Free Marketplace of Love

Back in days gone by, daughters were chattel – sold off, in one way shape or form, by their fathers (or other male guardian) to the highest bidder. Daughters were a way for fathers to secure business alliances, gain political favor, etc etc etc. We sometimes euphemistically refer to this as “arranged marriages” – as if men suffered as much as the women in these marriages which were not grounded in the concept of romance or love. In many societies men could seek solace elsewhere . . . .

But NOW – at least in most portions of our world today – we have progressed towards the idea of marriages being grounded in LOVE. Two people fall in love and choose to marry – no bargaining fathers in the wings. Marriage is now a matter of choice. Love, romance are granted free reign. We have further progressed (some might argue regressed) to the point where marriage – as a legal and/or religious bond – is no longer required. Couples may choose to enter into a committed, monogamous relationship grounded in love free from legal contracts.

Thus far I have admittedly been privileging heterosexual definitions of couple-hood. The whole issue of homosexual couple-hood is historically quite different in that it has faced unique prejudices and stigmatizations. However – on the pure concept of the modern economics of love – to which I would now like to turn - I think homosexual couples face similar issues.

We have now come, it would seem, to a place in societal development where we as individuals are free to pursue our hearts desires in the finding of a mate. We may choose whom we most favor. No more forced sharing of beds with total strangers for the sake of procreation.

Now notice I have NOT brought up the subject of SEX. This is deliberate. Though I of course recognize sex as a component of love I am, in this post, concerned with the concept of love – emotionally experienced love – in its most IDEAL form. I realize trying to separate the two may be a fool’s errand, but bear with me . . .

So it would seem that we have reached nirvana – yes? A free marketplace of love wherein we may choose the best mate for a loving relationship. The world is our oyster. Yeah!

Um – yes – well – how exactly does one do this . . . . . . . . ? How does one determined which shell actually shelters a pearl?

When we need a new car we go to a dealership – or two – or three. We haggle, bargain – go for test drives – eventually choosing the best model that suits us. We strive for the best deal. Well, ok – does this approach work for choosing a mate? Certainly not! You cry. How ridiculous! Love is about the heart . . . it just happens . . . when the time is right . . . like in all of the poems, sonnets . . . it's just . . . (do I hear violins warbling?)

Yes, well – BUT - It’s impossible to spend any time on-line these days without seeing a vast array of dating sites or personals sites advertising their services like car dealerships. In recent years I’ve seen sites advertised for Christians, for Muslims, for seniors, for homosexuals, for wealthy people, and even for those seeking Russian brides (no kidding!). All one has to do, it would seem, is to choose the correct web-site – our modern day matchmakers – then program in one’s personal criteria for the perfect mate & the rest is relationship bliss!!

Hold on – criteria? What the hell does that have to do with love? Can love be so programmed? And thus bought & sold as can other things in a free market economy? If so – how is this progress? Speaking from the female perspective . . . ok – so we are no longer being pimped for economic gain by our fathers but we can now pay, and thereby provide economic gain to, these on-line services to do it for us? If this is true – how hilarious that men are now paying to be pimped!! Progress?? Is love now being pimped like sex?

Now to take a step back – not all loving relationships these days are the product of these latest money-making, love-marketing services. There are people who actually meet their true loves in the simple everyday course of their daily lives. People for whom the sentimental idealism expressed in the song

“Some Enchanted Evening”

You will see a stranger

You will see a stranger, across a crowded room

And somehow you’ll know

You’ll know even then . . . .

[South Pacific]

holds true. However . . .

. . . it would seem, based on simple economics, that for many people this is not the case. That for many people the love marketplace is the only way to seek – and perhaps find – love. Otherwise – would there be so many on-line sites peddling their wares? E-harmony has even made the jump to television marketing – that takes a lot of money. It is a sign of that company’s success at generating revenue based on its pitching of the notion that it can provide a channel towards love. So clearly there are many who sign on for help seeking a loving mate.

If this seems like a cynical post – it actually isn’t. I suspect that many people involved in the free marketplace of love (not sex) are sincerely trying to find love, someone to share their life with. However – in terms of human development, societal development – I find the question of “progress” with respect to the pursuit of love fascinating – especially in light of human history’s less than enlightened past practices with regard to the subject.

