I have no doubt that the latest "reports" (it is Page Six) about Coulter's infirmity might be nothing but a marketing scheme.  It would be not out of bounds for Coulter to use sensationalism and shock-stories about painful situations to sell a few more books.  As a development up to the publication of her latest book, Guilty, the press and pundits seemed to have become universally tired of her antics.  What better way to get some PR, than by the creation of a mysterious, personal misery,  although no one seems to be throwing any amount of sympathy her way. 

     I am sure she could find no refrain to blame it on some liberal insurgency.  As a violent response to the "truth" she prophets, an evolutionary inquisition led by a feminista, underground homo-henchgroup from the Democratic Party Harpy Headquaters directed from their Cuban outpost.  Her story of this leftist conspiracy putsch, as her press release might surmise, would start with her kidnapping from the Reagan Library while she was reading, within covenant, the Constitution.  The lily-livered, and up-market twisted persecution continued with the forcing of a sack made from the Tibetan flag over her head and being ferried to some island refuge off of the San Franciscan coast in a Chinese Junk Boat.  Later to be tortured and interrogated to who she insists sounded exactly like Cindy Sheehan.  It wasn't until after confusing and boring her captors with pretensiousness, by reciting the FISA Act and the Book of Revelations, was she able to escape.  Braving the caustic effects of the unpolluted waters of Monterey Bay and the general repulsion from the Left Coast, her belief in the supremacy of the perfected Jew and her little black dress fueled her deliverance to a Texas off-shore oil platform and Republican salvation.  It was, in fact, the cowardly Hollywood faction of the left, that Whore of Babylon, that wired her mouth shut (a plastic surgeon by affirmative action no doubt), knowing that was the only way to keep her from patriotically preaching the truth from the right.  And so ends her coups count.

     In spite of an immediate feeling of karmic retribution I was guilty of feeling, I am trying to remind myself that her ailment is in no way payback for her certain ways and words - the fact that she is making a living off of her work is payback enough. 

Blurring the law solely for self preservation is a questionable ploy when the Renzi defense, and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, call on the Constitution for protection.  It is disrespectful to the Constitution and the individuals it protects when it is desperately misinterpreted, especially by those in a privileged, enumerated position.  The "Speech or Debate Clause" the defense team raises does not universally prohibit review of legislative work as they seem to suggest, it prohibits interference of such work.  If they want the evidence suppressed, they should rely on judiciary ruling that it was improperly attained, etc. - which has already been the role of the SCOTUS.  It seems like they know this strategy will fail and are irresponsibly cherry picking their next move.
This blanket defense of entitled immunity smells awfully like the President's office claim of Executive Privilege when trying to act in virtual secrecy and invisibility.  Outside of the obvious security and privacy needs, neither the President or Congresspersons are immune to review.  This is not for their protection against each other, but for our protection against them.  Demanding protection against review or investigation because of their title or position, greater than that of any private citizen, is a privilege of the aristocracy.  I think we dealt with this already.  People ferrying their name with this privileged claim should see that superiority via intellectualization still carries a representative, democratic offense.  It is not quite, "Do you know who I am?!" but it reads that same. 

I think I understand how asset backed securities of the banks prop up the issued credit card accounts and how the later fuels the economy.  I question the plan to help loosen the pool of consumer credit when in general, everyone is too reliant on/fancy free with credit spending leading to the overall instability of individuals' economic health.  Promoting the one faction of our economy (which is abused/misused) that often starts the domino effect of account defaults, right down to those asset based liabilities often the only security of individuals, seems to be a short-sighted "fix."  Just throwing more money around.  I would rather see efforts placed on easing up credit which adds to ones long-term assets or employment advancements.  Let the Banks continue to assume the high risks of consumer credit cards - separating them institutionally from more "healthy" (not necessarily profitable) assets through forced restructuring as a step to receive more fed-backing.  Is this not possible? 

Some things that still worry me about this country....

     Just some observations that might mean something if only that the human psyche is really whacked.

     In California, a show of strong representative support for our first African-American President; a certain American milestone that will define our progression in history. This same voting population, at the same time, thinks bovine physical comfort and some inferred sense of "speciel respect" and "freedom" is more important than granting two adults' the ability to define a most individual and independent expression of spirit through a commitment of marriage. And why? Because they are together of the same sex. The ideal of self-determination (and isn't that supposed to be VERY American) is now battered down in disgrace for a most pre-determined, biological, happenstance and the supposed ills they represent. Honor the cow because they happened to be put on this Earth in their biological form, but dishonor men and women for the same fate.

