"girly men" DEATH WISH

Decades after their initial release, the DEATH WISH movies, starring Charles "no girly man he" Bronson, still draw eyeballs. Acting as judge and jury and executioner, Bronson's character sends to their eternal reward adolescent thugs, who happen to have murderous urges and cute physiques. At bottom, this or that DEATH WISH, number whatever, is a snuff flick.

Among the erudite cineastes, the gag is that the title is a twist on the Freudian notion of thanatos. In the grip of that urge, an individual craves satisfaction through personal annihilation. Through a snuff flick, this or that individual vicariously attains satisfaction through the annihilation of some other individual ... eYep, all that foregoing does sound a tad, well, excruciatingly erudite.

For a little relief from that proclivity, let's animadvert to President Walker Bush via the columnist Kathleen Parker. Likely enough, the lady acquired a smattering of psychological lore in college. In a recent column, Kathleen availed herself of the term ... get ready for a chuckle ... thanatos. And she applied as analysis of the President's behaviour. What (?) other name, Kathleen asks her reader, could be sprayed like graffiti onto that irrational compulsion that foments such disastrous political follies.

Depending on how stringently one evaluates credentials, she may well be butting in, by declaring as factual certain hypotheses, which accredited scholars regard as tentative. The accredited scholars I have in mind have underwent rigorous training in the discipline of psychological history.

Likely enough, they merit being known as "depth historians". It is the proper provenance for such historians to dive, like cormorants, into the ideologic cesspool of historical eras. Upon coming up for air, they are expected to disgorge startling insights.

Here's what's interesting about the good lady Parker's walk in the park of social commentary. I for one think it would be fair to describe her as a scribbling stand-in for Laura Bush, the President's wife. Through her commentary, Kathleen presents the softer and feminine and, if one allows, maternal aspect of the presidency of Laura's husband.

The way the various aspects involved have been playing out, Laura's yin neatly balanced George's yang. Thanks to circumstances that allowed his projecting rugged masculinity, the man gained four more years of residency in the White House. Along with the memory of his "bullhorn moment" in the debris of the World Trade Center, that projection was enhanced by his implicit promise to protect the American people from islamic ... in truth, Arabic ... terrorism.

Without a doubt, as he campaigned for his four more years, he was standing on a pedestal, far above that possible for girly men, in the parlance of the former body sculptor and movie star barbarian and re-call candidate for California governor.

Maybe, I'm indulging in some impermissible speculation. To that, I say "So (?) what!". Here's the thing. If Kathleen is allowed to do it, then surely I should be. After all, my blog, my rules.

The way the President came to be perceived by an electorate, yearning for security, is very similar to the way the character, played by Charles "no girly man he" Bronson in whatever number DEATH WISH, was perceived, back in the dearly remembered 70s ... eYep, that was one frightfully elongated sentence ... oh, well ... blame it on Faulkner.

Talk about politically tone deaf! What (?) on earth made Chuck Bronson's perceived-alike dumb enough to second, in such a clumsy manner, that sea port deal with a company that's owned by an Arab country, which supposedly has ties, maybe real, maybe only imagined, with islamic terrorism!

If we would like to get some idea of the magnitude of the political damage "dum'ass botch" inflicted upon himself, we need only read these two paragraphs darling Kathleen penned at the end of her thanatos column:


In the more likely event that Thanatos truly is at the helm of our ship of state at this titanic moment, we can't afford to let Bush's death instinct subsume the national imperative to survive.

Survival now depends on fitter minds.

If the lady happens to be insightful, to the point of awesomely so, about what's motivating dum'ass botch, maybe then, we should expect even more political folly on his part. It gets me.

Every so often, I peruse PIPE DREAM, which is of students and by students and for students on the campus of Binghamton University in upstate New York. Some "smarty pants" farceur aspirant caught me by surprise with snark commentary. It's a good bet my guffaw drew a few stares of askance.

Just as I mused, before writing this piece, about the magnitude of dum'ass botch's self-inflicted political damage, so did that collegiate in question. And that's where the common bond ends. That other person approached the topic in the manner, one should expect of a sprout in that hothouse for flaming liberals, left-wing kooks and "gay marriage" freaks.

From some musing a bit about the aforementioned magnitude, the commentary turned to the "creative inflicting of damage on one's own political stature". If "dum'ass botch" ... ah, solely my term of endearment ... had been in a mood for such folly, he should've been creative in doing so.

