRY=(not fully read yet)
Is Klein on anyones side?[!]
[!]= ;-) If you don't know, scroll(and go click)yourself!
Hint: Goat Mountain ?
9-18-12 ...promote the general...
9-18-12
MB: No Apologies Tour? [UNDER (DE?)CONSTRUCTION]
Correction Leding Entitlement Group?
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49065421 Ryan
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076540
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076662 full leder
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076662
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076663 the cycle
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076582
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49073645 the place
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49074910 Andrea http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49074064 NOW
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/middle-east-&-n.-africa/49075550/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/south-&-central-asia/49075904/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/decision-2012/49075790/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49077139/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49076662/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065518/#49065518
Hardball and math death.
Bottom line update top lines and MB.
and who home runs?
9-18-12 Trouble with the Curve?
...promote the general...
9-17-12 One Heckuva Day. The Dickens...(peace meal [!])
Obama the Uniter!
9-14-12 Politics is local?
sausage: Ground
Romney/Ryan/Rand: Game
beef : ? *
footnotes: Not
out foxed the
Seattle PI usual
global text MO.**
** "well"
not: Rhetorical Been Laden In-Chief?!
exactly: Fed/Bernanke/Seattle PI
9-13-12 Rhetorical Been Laden[*] In-Chief [asterisk added (9-14) for English emphasis]
This [fn] under-construction and challenging. [comment embedded here (see English emphasis) as well]
SEGUE OF INTENTIONS GOING FORWARD:
FOOTNOTES (see label) BY MONTH. (under construction)
SCROLLING DOWN DATE OF INSERT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED UNLESS THERE IS AN UPDATE TO NOTE.
9-13-12 Links [update change]
Having instituted new footnote process here.[*]dupe applicable
9-13-12 Refrain post frain?[*]
satire: Mitt + BO*son
mockery: Fall-Awful on Mitt's Face!
later: frain
4 huff posts
Dangerous Narratives
Whose Maker
Obama Role
The Bounce?
NFRY
* BaneOr
Out Foxed?
Rubric's Peek
"Feel the Love"?
Not to Follow-Up...
String Cheese Theory?
First Downgrade in US History!
Ideology
anachronism foray
Un-State of the Union
Conservative Foray (4A)
intended CAD
CAD (2 out of 3 be bad)
CAD (Culturally Aided Design)
CAD (To be or not 3d)
State of Politics
[Edits occurring post footnote @ some*** are not included in this footnote process as hinted at: *** exception to the rule(bottom line) [Footnotes** Change] appropriately
i.e. yet to footnote but what the google[anachronism unintended] or is it? ]
*** also not included here
[*]asterisks will appear bracketed by date, but unbracketed are from original post: * anachronism intended will appear in bold, followed by the contents of the b.s. [**]
[**] the exception to the rule [***]
[***] i.e. what the google you scroll over or click for link
ALSO post asterisk *** bracketeds not included here.
9-12-12 Fall-Awful on Mitt's Face!
Footnoes under construction...
September 11th
heading*[^^]
[latest]
9-11-12 Forward?
the only link to outside source: (9-12) Politics
9-7-12 Other Mysterious Ways...
Heavy (GWB) on Huffington Post and b.s. (vous due[sic])
[selected links are footnoted]
There (HP) Climate Change not a Hoax
is (HP) Artists Against Fracking (Ono/Lennon)
W*(b.s.) Google Works
rithmatic (TLR)Four More Years
and (ibid) Mitts BO*son
After Math. (HP) BP/Isaac .
Un-bolded Under-construction, peace meal [!].
9-7-12 Google Works...
9-5-12 Four More Years!
9-4-12 Charlotte 2012!
Out Foxed?
9-2-12 For Pete Sake!
9-28-12 [un(fn) since 9-21]
Butt bottoms up!
but: Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?
to: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-are-they-calling-elitist.html*
not: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2009/06/cap-and-trade.html
one: (b.s.) trickle + down
do: (b.s.) voodoo + economics
538: (scroll
compare: over)*
what Think Progress 96%
math (trouble with the curve)
d (w'rithmatic)
(*) satire + mockery
(b.s.): pun + (sic)
(**) total eclipse of the
*under construction
9-21-12 REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!]
9-21-12 Ding, Ding, Ding (rough RE-draft)
[see Devo Mitt's BO*Son below]
9-21-12 Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!