     I meant to make a connection, if indeed you did see it, between Obama and the cow, both finally "freed" from their "shackled existence" by a benevolent majority vote. And I am using those annoying quotes in hope you don't see this as some lipstick on a pig thing... And in no way am I trying to diminish our despicable American history, something which I am genetically pre-determined to be protected from, when I wonder in exasperated anger, if my community and family will be respected, honored or just simply humanized only after similar, genocidal servitude as in our past. Do I have to accept the role of the slave, to elicit pity and guilt from you? Do I have to be a form of social chattel, or be lynched just for you to look at me?

     Leaving the reactionary topic of gay rights behind, but staying with another group who supported Obama, the State of Illinois had the most legally confusing and illogical ballot question. You can understand how some might view politicians and legal, policy wonks as pompous in their use of such legal semantic shenanigans.  Do they do this to hide their stupidity or divert attention away from their schemes?   Reading the ballot. does it say the Court ruled the State Constitution is illegal? Or is it saying we are legally forced to vote "yes" as a "no" vote is unconstitutional, but maybe at the same time - legal? This confusing ballot feature and the belittling character its politics represents, doesn't even scratch the polish on how such a mandatory call for constitutional review only leads to any number of reactionary maelstroms and manipulative political positions (one of our worst political human traits).  at a time when enlightened and exploratory reasoning is most called for while revisiting our codified social commandments.in spite of promoting the appearance of it being a responsive living document

     Using the same call just above, for a little pragmatic, questioning, Yankee temperance guiding our political behaviors. The State of Utah's attempt to depoliticize and remove the Judiciary from the public fray absolutely fails, and then in the face of this failure bases the "inconsiderable" right of the people to vote Judges off the bench on fuzzy logic. First, at the same time they say Judicial Service is a little blessed, more special and deserving protection than just the majority rule, they let that same majority vote them out. And as a slap in your face, the State Judicial Council doesn't think you are politically savvy enough or even a good enough soll to pass judgement on public servants, they embellish the ballot with a grade to lessen the intimidation and power of that vote you are just about to make. Maybe the voter does see this as a simple schoolyard popularity contest, but how are we not to see this might actually be a concentration of political power stripped from the people. All of a sudden the judges are evaluated on their professional and impartial effectiveness by this Council, that at the same time, the m not forced to act with the same impartiality.

     The infiltration of politics into our Judiciary is a big concern, which is why I without question think votes don't mix well with the Courts. When the public sees the appearance or affect of political influence on the one political body that is supposed lead by blind justice for our own protection, the public looses faith in it. We have seen this in the current Federal Department of Justice for sure. If we loose faith in those that are there to protect us against others' or our own selfish human tendencies, corruption and unaccountability takes off. Lacking political faith, we don't hold those who govern, judge ot represent us to any higher standard. And I truly believe those people up on the hills of government are supposed to be better than us (I understand everyone should be able to trip up a little). Like any religious leader, the sacrifice they have to give for our respect, honor or deference is the sacrifice of those somehow more enjoyable if not just easier way of living.

      I guess I want them to lead us rather than just represent us (or some other interest). By not holding our politicians up to higher standards brings us to the WonTundric State of Alaska and my Most Liberace-ous State of Massachusetts.

They voted Stevens back in. WHAT ! That really can't be the truth! To not cast this as being only a Republican "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?" thing, many misguided or delusional Mass. Democratic voters, for some disassociated reason, continued with the write-in candidacy of Diane Wilkerson after pretty damnable proof of receiving bribes (her past financial relationships along with the photos and videos embolden me against the guilty until proven....retort). My ultimate "WHAT" moment was after reading this quote,"Sure, she took a little something. But everybody's been taking something." WHAT! Are we supposed to really believe in democracy?

It seems the things that some people say and do aren't what they actually mean or stand for.  It seems that there is an infectious malady that everyone else misunderstand and misinterpret all things coming from politicians' campaigns.

Most recently, we should not misinterpret the Palin "vacation-like" charges to be Washington, fat cat, business as usual abuses paid for by the good American taxpayers.  Neither should we see the later amendments to documents surrounding these expenses as anything fishy.  We know that all things amended or redacted or edited are never done to cover anyone's butt. 