We have gained much by simply gaining the right to CHOOSE. But HOW to choose or how to FIND someone to choose is, apparently, a hurdle, a stumbling ground for the actual fulfillment of the CHOICE that we may now freely embrace.

Matchmaker, Matchmaker find me a match

Find me a find, catch me a catch

Night after night in the dark I’m alone

So find me a match of my own

[Fiddler on the Roof]

At this stage in human development it would seem that offering up the concept of FREELY CHOOSING someone to LOVE is like dangling a bunch of grapes in front of thirsty, hungry Tantalus’ nose yet just out of his reach.

The GOVERNOR WHO QUIT goes to China!

Sarah Palin, who quit as governor of Alaska in order to make a ton of money, I mean in order to share her wisdom and rhetorical powers with the rest of the world, gave a speech in China to a closed audience because, apparently, she didn't want the media, uh, general public to hear her criticize [on foreign soil] President Obama, I mean, hear her insightful, well-thought out, unbiased opinions.

In this ground-breaking speech, the "Governor Who Quit" blamed the world financial crisis on government excesses and called for a new round of deregulation and tax cuts for U.S. businesses.

Yes, she actually said that.  Remember how "the government" was passing off those credit default swaps as sound financial investments?  Remember how "the government" made all those toxic deals that led to Merrill Lynch's failure?  You betcha!  We need to give Wall Street more slack--not rein in its greedy, reckless behavior, in order to stabilize our economy.  And if anyone knows anything about the US and the world's economy, the governor who quit her job, who never traveled outside the US until she was 44 years old, and who has a degree in journalism from a community college, it is Sarah Palin!

"We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place," the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia Pacific Markets. "We're not interested in government fixes, we're interested in freedom," she added.

That's right!  Sarah is interested in FREEDOM--except for a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.
 
Mrs. Palin didn't refer to President Barack Obama by name, but said his promise for change during the election hasn't taken hold. She called his campaign promises "nebulous, utopian sounding…Now 10 months later, though, a lot of Americans are asking: more government? Is that the change we want?"

Wow!  She used the words "nebulous" and "utopian!"   Nebulous utopian promises?  Mr. Obama has kept 43 promises, compromised on 11, broken 7,  and 99 are in the works.  But Sarah doesn't let facts get in the way of her criticizing the US president while on foreign soil, does she.

In an echo of last year's presidential campaign, she criticized government policies that result in what she called a redistribution of wealth. "There is no justice in taking from one person and giving to another," she said. "History shows it simply does not work."

Poor Sarah.  Did the Governor Who Quit Her Job forget about the distribution of federal dollars to Alaska and that Alaska gets more FEDERAL money per capita than anywhere else DESPITE astounding revenues at the STATE level coming from he North Slope oil fields?


On health care, Mrs. Palin defended her previous criticisms that the health-care overhaul proposed by Democrats would lead to health-care rationing and what she called "death panels." "It's just common sense that government attempts to solve problems like health care problem will just create new problems." She called for "market friendly" health care reform that gives tax breaks to individuals to buy health insurance.

Yes, tax breaks for college students, children, the chronically unemployed, the underemployed, and the terminally ill.  That'll work, because insurance companies want to cooperate in making sure those populations have complete and necessary coverage with no exceptions for pre-existing conditions.  We've seen how insurers help those in need, haven't we?  And how insurance companies would NEVER deny any American coverage because of typos in an application or because the companies need to make their bottom lines grow while their execs make more money from Americans' medical disasters.

She acknowledged the economic rise of both China and India but called for a vision of Asia in which no one country would dominate.  "I see a China that is stable and peaceful and prosperous. We have optimism that, yes, it is," she said. But she added that the U.S. must work with Asian allies in case "China goes in a different direction."

There you have it.  Simple answers to simple problems from simple minds.

This speech will go on The Governor Who Quit's resume as proof of her foreign policy bona fides for the next presidential election.  Just read that last paragraph and see how deeply and thoroughly she grasps the issues.



Source 

Inside the Mind of Mark Foley

"Ninety percent positive — 99 percent positive from Palm Beach," said the station's general manager, Chet Tart in an e-mail to Florida's Sun-Sentinel. "Negative from other areas."