[Pulled from Circulation(Reverted to Draft) for Re-frame]
It is a hecuva job to footnote this. The Dings are about the fight and the perspectives.
4 Now I will just begin UC(under construction)
! Punderous Ponderings
? The Choice (4mat anomoly? )
C not but Al Gore Rhythms (retro ^)
[talk about (fn) nightmare of GPS]
[retro ^ = anachronism/time wrap/warp?]
etc Theology
Re Trinity
Material Off-Cuff
edited Charlotte 2012! [^ C ?]
track (label charts[PAGES])
to (blog search E.B.)
The Hope
darn knit(C ? Rythms ^)
Why OWS is Bigger than Left Vs. Right!
Only Economists Need Apply
hard (b.s Charlotte's Web)
---
risked (INET)
un (obtusity)
prophetic (dimentionalism)
---
Oh Obama Revives Social Security Idea: Raise Payroll Tax Cap To Replenish Fund
Point Professor Warren's Lesson
3 (prophetic/refrain) (NOT)
Ding: A return to economic sanity.
--\-- 4UC (line #3)
[devo]: Mitt's BO*Son (i.e. flip-flop of
--/--
A A return to economic sanity ?[*]
B Self Bernanke Myth (Fed Speak)
C Deflation Jon Stewart (Satire nor Economics)
D (60 Minutes) context
Lede^^: Tacky, tact, tack
Crack: Economy or Economics
"I don't want to be subjective...(but)^^^
^^ 47% Myth
^^^ Fight of the Century (Good Wrap: Bad Econ)
[*] This footnote segues between Ding and A. leaving out the middle and emblematic of Mitt and his flip-flop of economics.(@A) It is Keynesian not Supply or Demand. The Fight of the Century(@but) is a mockery of a satire on economics and the Deflation of Bernanke by Jon Stewart(@C) is a satire of a mockery of economics. .
9-19-12 Re:Focus
TIME Romney Refocuses as Obama Decries ‘Victim’ Claim
NFRY=(not fully read yet)
Is Klein on anyones side?[!]
[!]= ;-) If you don't know, scroll(and go click)yourself!
Hint: Goat Mountain ?
9-18-12 ...promote the general...
9-18-12
MB: No Apologies Tour? [UNDER (DE?)CONSTRUCTION]
Correction Leding Entitlement Group?
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49065421 Ryan
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076540
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076662 full leder
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076662
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076663 the cycle
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49076582
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49073645 the place
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49074910 Andrea http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065421/#49074064 NOW
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/middle-east-&-n.-africa/49075550/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/south-&-central-asia/49075904/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/decision-2012/49075790/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49077139/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49076662/
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/49065518/#49065518
Hardball and math death.
Bottom line update top lines and MB.
and who home runs?
9-18-12 Trouble with the Curve?
...promote the general...
9-17-12 One Heckuva Day. The Dickens...(peace meal [!])
Obama the Uniter!
9-14-12 Politics is local?
sausage: Ground
Romney/Ryan/Rand: Game
beef : ? *
footnotes: Not
out foxed the
Seattle PI usual
global text MO.**
** "well"
not: Rhetorical Been Laden In-Chief?!
exactly: Fed/Bernanke/Seattle PI
9-13-12 Rhetorical Been Laden[*] In-Chief [asterisk added (9-14) for English emphasis]
This [fn] under-construction and challenging. [comment embedded here (see English emphasis) as well]
SEGUE OF INTENTIONS GOING FORWARD:
FOOTNOTES (see label) BY MONTH. (under construction)
SCROLLING DOWN DATE OF INSERT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED UNLESS THERE IS AN UPDATE TO NOTE.
9-13-12 Links [update change]
Having instituted new footnote process here.[*]dupe applicable
9-13-12 Refrain post frain?[*]
satire: Mitt + BO*son
mockery: Fall-Awful on Mitt's Face!
later: frain
4 huff posts
Dangerous Narratives
Whose Maker
Obama Role
The Bounce?
NFRY
* BaneOr
Out Foxed?
Rubric's Peek
"Feel the Love"?
Not to Follow-Up...
String Cheese Theory?
First Downgrade in US History!
