The plots thicken

I don't know why, but since the Vietnam era, the hawkish types seem to have preferred the world "embolden" to the more conventional "encourage." It may be simply that we prefer not to use the word "courage" when talking about our enemies, but figuring that one out is beyond any area of expertise I might pretend to. None the less, the Cheneyesque assumption that Obama, by being Obama, the liberal/fascist/Commie/Muslim born in Kenya and Indonesia will spur or "embolden" Islamic enemies to attack us to a greater extent than the refulgent presidency of George W. Bush did, is sure to be in the news again.

The last few days have seen the arrest of people involved in credible bomb plots, including the attempt to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, Texas. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19-year-old illegal immigrant from Jordan was arrested after he dialed a number on his cell phone that he had been duped by Federal Agents into believing would detonate a large bomb. He had been under close surveillance for some time.

This follows on the heels of the arrest of Denver resident Najibullah Zazi as part of another bomb conspiracy that had advance to the point of assembling the chemical components. Both of these plots were foiled by what seems to be good police work and not anything resulting from the massive powers given to the President by the infamous "Patriot Act."

It would be hard to justify the opinion that the 2001 attack was a one-shot deal not to be repeated and it's been a no brainer to predict that the next attack wouldn't involve hijacking airplanes. Although Zazi may have received training in Pakistan and Smadi claims to be a "soldier of bin Laden," these plots may have less to do with anything hatched at the top levels of some central organization than with the more diverse worldwide culture of anti-Western hatred. It's hard to say these attempts wouldn't have happened if Afghanistan had been cleansed of the Taliban orQaeda training camps. Of course the threat remains vanishingly small to any individual but it's important to note that Smadi wanted to blow up Wells Fargo as a blow to our banking system -- and it would have been.

But again, the FBI seems to have done its job and without waterboards or Transylvanian castle dungeons or reading the mail of the Quaker churches and without bombing any country back to the dark ages and this makes the idea that Obama has disabled our ability to deal with terrorists less of a credible talking point.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

New Swash Zone Members:
Matt Osborne of Osborne Ink and Elizabeth Mika of The Middle of Nowhere have accepted invitations to join our community. Matt also writes for the Huffington Post. Check out his latest article, Oh, the Horror! NEA Under Fire for Community Organizing. Elizabeth is a psychologist who shares our concerns for healthcare reform, progressive politics, and social justice. Her diverse interests include the arts, cinema, and literature … all in all, a true cephalopod. Welcome, Matt and Elizabeth.

And an Anthology of Essays:
About a month ago, Lorette Luzajic, a Toronto-based writer, contacted me and asked permission to include this post, THE SOUL MURDER OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND THE CULTURE OF VICTIM BLAME, in an anthology of essays. Permission granted. Currently in production, the book will be released sometime in early November.

SINGING HIS PRAISES

There is a video making the rounds that is disturbing no matter what direction you are coming from. I am suspicious of the authenticity of this event for several reasons. First, Fox News is all over it, second, it was released just two days before President Obama’s speech to school children and third, they make a point of having the children recite repeatedly, “Barak Hussein Obama” (emphasis mine).

The repeated use of the President’s middle name is, of course, a favorite tactic of right wingnuts who wish to link Obama with Saddam Hussein. Which is as silly as associating anyone named Charlie with multiple murders or looking for an axe in the hand of anyone named Lizzie.

I may be tilting at windmills here – perhaps this is NOT some right wingnut’s hapless scheme. It could be some left wingnut trying to reshape childrens’ minds. Either way, this shameless use of innocent children is an abuse and betrayal of parents’ trust.

The video can be seen HERE and it is the accompanying message and title posted on Youtube which also adds to my suspicions that this was purposefully orchestrated.

If I had children still in school, I would seriously consider home schooling...

Love in the time of Republican insanity

Face it, it's been downhill since that socialist Lincoln freed the slaves. In no time at all, we gave women the vote and only a hundred years after that bearded Marxist in the bad hat betrayed the freedom of slave owners, the descendants of those slaves could vote too. The speed of our nation down the slippery slope to Socialism is breathtaking. Only a century after those lazy slaves were allowed basic human rights, the damned Liberals were insisting that God was wrong in separating the races and wanted to allow interracial marriage. There will no stopping this slide and there's no fooling Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) it's all about galloping socialism.

"If there's a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they'd have to go to, is same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept, in the final analysis."

Makes your head swim, doesn't it? The incisive and trenchant logic, I mean. Why isn't everyone smart enough to see that denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is our last defense against Socialism? Why aren't they smart enough to see that we need government to take over everything in our lives from our morals to our freedom to our love life in the name of smaller, less intrusive government? Thank God for Iowa!

Tea stains

Maybe Chuck Norris has been kicked in the head once too often. Maybe he deserves another one. He's been barking about being true to the "spirit of our founders" by avoiding the use of a contemporary US flag to wave over their "tea parties" unless the flag is first desecrated by staining it with tea. His op-ed in World Net Daily links to a WND page peddling pre-desecrated flags for $73.50. I don't know if Norris gets a piece of the action.

"If you insist on posting a modern USA flag too, then get one that has been tea stained, to show your solidarity with our founders."

The idea of being lectured to about political philosophies of the Enlightenment and the visions of the somewhat disparate men who drafted our constitution by an intellectual midget like Norris is galling enough but the spectacle of being urged to stain the flag by people who have been clogging up the legislative process for over 40 years trying to make it a crime to deface a flag is too much to let slip by without at least one Wilsonian "you lie!"

One of the things I'm sure our "founders" would agree on is that presidents are not to be chosen or un-chosen by mobs of belligerent barbarians carrying guns in the street. In fact the wisdom of letting the populace have much direct power was much discussed and protected against by the electoral college and the indirect election of senators.

Another thing I suspect they would agree on is that we the people are the founders of a country designed to be a constant work in progress through the institutions designed for that purpose. For someone who does nothing in this world but play a tough guy beating the crap out of stage ruffians in the movies to raise rabble that the rest of us will have to deal with is an outrage. For someone forgetful or dishonest enough to pretend that we don't remember him telling us that Bush was president and must be trusted, followed and honored as such, to now preach revolution is disgusting.

If talking about tea is supposed to remind us that taxation without representation is tyranny, perhaps it will remind some of us that we have representation, but Chuck doesn't like or respect the process that elected them. Is representation by self appointed gangs without election and without taxation their Utopian vision or is it just formless and inchoate rage?

Do we need anything better to remind us that Republican views of civilization and government are entirely situational and entirely opposite when they are in power and when they are thrown out in the street? It's all about winning at any cost and about vengeance at any cost when they lose.

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.