It was also a misinterpretation to infer that claims some are "pro-American" or the "real America" means that the others are anti-American or really don't believe in the American way.  We should accept their apologies and believe that the comments were never meant to incite reactionary biases.  All a misunderstanding...

We should also expect and accept the sure to be coming apology and claim of misunderstanding that when Palin's latest from the hip statement meant nothing, and certainly wasn't making the claim that Obama is sexist.  Or if she really did mean it, that her selection had nothing to do with the groups she represents.  Because as we all know, all things political are blind to the injustices of human nature.

So, we are all just addled brained and incapable of interpreting political rhetoric or they are just plain, slimey shucksters. 

      Why is it still acceptable (sort of) to express prejudice towards homosexuals while totally unacceptable with African-Americans. The first being categorized as a juvenile, sexually stunted impasse, the later a deep seated anti-social core value. Enen as a self assured gay man, I feel about as much remorse as double lifted shoulders when I use the word faggot as a castrating judgment, yet I feel horrendous guilt if a racist thought or slip of the tongue comes out with red-faced shame. Queer culture seems to be more resilient and thick skinned as opposed to the seemingly bruised and geneally shackled African potential. In degrees of compassion, I feel pity for African Americans but project my pity on those who are homophobic. All at the same time I have no sense of remorse or sorrow for the Native Americans even though, almost to the point of genocidal extinction and as I sit in my apartment slammed down on top of their home turf, we decimated their culture still with an aura of honor and deferential respect. It is obvious that I, that we all (since I am a composite reflection of our World), need to continue my trip to awareness. As these are my own perceptions, unique in their incubations, figuring those out is primary.

      Written in response after revisiting Tim Wise from a post here, a "current topics" debate about race and the race ( coined by a friend: race²) and in honest disclosure, it was more like a raucous farce over a few beers down the corner.  In the midst of a lot of babble, a couples morsels of brilliant insight, some off-color comments, we figured out that we are mostly ill prepared for public discourse about race. It was especially awkward when others not a part of our group joined in. And this was with a group of close friends who I know don't have an ounce of spite in them. The fact that I think it important that I catalogue our skin color is telling in itself. It was as if I was given an exam on linear dynamics and failed, even with multiple years of success with calculus and trigonometry - I had seen it all before but didn't know how to put it all together and make it work, and certainly did not have enough mastery for complete explanation.   In both cases, I needed to do a lot more study on my own.

      Not that I see a hermetic life as the answer, but that it takes sincere contemplation. It is from this contemplative lookout that I get prepared, if not totally comfortable, to answer and induce a dialogue. I won't share with you any of my insight. As I slip on my pink toga and light my incense, I will encourage you to first investigate them on your own.

      Again, the legal minds of the Bush administration proves that they would likely lose a legal debate with even the most novice of high school pre-law societies. In the latest memo of the Office of Legal Counsel, their legal argument is not sound. Without arguing the merits of their reasoning, which in its untethered logic raises questions about their American political faith, we should notice how this new Executive decision was issued to the public. Despite the questionable policy, I am worried more by the sneaky, contemptuous manner of the Executive Office by circumventing proper oversight with their addictive use of Executive Orders. This is just another representation of the multitudes of other questionable acts that have gone unnoticed. As a believer in Strict Constructionism, Bush should pay more deference to the Constitution and at the least, follow the example of the Framers when they quite publicly deliberated the Bill of Rights.

     Using the administration's own argument, their decision is framed around the freedom to exercise religion; the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, a Civil Liberty, something the government has compelling interest in protecting.  With such a centerpiece, an argument deserves more public discourse than a posting to their website. You would have thought they would learn a lesson against using the Office of Legal Counsel to diffuse the political bent of their actions. When I was younger, I might have tried to cheat while playing games with my younger, naive cousin by hiding the rules of the game and then making them up as the game goes on; all the while insisting that my cousin should just trust me. By downplaying the importance of their decision's rationale, their methods are like trying to hide a rabid elephant behind sheer curtains at a party purposefully ignoring it's tangibility.

      The actions seem to be calculated and disingenuous. As a deflection, categorizing that opposition's argument as simply, politically liberal, as opposed to conservative I guess (maybe fascist or providential though), is also disingenuous to political debate. Refuting this logic, I am sure there are even the most orthodox of religious figures who see the danger in the administration's decision. Not tempted by this baited tinder and flint, you can see the repercussions from their decision to hold some historical inconsistencies. At the same time refusing diplomatic connections with certain international leaders because of extreme discriminatory acts, the Executive is now willing to give money to certain discriminating faith-based groups.  This example certainly does not hold equality, but what if one of these groups received money for an appropriate initiative while espousing the ideas of white supremacy as a doctrine?  Would this demand judgment, and identify the necessity for separation?