He's talking about comments on Inside the Mind of Mark Foley, a radio show that debuts at 6:00 PM Eastern on WSVU-AM 960 KHz.

He's still a local hero, never mind the sexual harassment of teenage boys that caused his embarrassed resignation and "rehab." Disgraced Republicans do that: they become heroes like Ollie North, G. GordonLiddy and now Mark Foley -- martyrs to the cause, whatever it is and without that unpleasant martyrdom thing.

Of course Foley is a minor league player compared to the guys that ran illegal wars, illegal arms deals and burglaries out of the White House. He's just a sad fellow compared even to Shouting Joe Wilson or Larry, "Wide Stance" Craig. I'm not upset or surprised that he still has friends and supporters, I'm just amazed at how the public can't wait to get advice and presumablysnarky opinions about the real enemies: Liberals, from him on the radio.

The producer isn't going to risk putting any irate callers on the air though. The show will consist mostly of pre-recorded answers to e-mailed questions. If you're interested, you can reach him at Foley@Seaviewam960.com.

Here come the Judge - again

Orly Taitz -- always in the news. Perhaps you remember my Sept. 16th post about how Judge Clay Land threw her "Birther" suit out of court with a warning that she would face consequences for any further frivolous suits. Ms. Taitz is not so easily dismissed, it seems and Judge Land not kindly disposed toward a motion she filed asking the Judge to reconsider -- at least not toward the part in which she called him a traitor and claimed that the 11th circuit court was subject to "external control" and political pressure from an illegitimate president.

At this point, even the Army Captain on whose behalf the suit was filed has bailed out and apparently can't wait to get to Afghanistan. Taitz now has 14 days to show the infuriated judge why she shouldn't be fined $10,000 for contempt. It will be interesting to see how deep a hole this rabid pit bull can dig herself into. Ten thousand seems a very small fine considering how much her insane crusade has cost us all and I'm hoping she can parlay it into some serious jail time.

IN THE BEGINNING … THERE WERE TWO COWS

(O)CT(O)PUS interrupts our regularly scheduled program for an audacious request: We need cow jokes. What are cow jokes you ask? Well, cow jokes always start with … well … two cows (but not necessarily). In the beginning, cow jokes were used to teach political economics, as examples:

Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. You give them to the Government, and the Government then sells you some milk.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Nazism: You have two cows. The Government shoots you and takes your cows.

These days, however, there are no constraints on cow jokes. Here are a few contemporary examples:

Corporate America: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are shocked and surprised when the cow dies.

France: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

Switzerland: You have 5 million cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

Canada: You have two cows. Vous avez deux vaches.

New Zealand: You have two sheep.

Democracy in Florida: You have two cows. The voters are asked to choose. Some prefer one cow over the other. Some vote for both. Some don't vote at all. Some vote for their favorite cow but their votes are declared invalid. Some can't figure out how to vote. Later, a court decides which cow is your favorite.

Diebold: One cow and three elephants, no problem.

Existentialist: There are two cows. One is standing on the beach, staring at the sand ...

Deconstructionism: You have two cows, or is it that two cows have you?

Republicans: You have two cows in a Red state. You send them to a state university that was built and funded with federal money raised by Blue states. You still want another tax cut and call Democrats a bunch of socialists.

Samuel Beckett: COW 1: Moo. COW 2: Moo. They do not leave.

Seinfeld: What’s the deal with those two cows?

Kerouac: Now we must all get out and dig the river and the people and smell two cows.

Nietzsche: Is man only a blunder of two cows? Or are two cows only a blunder of man?

Andrew Sullivan: Cattle are being mutilated all over the county, but you don't speak out until your own ox is gored.

(Credit: Brad Delong, Feb 28, 2004.)

Okay, I think you get the idea. Now, it’s your turn. Make up a cow joke and post it as a comment. Resistance is futile. Have fun.

Lefties

"All political violence is committed by the left in this country,"

said Ann Coulter, continuing her livelihood of making preposterous proclamations designed to inflame any reasonable person enough to produce a counter attack. Given a sufficiently absurd, preposterous or outrageous premise, that becomes so difficult that most of us are reduced to tears and she to witch-like cackles.