Ideology
anachronism foray
Un-State of the Union
Conservative Foray (4A)
intended CAD
CAD (2 out of 3 be bad)
CAD (Culturally Aided Design)
CAD (To be or not 3d)
State of Politics
[Edits occurring post footnote @ some*** are not included in this footnote process as hinted at: *** exception to the rule(bottom line) [Footnotes** Change] appropriately
i.e. yet to footnote but what the google[anachronism unintended] or is it? ]
*** also not included here
[*]asterisks will appear bracketed by date, but unbracketed are from original post: * anachronism intended will appear in bold, followed by the contents of the b.s. [**]
[**] the exception to the rule [***]
[***] i.e. what the google you scroll over or click for link
ALSO post asterisk *** bracketeds not included here.
9-12-12 Fall-Awful on Mitt's Face!
Footnoes under construction...
September 11th
heading*[^^]
[latest]
9-11-12 Forward?
the only link to outside source: (9-12) Politics
9-7-12 Other Mysterious Ways...
Heavy (GWB) on Huffington Post and b.s. (vous due[sic])
[selected links are footnoted]
There (HP) Climate Change not a Hoax
is (HP) Artists Against Fracking (Ono/Lennon)
W*(b.s.) Google Works
rithmatic (TLR)Four More Years
and (ibid) Mitts BO*son
After Math. (HP) BP/Isaac .
Un-bolded Under-construction, peace meal [!].
9-7-12 Google Works...
9-5-12 Four More Years!
9-4-12 Charlotte 2012!
Out Foxed?
9-2-12 For Pete Sake!
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Who Let the Dogs Out?
Original reaction: Not to Second Guess.
This idea coalesced from a Melissa Harris-Perry(*) panel and a Jared Bernstein reaction.
What irritated me was the piling on upon Mitt Romney. The second guessing was how Jared Bernstein discusses the context he was taken out of. As the panel on MH-P continued after her weigh-in on words via Barack Obama the segment on Word Police had nothing to do with my change, but everything to do with it; change and context and victim hoods. Not to mention "quote(s) from Nerdlandia" creeping into the X-change. (The hazzards of live blogging.***) I had no clue in the "footnote" controversy.** Am I falling for the spin, that Raw Money is a victim? Or do I forget my own theory of Share 'n Angle? Not too mention differences of intents[!]
* to be updated
** to be related later[!]
*** the alternative would be more awkward[!]
7-9-12 A Hunch Revisited as Obama prepares* to speak on extending part of Bush tax cuts.
[Segue/break: the "Dogs" above are "aTax dogs"; my subtle skirt of the issue.]
Regarding the president's speech, here are my rough notes: Jobs.. core mission... rebuilding economy...stalemate...choice two views. Top down- wrong...typical middle class tax cuts $3600... repeat $3600 Obama midle class tax cuts... for sake of misinformation. We tried, slowest job growth, falling income, rising deficits... we can't afford more. [me: we 1/2 tried more or other way]. People are with him, cut small business taxes 18 times, for 97% of them. We should agree to do what we agree on! [poor 1%, 2% 3%] One year extention for under $250K then we can debate the rest and act or wait till after the election. You are the ones driving the economy. Learn lessons of the past, build foundation for the future.
* speech here[Note that links for "A Hunch Revisited" were contemporary, not later insertions. Referencing democracy and choices of direction.]
[Andrea Mitchell follow-up here: "fiscal cliff"?** and tug of misinfo! Deficit distraction or key?]
[Bingo was his dog! NewsNation "big tent" not to mention simple math from idiots. I'm sorry, but math is where the numbers lie. It is math warfare. But I digress. Well,* not exactly ! ** And pardon my pun but Swiss Romney Knife?]
** bit of a cycle/anachronism here*** regarding insertion of links & today's asterisks.(I may not have the right fiscal cliff clip but neither does the math add up for AM or RNC. Re:Bingo and math of the dog carrier or station waggin')
*** (rather here **) HW B? (SK re/v SE: 5:25 HW Harvy Weinstein)
[OW to Act?]
[Bingo too point OH! (see poor 1%, 2%, 3%: LR RL)]
(Anachronistically where does MB fit in here ? i.e. I can' remember where Luke Russert was nailed down. But I think it was Martin Bashir who was asking about the 1, 2 or 3% and the previous sequence w/links does hit the nail on the understanding or aTAX jobs.)
[Hardball: David Corn to Smerconish "Sin of making sense". Then Bob's your uncle. It certainly rots at the head. MM Marshalling Message ?]
This idea coalesced from a Melissa Harris-Perry(*) panel and a Jared Bernstein reaction.