     Critical, legal arguments are also deflected by misappropriating the root of harm against those religious-based initiative groups. The claim is that they were denied funding because of their religion. But they were actually denied because of their public discriminatory behavior. They accept this causality fallacy of legal structure, through dissonance and mis-assigned biases.  This ignores the necessary distinction of how religious groups act both as a part of, and separate from, the public sector. Embodying and exercising ones religious beliefs emanates from an individual, transcendent relation of choice. When people's actions travel into the public sector, they need to behave appropriately around those who made a different choice. Excluding my simple, on-the-fly philosophical rambling as an example (I tend to go on-and-on with no direct), it is this type of philosophical debate the we must address if our social evolution is to progress with a sound foundation. It might be my age driven pessimism, but are we savvy enough with the necessary critical thinking skills?  Have we gone into a post-industrial dark age led by a Hollywood/Entertainment inquisition?

      It is sad to see those, who misinterpret the meaning and purpose of the separation of church and state, accept this non-expolratory ignorance about their personal, religious relationship's and deny the familial tie to essential human rights that exist in spite of human institutions. It is frustrating to see the Executive Office use their institution position to manipulate and dilute the First Amendment with a self-evident fallacy.

     Even though the most central tenant to ones personal religious identity is a part of our natural awareness, some don't see religion and  Natural Law both germinating from the same conscious thoughts.  The Independence that is personified in the ideals of Natural Law  and religious faith somehow becomes disconnected, leading to in public conflicts. Religious faith and our American faith in Natural Law should be fostered in concert. So I think it is sad when such ideas like: independence, sacred divinity, choice, under God, all men created equal, separation of church and state, and the like, act as sources of dissention.  Religious and American faith should both be a sacrosanct part of the awareness to our human existence.

With regard to John Eisenhower's NYT Op-Ed.

I could not disagree with this argument any stronger. Using the fact that political leaders have (or don't) children in harms way as insurance that the dire reality was considered in their decisions, is poignant yet unacceptable. We have to accept that anyone can assume the compassion and level of humanity to make such decisions. It is illogical to think direct experience is the only way to understanding. They take an oath to hold every American citizen under their responsibility. This is either completely assumable or completely unattainable.

In John Eisenhower's story, and understandably a very emotional one, the Army should never have offered him a choice in light of the oath that he took as a professional soldier. If they thought he would assume preferential treatment or created any strategic challenges because of his family, they should not have allowed him to join the service. Although soldier dedication is a concern that should be discussed, when it concerns just one or a few soldiers, service should be entirely denied.

His father should never have put a condition upon his service. He should have, and maybe for his safety, announced that in no way would he resign outside of Constitutional reasons; he would never resign because of blackmail. Family discussions about joining the services admit, in the eyes of every other parent, they are all sending their children off to die. A president would have to have that unimaginable conversation with its son or daughter that they might make decisions that lead to their death or might have to deny actions to save it. Not in spite of his father, he should have decided whether ultimate service was his to espouse.

Does he or should he, the soldier, put country or family first by joining the service? There is no universal right answer to this. The only universal right answer lies with the President – country first, no exception. The honor of the Presidency is upheld in its cost of service. A president in his position should not consider his child any different than any other father or mother's child. The president lives country first always, and it is an appropriate demand.

Problem: Credit crises because of the unregulated and “ill-liquid” market, if you will.

The Housing Bubble is ridiculous in it's absurd untethered reality. I use the housing market as an example, because it is perhaps the most indicative mark of stability or safety.

1984 Real Home Price Index 105.85 – 2007 RHPI 195.85 – 2006 RHPI 202.82 (high).

1984 Real Meadian Family Income $45,000 – 2005 RMFI $55,000

The comparable years' indices don't match exactly, but, an 85% increase in RHPI was mirrored by only a 22% increase in RMFI. All allowed by “unregulated” markets. I would call them regulated markets in favor of capitalist leaders, against the long term health of the economy.