Of course the fulcrum of that statement, as it so often is, is the definition of "Left." In this case Left would have to include abortion doctor shooters and bombers, schizophrenics trying to impress Jody Foster, people like Byron De La Beckwith and of course how can we forget those Islamic "Liberals" who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? If John Wilkes Booth can be a liberal, than there are only three conclusions we can make about Ann Coulter: Insane, dishonest or both.

When something like insisting that there is little danger to a president surrounded by angry opponents equipped with rifles and telescopic sights can inspire even Geraldo Rivera to say she's insane, logic again allows only two conclusions, Rivera is a liberal and ipso facto potentially violent, or he's right and she's insane.

Coulter has a long history of calling the police and claiming people are stalking her. She claims she's more likely to be shot than the President although one wonders about her reaction to being surrounded by armed men carrying signs calling for her assassination. She said nothing however, about being more likely to be fed rat poison than the Federal Judges she deemed worthy of such treatment. I wonder if she has a food taster - or if she eats what humans eat.

With some whores, at least you get sex

From others you get beat up and robbed blind by the pimp and you thank them for it all the way to the emergency room.

You remember Betsy McCaughey, the blond gun for hire who went on the Daily show with a huge bound volume purporting to be HR3200, the proposed health care reform bill. She's the one who thought she was smart enough to shut Jon Stewart up by referring to a mysterious clause on page 418 and was stupid enough not to realize that Stewart had read it and had a copy right there.

She all but slunk out of the studio to a chorus of jeers and allegations that she had received a good deal of money from Cantel Medical Corporation for lying about older people needing to face a "death panel" soon surfaced. She resigned her board of directors position within hours of her humiliation on the Daily Show. ABC News credited McCaughey with launching this lie about death panels on the Fred Thompson radio last July and Stewart is not Thompson. He can, and bothers to read and has more than enough wit to skewer a media whore likeMcCaughey.

I still hear a lot of echoes from the brainless who pick their opinions up from the pavement with a shovel like the guys who used to follow horses, of her earlier article "Deadly Doctors" in the New York Post. It lies about Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm Emmanuels's brother the doctor, claiming he wants physicians to forget the Hippocratic oath and focus on “social justice” rather than healing patients. That's code for Communism of course and of course it's another lie and another dollar for Betsy.

She has a long history of lying about health care. Back in 1994 she wrote an article for The New Republic that did a lot to kill the Clinton health care reform effort and which was later retracted by the magazine as being full of lies. The The Atlantic magazine ran a story further debunking her statements. Crooks and Liars yesterday reported that Rolling Stone will soon report her torpedoing of the Clinton plan was bought and paid for by Philip Morris, the Tobacco corporation along with Republican think tanks and the right wing medial.

Of course the people who need to hear this don't hear anything but Beck and the Fat man and like most victories over ignorance and falsehood, it's Pyrrhic, still it makes good reading while you wait for the charity doctors to fly in to treat your pancreatic cancer.

Shame

Palm Beach County, unlike counties in some other places, exhibits a huge disparity amongst residents and the bottom of the barrel is more visible and more in contrast with the upper strata. Stark poverty exists, sometimes within a short walk from breathtaking wealth. The Byzantine palaces of Boca Raton, the Hilton sized seaside abode of Rush Limbaugh can remind the viewer of Monopoly houses dumped at random on the board. Some residents have the chauffeur drive the house keeper to the drug store to pick up their drugs under assumed names, others can't afford medicine without which they have a short time left to live.

Like many third world countries where the mega-rich watch medical relief teams treat the poor from their comfortable adn beautiful estates, Palm Beach County will soon host Remote Area Medical caregivers to treat an estimated treat 4,000 to 5,000 people who don't have medical insurance. According to the Palm Beach Post, RAM's Stan Brock

"will travel to South Florida in a World War II era C-47 cargo plane. It will contain at least 40 dental chairs and the equipment necessary for several dozen Florida-licensed ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians to examine hundreds of patients and make glasses on the spot. "

Things like dental extractions, fillings, prostate tests mammograms, pediatric exams and H1N1 flu shots and other essential things not available in Emergency Rooms will offered for free, no questions asked. Of course it's embarrassing, or should be, to patriots fond of calling any criticism or negative assessment of our proud country to be so easily compared to Haiti or Honduras. It's also far from being enough to occasionally offer relief from pain and disease to the peasants on an occasional basis, but as long as we're talking about shame, isn't it time to heap some of it on those who are too afraid that the most profitable corporations on Earth might have to operate with profit margins of less than 35% unless we maintain a sick and suffering underclass? What about politicians that can look at the will of three quarters of the population and dismiss it in favor of the corporations that pump billions into their bank accounts?