What irritated me was the piling on upon Mitt Romney. The second guessing was how Jared Bernstein discusses the context he was taken out of. As the panel on MH-P continued after her weigh-in on words via Barack Obama the segment on Word Police had nothing to do with my change, but everything to do with it; change and context and victim hoods. Not to mention "quote(s) from Nerdlandia" creeping into the X-change. (The hazzards of live blogging.***) I had no clue in the "footnote" controversy.** Am I falling for the spin, that Raw Money is a victim? Or do I forget my own theory of Share 'n Angle? Not too mention differences of intents[!]
* to be updated
** to be related later[!]
*** the alternative would be more awkward[!]
7-9-12 A Hunch Revisited as Obama prepares* to speak on extending part of Bush tax cuts.
[Segue/break: the "Dogs" above are "aTax dogs"; my subtle skirt of the issue.]
Regarding the president's speech, here are my rough notes: Jobs.. core mission... rebuilding economy...stalemate...choice two views. Top down- wrong...typical middle class tax cuts $3600... repeat $3600 Obama midle class tax cuts... for sake of misinformation. We tried, slowest job growth, falling income, rising deficits... we can't afford more. [me: we 1/2 tried more or other way]. People are with him, cut small business taxes 18 times, for 97% of them. We should agree to do what we agree on! [poor 1%, 2% 3%] One year extention for under $250K then we can debate the rest and act or wait till after the election. You are the ones driving the economy. Learn lessons of the past, build foundation for the future.
* speech here[Note that links for "A Hunch Revisited" were contemporary, not later insertions. Referencing democracy and choices of direction.]
[Andrea Mitchell follow-up here: "fiscal cliff"?** and tug of misinfo! Deficit distraction or key?]
[Bingo was his dog! NewsNation "big tent" not to mention simple math from idiots. I'm sorry, but math is where the numbers lie. It is math warfare. But I digress. Well,* not exactly ! ** And pardon my pun but Swiss Romney Knife?]
** bit of a cycle/anachronism here*** regarding insertion of links & today's asterisks.(I may not have the right fiscal cliff clip but neither does the math add up for AM or RNC. Re:Bingo and math of the dog carrier or station waggin')
*** (rather here **) HW B? (SK re/v SE: 5:25 HW Harvy Weinstein)
[OW to Act?]
[Bingo too point OH! (see poor 1%, 2%, 3%: LR RL)]
(Anachronistically where does MB fit in here ? i.e. I can' remember where Luke Russert was nailed down. But I think it was Martin Bashir who was asking about the 1, 2 or 3% and the previous sequence w/links does hit the nail on the understanding or aTAX jobs.)
[Hardball: David Corn to Smerconish "Sin of making sense". Then Bob's your uncle. It certainly rots at the head. MM Marshalling Message ?]
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Bush Legacy?
A NEW TACK WITH TACT
Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.
Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.
Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".
This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.
We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.
ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.
[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}
Now President Bush has at least a chance at a decent legacy. He has a chance to go down as a President that could work with congress in a bi-partisan way. That is more than facetious, that is his history(as Governor), that and a "measure of justice" that may hang over his head.
Last week sometime, a caller to the Ed Shultz show asked; if the Democrats fail to win either house of congress, whould there be a lot of whining?
The first thing in reply is:
Would there be a lot of whining when they pursue every legal avenue to make sure the votes count. The "they" I meant was Democrats, but now the "they" may be the Republicans. We must not whine when they pursue every "legal" avenue, and the quotation marks must be removed. We must be able to flip-flop our partisanship when we uphold our principles.
Just a humorous or scientific aside:
Where would we be without flip-flop? We would be without televisions or computers. But that does not mean that nuance is not needed, or as I quipped and it may have lost something in my irony as they edited it a bit, I harken back to an earlier letter published in the Seattle P.I. in reply to a Horsey piece "Red and Blue America ". [Updated link 5-16-11]
It should read unedited as: "green" being a factor not "color".
This segues into a clip I just heard from Lieberman: Harkening back to previous analysis of past elections by others, when choosing between two perspectives(or rather campaigns), the stronger may be chosen whether it is wrong or not, it also may show that even a moderate can be wrong and win, but maybe "green" was not a factor. Not that that is what he said.
We are called upon for a new tack, which calls for a new tact.