In this economy, I see all of us. Our health and stability are directly connected to the health of the economy - nothing radical here. It should be obvious that it is in our best interest to embrace progressive regulations and accuse the proponents of “free market forces” as being naïve to human nature or indifferent to the needs of the body politic. In the extreme, unfettered free markets in practice lead to feudalism and serfdom. Although we're not quite there yet, the recent bubbles (housing, stock market, wage inequality, negative wealth acquisition) have all been bred and developed by orgiastic, Caligula-like growth and speculation. Greed. Irrationality is central to human nature; laws and regulations protect us from our irrational selves.

My Proposal

Initiate an economic stimulus package offered to the credit markets.

These funds may go to projects with proven benefit to overall economy.

Funds may be earmarked for specific industries (i.e. clean energy, manufacturing, infrastructure, state-side consumer products)

These funds may not enter the housing finance market.

Credit institutions looking to access these funds must show the following:

Financial stability, and the ability to assume risk already held. Would also have to subscribe to business procedures and limits relying less on risky speculations.

No holdings in offshore or unregulated American accounts.

Equality in wage distribution. Highest salary (including bonuses) shall not exceed 25:1 against Real Medium Household Income.

Stock offerings shall not be available as employee salary packages or bonuses and may only be purchased through independent bodies.

Payback of funds shall be paid up to 25% of the institution's profit.

Program will be instituted by a bi-partisan commission, Treasury management office as well as institutional economists, academic economists, worker's rights representatives, and state gubernatorial representatives.

I have no idea how much is enough.

I think the housing market and financial influences might have to fail to finally come into check. It might be a wacko socialist idea, but I do not think homes should be so defined by market forces. Homes should not be considered a financial asset, an investment. Homes should be considered as someplace to live and a human right of existence. I think funds should be given to projects for affordable housing in support of our housing trades and priced-out home buyers.

If the financial institutions can't assume or move their risky holdings, then they fail. If current institutions can't prove their stability, there is no reason why smaller or new institutions can't manage these funds. It is obvious the risk levels have been ignored with regard to stability. The rules need to be readjusted and would have to be followed to participate.

No reason to allow institutions to benefit from this stimulus and hide or remove money from our economy. The 25:1 ratio also addresses the issue of money removed or isolated from the general economy. I have no idea what the absolute effect would be if over the last 30 years, while this ratio has exploded, the total income that gap represents were dispersed throughout the general population. I know it would be a big effect, a big effect on the standard of living and overall economic stability.

In 2005 alone, total executive pay covering a sampling of just 350 public held companies was $2,164,952,000 – total pay of manufacturing jobs was $55,551,589 (at the current 39:1) – the difference being $2,109,440,410. That's a lot of money going to just 350 company executives instead of shared in the general economy, especially manufacturing. Although this isn't solid representational comparisons, it shows the creep of wealth away from the general population. I assume it would be a larger spread if compared over the whole economy. And not that the income difference would have to go directly into other income, it could also be used as industry investment.

Offering stock (or other non-income?) as salary will only lead to mismanagement and possible corruption. It also consolidates future wealth in a few, limiting access to the open market which is a stabilizing force over the value of those interests. These non-income salary components could be considered if they become and continue to be treated as taxable income instead of circumventing Federal Income Tax.

I do not know if the 25% payback rate is realistic, but it is necessary to treat the stimulus as an investment with expected return if only to break-even. Arguably, payback from profits in effect takes money away from investors' accounts, but the benefit from the stimulus is aimed at the whole economy and not just those able to invest.

What's stupid about this? What am I missing? And if this is too simplistic in theory (obviously the specifics are not here), why has our economy become so convoluted and bilge laden? I was thinking this might be the three page starting place that should have been offered as a solution.

     It is still unbelievable to me that a Banned Books Week is still necessary in our open society. It starts this weekend. With a concentrated study and love for children's literature, it is an issue that is forefront in my mind and it is a constant fight.

     Maddening is how the those who want to ban books demand and profess their rights using the same Amendment that would ideologically deny their claim of censorship. The first Amendment is all inclusive, non-preferential.  The position of emboldened supremacy they often act from is very confrontational and unapproachable. It takes a strong, immediate and unbending stand to counteract such attempts at banning. It was a proud moment when reading the account of the Palin Rhetorical Book Banning and hearing the librarian's forthright and solid response.

     So honor the spirit of the word, please visit this site and see how the issue is still alive. Honor the work of all our librarians and their often remarkable professional pride. Instead of going to the nearest Barnes and Noble this weekend, visit your local library. Bring your checkbook too – they often run on such a borderline budget that even a $10 donation would be welcomed.

