Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 3:46 am

Today is August 18, 2010.   How is your summer going?

Now back to regular scheduled broadcasting:

Some housekeeping:

Yes the party of Lincoln seems alive, though more the partying of Samuel Adams maybe than ever. 

Yes,  President Obama needs a China "diplomacy" nearer Nixonian than hillarious.

Maybe Secretary Clinton would be better served with President Obama more of "stay the course" sparsity of speech.

Maybe all Democrats would be better with less "if the president says it is legal, then it is legal" executive speechifying.


So, are you on board with every thing you have read here on my blog? 

The verdict is still out on New York, around "carpetbaggers, Clintons".

Is it just "moody" that our Constitution and convening was necessarily of THE FEDERALIST PAPERS being needed to counter then Governor Clinton, such Clinton I believe of no "relation" to Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

Is it just "moody" that we needed THE FEDERALIST PAPERS to sell colonists on not going the Governor Clinton of New York "empire" to New York like too big to fail, and, so not needing the rest of colonies for its own survival?

How to cover Harlem today, today now that "Bill" moved into the "big house" of global foundation and post presidency office, and "gentrified" Harlem?  Has he run the blacks out of their home turf?  In these days to fastest new economic growth to come from tourism dollar attracting and especially Chinese tourism dollars, should Harlem kick "Bill" out and rebuild to "historic" and "cultural" as a great American Black Cultural "Destination"?

Is my old client William Stringfellow, a client from a college summer month in landscaping in 80s, now rolling over in his grave with "Bill’s" "new Harlem"?

Can I pick on George Clooney and not need to "retract" for unlike many I can remember NBC and seemingly, specifically, Jamie Tarses then in my head asking and pleading for one more show idea, please, one more show idea, like, and like for 10pm on Thursdays.

Can I pick on Amendment 14 and Amendment 22 as I did but now here wanting to "retract"? 

In the here and now, with our best economic moves to restore jobs being to go retro and dramatic, and historical, and maybe to more Americans employed to trapse about in like TEA PARTY vintage costumes, and 49er miners …:

RETRACTION:   I, in hindsight, take back my comments around 14th and 22nd Amendments recently written and here published.   It seems behind our times to analyse and interpret news around such Amendments in less "revolutionary" walking and talking.  It seems we are now, again in hindsight, best to use every "excuse" to convene a new Constitutional Convention, and that I should have worked that with my earlier comments.  It seems now we need as many reasons to open up Constitution for "revisions" and none now more necessary that an amending of "terms of presidency" to two year terms, still maybe with a maximum of eight years duration, and with more clarity to prevent perversion to selfish spousal greed and "hoging" a dampener to artistic expression and renaissance in clearly new art.  Yes I was wrong to cover 14th Amendment as like 22nd Amendment of suggesting their vagueness though workable still acceptable.  Yes I would better have taken such space to argue for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite our terms of office for our presidency and to two year terms with "special elections" via Ipad and Ipod and smartphones and blackberries and still a pony express where reliable still, and such.   Yes, two year terms with "recall" ousting provisions seems a better way to have covered much recently. 

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.