ONE POINT BLANK:
Enough with the nuance and tangents? We need "divided government" or as some would say "perspective" which by definition has more than one dimension, and if Republicans cannot cooperate in a spirit of competition, Democrats may have enough perspective for both, but in reality there are more than two dimensions and we have more than one point to balance on here.
[Nov. 27th: Tack link added}
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Hiding Behind the Straw Argument.
The Republicans these days have rarely met a straw argument they could not hide behind and not incidentally which they have not created.
Actually these patriotic tough guys haven't the guts to face real issues head-on without hiding behind the way things don't work. This is an approach that should have been seen through since before the start of the war, but here is a point blank charge that must be on the books and runs through my blog.
Iraq War Lie Detector Test thanks to Dean Baker, truthout/columnist
TheLiaisonReport concept is that WE and our Representatives should see the real issues and what can really be done and not fall for pre-emptive and quite plausible incompetence.
[Links will be added to track back the points I have touched on earlier.*]
Post-post:
Before I worded the above post I has stumbled on a link on Nancy Pelosi's 100 Hours and afterwords(i.s)* I found The New Extremists, both for review later. These reflect two more aspects of this blog, looking back and looking forward, and reading memos before or after understanding their headlines. The administration walks this tight-rope for political gain, while disrespecting politics itself. There is nothing wrong with politics or partisanship, there is a lot wrong with denying them and claiming that there is simply a third option that we get to or from somehow by magic.
*
[However the latter section above was posted within the half-hour of the original and "i.s." means intentional spelling, another aspect of my work that is not always intentionally reflected in that my miscreation of words are not just a third perspective but a potential if not natural blend of what was also noted in earlier self-references to my work as Running With Rhetoric, along with an image of Bush running with scissors from the world post-9-11.]
One more on 100 hours: from TomPaine.com
Actually these patriotic tough guys haven't the guts to face real issues head-on without hiding behind the way things don't work. This is an approach that should have been seen through since before the start of the war, but here is a point blank charge that must be on the books and runs through my blog.
Iraq War Lie Detector Test thanks to Dean Baker, truthout/columnist
TheLiaisonReport concept is that WE and our Representatives should see the real issues and what can really be done and not fall for pre-emptive and quite plausible incompetence.
[Links will be added to track back the points I have touched on earlier.*]
Post-post:
Before I worded the above post I has stumbled on a link on Nancy Pelosi's 100 Hours and afterwords(i.s)* I found The New Extremists, both for review later. These reflect two more aspects of this blog, looking back and looking forward, and reading memos before or after understanding their headlines. The administration walks this tight-rope for political gain, while disrespecting politics itself. There is nothing wrong with politics or partisanship, there is a lot wrong with denying them and claiming that there is simply a third option that we get to or from somehow by magic.
*
[However the latter section above was posted within the half-hour of the original and "i.s." means intentional spelling, another aspect of my work that is not always intentionally reflected in that my miscreation of words are not just a third perspective but a potential if not natural blend of what was also noted in earlier self-references to my work as Running With Rhetoric, along with an image of Bush running with scissors from the world post-9-11.]
One more on 100 hours: from TomPaine.com
Friday, July 13, 2007
What Is The Point?
Prosecutions!
It should be remembered that impeachment as a political tool is too political. If wrongs have been done they must be pursued. The process is political, of course. But if the political process is not utilized, what is the alternative? To let wrong stand, or for wrong to walk? Or the choice between anarchy and tyranny?
Impeachment is a tool that must be used. Politics is a tool that must be used. But either may be used for good as well as wrong.
Well... I was going to head for a different point. That being the starting point, or at least the start of the latest falling apart. Well... maybe not the latest, but the point that congress is focusing. U.S. Attorneys... who are in charge of prosecutions. The underlying crimes? Caging. Election Fraud. And the lack of prosecutions.
It should be remembered that impeachment as a political tool is too political. If wrongs have been done they must be pursued. The process is political, of course. But if the political process is not utilized, what is the alternative? To let wrong stand, or for wrong to walk? Or the choice between anarchy and tyranny?
Impeachment is a tool that must be used. Politics is a tool that must be used. But either may be used for good as well as wrong.
Well... I was going to head for a different point. That being the starting point, or at least the start of the latest falling apart. Well... maybe not the latest, but the point that congress is focusing. U.S. Attorneys... who are in charge of prosecutions. The underlying crimes? Caging. Election Fraud. And the lack of prosecutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)