     As an addendum, if you grew up with the often thin and hollow Children's Literature outside of the classics that I did, revisit the area again as an adult. You will be amazed at the explosive growth in solid literature in this market. Ask your librarian for a suggestion – you can find challenging, humorous and sophisticated works even for adult sensibilities.

Just a question (or more): What do they actually do over there at the NYT?

"When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes." Maureen Dowd

Is watching the same thing as reporting? What did Hillary actually say? Judging by the 'journalistic' coverage, was Hillary's reaction justly weighted against the events of the World? What time does Dowd go into the office? Why are we duped and baited by all the circus pomp and circumstance? Do we need to censor/censure our news?

Supposedly, Clinton's win last night is going to open the Democratic race back up to the issues. This is simply an anecdotal observation; but in my memory's survey of news coverage, it is politics and not policy that leads coverage. In observance of journalistic responsibility, shouldn't the lead of every "Politics" section be Election Guide 2008: On the Issues, and then every other item an exploration of this? When even our greatest American export is image, how can we choose?

Now, doesn't this sound like a political stump speech? Phrases that stir emotion, express sentiment, profess ideals, yet offer nothing as policy. Campaign political PR must be in my blood.

Surrounding all my above posing is that seemingly feminine display of emotion. Does Dowd realize that the film's theme she quoted, Adam's Rib, revolved around gender injustice? And perhaps ahead of it's (our) time, hidden behind prevalent prejudices, extended the inherit unfairness of gender stereotypes to sexualism. Supposed gender stereotypes, and their supposed worth, lead to unfair and misled judgments.

Do people really think that females can't "kick ass," as if that was a necessity for leaders? Our strongest model of femininity (to me, what a woman is) is our mothers. I did not understand who my Mom was until I saw her cry, emotionally breakdown at a family funeral. That's when I saw her humanity and not just her motherhood. Not that this was an instantaneous epiphany, I am sure it is a process for all of us, but it was a moment when I saw her as someone not limited by her prior motherly model. She became a stronger person to me. So how can a "feminine" expression at one time define human completeness and strength and at another time define weakness?

Is my self-revelatory experience with my Mom as definitive as Hillary's or any other politician's emotional expression in establishing their humanity? Certainly not. Does this make Clinton et al as cool as my mother? Certainly not. Would I want my Mom to deal with Kim Jong-il? Probably not, but she could surprise us all as I always revert back to parental teachings and tactics in identifying the real solution to most worldly problems. And after everything, I know my Mom could kick Kim's ass.

................................................................... 

Maureen Dowd's quote of choice for gender stereotypes:

“Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

Tracy-Hepburn movies are loaded with one liners, perfectly crafted and delivered. Although picking quotes out of context from movies usually miss the point, I'll add some more famous gender fueled one-liners...

"Sometimes you have to be a high-riding bitch to survive. Sometimes being a bitch is all a woman has to hold onto...It's a depressingly masculine world, Dolores." Two of just a bounty of acerbic one liners in Delores Claiborne.

"Sweetheart, you and I have had this discussion a million times. There's never been a woman anchor."... "Mr. Harken, this city needs its news. And you are going to deprive them of that because I have breasts? Exquisite breasts? Now, I am gonna go on, and if you want to try and stop me, bring it on. Because I am good at three things: Fighting, screwing, and reading the news. I've already done one of those today, so what's the other one gonna be? Huh?"... [thinks about it] "Screwing?" from the giggly-stupid Anchorman

"A woman's compromised the day she's born." from The Women

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." After Raven defects in X-Men 3

"I am Edward Kimberly. Edward Kimberly. And I'm not mentally ill, but proud, and lucky, and strong enough to be the woman that was the best part of my manhood. The best part of myself." Dorothy's closing scene in Tootsie

"You're the first woman I've seen in one of these things that dresses like a woman, not like a woman thinks a man would dress if he was a woman.....Thank you I guess." from "I am not steak. You cant just order me." Working Girl

John Smith "Come to Daddy."... Jane Smith [after she bashes him with a teapot and headbutts him] "Who's your Daddy now?" Mr & Mrs. Smith

I ask for your comment on the effectiveness and tone of my replies and comments on this site. Now doesn't that sound like a desperate plea for positive affirmation? I have the desire to promote and act with openness and civility in public debate. I also want to have discussions that are stripped down, trying only to identify the base ideas and not get caught up in diverting traps (see my previous post). I use these discussions to practice or develop what I might call debate with honor. Debate is and should always be judged on this, a test in its efficacy. Tests should always be graded, otherwise, why take the test. So I am asking for a grade.