I'm embarrassed for my country when I see that this is the best we can do and more so when I listen to the excuses: that complete government withdrawal will fix it without leaving millions and millions to die, that a government administered guarantee of insurance coverage will lead to Socialism or Communism aren't more credible fears than the bogus Death Panels when we already have real ones at Cigna and Fortis and Humana. Will some illegal be able to scam the system? Sure, people scam any system, some people buy booze with food stamps, but that doesn't argue that we let a million children starve. The fear that someone will get something for free when we have to pay for it seems all out of proportion to the risk and the risk can be controlled.

No, there is no guaranteed right to health care in the constitution, nor is there to police protection, free public education, public libraries, national parks or municipal fire departments. Certainly no right to Social Security, unemployment or disability insurance. None of those things turned us into Communists, none of them destroyed capitalism, made us less competitive in the world market, stifled entrepreneurship or made any of the hackneyed warnings into a reality. All of them are tokens of civilization and have made us a better country. Single payer health insurance won't do those things either. If we had had it a few decades ago, you might still be driving a Chevy or Chrysler instead of something from the Pacific rim where workers have government health insurance.

Sometimes an opinion is just a lie

It's going to get harder for Fox News to hide behind the giggles, the puffed up pretense to being offended and accusations of insanity if more of the other networks begin to fight back against Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes's lie machine. Brad Blog covers CNN’s Rick Sanchez's, slapdown of Fox. Sanchez, who seems of late to be more willing to speak up against injustice went after Fox's Washington Post ad claiming they were the only network to cover the 9/12 "tea party" in Washington.

It's good to see someone get mad at the ever increasing torrent of lies, distortions and false claims emanating from Fox. It's going, as I said, to get harder to call the few vocal opponents like Olbermann and even Jon Stewart crazy or inconsequential if CNN is willing to run ads as they did yesterday evening, accusing Fox of "Distorting Not Reporting."

The people who send me wingnut e-mails about things that are designed to outrage the ignorant, often preface them with "why isn't the MSM covering this?" although usually, they are and have been. Fox's WaPo ad seems to have been the "enough is enough" trigger and even ABC declared it “demonstrably false.” The claim that no other networks were there was deemed by the Post to be an expression of an opinion not a lie, which of course doesn't help their credibility, regardless of what they claim the meaning of the word "is" is. Sanchez, concluding his diatribe said this:

“Let me address the Fox News Network now, perhaps the most current way that I can — by quoting somebody who recently used a very pithy phrase. Two words, that’s all I need. ‘You lie.’”

Lets hope it becomes a movement. Let's hope the Glennbeckery, the outrageous liberties taken with the news have finally pushed the timid competition into speaking out for the truth - they way they're supposed to.

He lied -- no he didn't

As though on cue, the South Carolina courts have upheld a $10 million dollar award to Jerome Mitchell who purchased health insurance from Fortis in 2001 when he was 18. A year later, when trying to donate blood, he was told he had HIV. Fortis decided he had lied on the application where it asked if he'd been diagnosed with immune deficiency and rescinded his policy.

As we know, although some won't admit it, Insurance companies pay bonuses to their death panels who reject claims and rescind policies, but I'm sure whatever they paid was a drop in the bucket in comparison. The court didn't mince words in upholding Mitchell's claim and upheld $10 million in punitive damages plus the amount he had spent on staying alive.

"We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible ... Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety"

and Mitchell was fortunate enough to be young enough to survive long enough to be vindicated. His life expectancy without very expensive treatment would have been 4 years, according to his suit. Older patients often die before they can get their day in court or before the inevitable appeals process winds down. The death panels love it when that happens. I think it happens rather frequently.

Do we need a public option to tame this kind of swashbuckling? Not necessarily, but we need something and we needed it a long time ago. Remember that that ten million isn't going to come out of the executive salaries, the multi-million dollar non-executive board members' salaries or anyplace but the hides of the insured.