In particular, I am asking for a grade concerning my debating process concerning this blog post. I am not looking for a critique of my ideas, those can be done in the blog itself. I also don't want critiques of how others reacted in the debate unless it illustrates how I could or should have responded. It's all about me - "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!"

I feel, in what I saw as a frustrating and almost futile debate, that it is my responsibility to create an atmosphere that incentivises such a debate with honor, and in this case I failed.

I know this forum is used to talk about stuff, but I am finding, especially in the larger political sphere, that it is the how that is failing. From the media's staging of the political environment, to the press' failure in their obligatory, independent criticism, to establishing leadership through demogoguery. The perversion of political engagement in public debate is a signature pox that riddles the body politic.

I sometimes get frustrated with the manner of discourse and baited commentary in our public debate. More frustrating is when it comes from people on “my side” only to be followed by blind support. If not by the tendencies of pack herding marks, defense of this offense is also deemed acceptable because it is only a mirrored counter to the oppositions. “But they said this…” or “At least it is not as bad as when they said…” “They started it…” Well, I wish there was a teacher so I could tell on you. I think everyone can agree that baited, inciting comments are counterproductive to progress - not to mention how it corrodes the human spirit. And most frustrating is when calling “my side” on it, criticizing this counterproductive vitriol, the pack turns viciously on one of its own, railing “shame on your unpatriotic betrayal.” Yes, every pack has it’s own beat down squad.

I bring this up in regards to the Slate’s XX Factor commentary about a Dave Lindorff editorial by Rachael Larimore. In response to this critical review of the original piece, Juliet Lapidos begrudgingly agrees that Lindorff went a little too far, but then proliferates and supports the same inflammatory ideas that she just denounced. This type of tactic or reason in logic simply fuels the fires. Maybe it is not the centrist debaters that use this like a planned propaganda tool, but it is this tinder we spark that is engulfed as kindling by the far-winged camps and then offered to us again as ever-increasingly volatile charcoal. In no way did anyone in their posts turn on their own, but the spirit of the Lapidos defense was as if she was denouncing only in ceremony. As if on the playground the teacher scolds the child, “… Now go stand against the wall,” with a smile and a wink.
In response to Lapidos’ defense of the Lindorff piece, I don’t agree with her reasons. First, the comparison of Lindorff’s off color story is no way similar to ideas of the conservative preachers you identify. The deep held belief that ones soul will be condemned to damnation is much more offensive than some hypothetical suffering from a natural catastrophe. I would find a insult much more offensive if I knew the castigator truly believed, compared to the same insult from someone using it as just a sick joke. The difference between a fist and the middle finger. And what if the digs were equally offensive? See my playground reference in the first paragraph above.
Second, even if “there’s a kernel of truth,” if you think that we are on the “higher ground” in understanding the environment, we have to act like we are from the “higher ground.” What an heroic failure it would be to gain such an empty victory.
A simple statement in irony would have been appropriate and probably very funny. An epic tragedy of retribution is neither.

 

"We call that obstruction."

No further comments are necessary. They have been called out. It is their turn.

In light of the excellent contributions by Brian McLaren this past week, it was easy to immediately distinguish the way some people use religion to benefit the well being of the masses, while others use religion to benefit only themselves. In Huckabee’s response to explain his most recent surge in the polls, he reasoned that it resulted solely from the powers of prayer.

I wholeheartedly appreciate his use of prayer as a way to bring people together. In my eyes, common prayers create a sense and feeling of human spirit that on its face is a good thing. But as a political leader (and more so as a spiritual leader), Governor Huckabee should lead his supporters to pray for something more worthwhile and less self-serving. I thought putting others ahead of yourself was a most Christian teaching. Egotism is the only thing that would allow him to consider himself worthy of such a miracle. Does he really believe he is the “chosen one,” that somehow his ascension to the Presidency will be driven and approved “by the Grace of God?” Monarchs, despots and the like saw their seats of power as ordained by God and therefore unquestionable. Here, seats of power are ordained by the populace and always open to challenge. I hope someone close to him reminds him of this point.

I ask Mr. Huckabee that next time, he lead his supporters to stop praying for 5000 votes and start praying for 5000 loaves of bread.