For example, President George Walker Bush could've sent to Congress a bill to legalize GAY marriage. It could've been paraded through the august halls of Congress under the title ... get this ... "the girly man's bill of 'brokeback' rights".

Darn that collegiate whippersnapper! Just (?) what is it that incites such temerity! But then, ya'gotta'r'mem'bah ... Hillary's that teal state's junior senator. Maybe, it has something to do with fluoride in the water.

Oh, alright (!) already, I'll admit it. That bit about legalizing gay marriage threw me for a loop, and made hash of my outline for this piece. For a little while, I was thinking about segueing into a segment about how the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives could begin maintaining what they're bound to gain in the up-and-coming 2006 Congressional elections.

Just for the outright heck of it, here's an incidental bit I heard via talk radio. Funny thing about the Republican Party, when they're riding high, the other party is the refuge for flaming liberals, left-wing kooks and "gay marriage" freaks. When the Republican Party is drowning of the cesspool of public opprobrium, suddenly, the country is in dire need of "bi-partisan" rescue.

When it comes time to spend some time to animadvert to the Democrats in the House, I'll have to try incorporating that bit about the Republican Party. All that good stuff is for a later time.

. . . . ahnghgh, just to let you know, whyz.ache.err, I'm still planning to write a piece about how come the Israelis feel they were taken on a sleigh ride ... again, that's for later.

toodles
....../
.he who is known as sefton

APPENDIX -

Visitors, who'd only want to share this insightful post, have an easy way to alert their friends. They need only click on the envelope icon just below, and that will bring up a page to facilitate relaying this post's hyperlink via e.mail.

Those with blogs, who'd like to insert the hyperlink in a post, are more than welcome to do so.

By the bye, this is to alert visitors, who are about to read or have read the post just below this. Some may wonder how come I have a link to text that tries to conflict.

Well, I remember once when a number of classmates were caught up the hysteria of "better red than dead" ... ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, that was during the early 60s of the last century.

Anyway, the professor, who was teaching our philosophy class, dispelled it with a few well chosen words. As I remember it, Doctor Stanley Rosen said,

. . . "if we keep our heads, we'll wind up neither red nor dead."

And so, I avow that, if we keep our heads and apply what we know, we'll wind up free from the burden of debt or slavery.

. . . . just for the heck of it ... here's a British import modified to suit current American circumstances ...

How (?) can'ya
tell when Bush
is lying!

his lips are moving.

bubba da prez in.try.ode evolutionary economics

Before we get to the aberrant
verbal pyrotechnics and
"sour-candy" jokes, for
which I am justifiably
notorious, I should like
to insert an "in text"
footnote.

The hyperlink to this article was sent by e.mail to some sixty-three (63) law school professors.

In a preceding e.mail, I tried to inform them about unanticipated consequences that are bound to flow from the recent Supreme Court's ruling on "eminent domain". From what I can tell, because I'm only a layperson and in dire lack of advanced degrees in Constitutional jurisprudence, I was ignored.

Recently, nonetheless, a few of those pre-eminent authorities in Constitutional jurisprudence have begun to "get it". Talk about irony! It was the so-called conservative Supreme Court justices, who set this country on the road to a "Marxist" state.

Their ruling on eminent domain has, potentially, made the government, in general, a partner in every private enterprise in this country. The partner that can destroy the other partner is the SENIOR partner.

In truth, it saddens me that our contemporaneous so-called conservatives lack even the faintest inkling of history. Evidently, the Supreme Court justices in question forgot that "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

Did I just now employ the word "potentially" ... ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, keep in mind that, throughout history, potentiality eventually becomes actuality.

Now, lemme start elucidating the rather outlandish title. It all started with James Joyce. Just about every college freshman in these United States of America has had to take, or has to take, or will have to take one or two English courses. And one of the assigned readings was, or is, or will be PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN, which is a rather straightforward piece of literature.

Pity the poor sapsucker, who has to struggle through Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE ... wood'ja (?) buh-leave! I read it out of sheer curiosity ... well, tried to, at any rate. We have it on the word of trustworthy authorities that every sentence contains outlandish word play. To let you, dear Reader, try a taste of that word play is why this piece has the title it does.

Unlike Joyce, I shall now elucidate the references. Let's start with "bubba da prez". That refers to that American President, William Jefferson Clinton. Evidently, his political enemies would, whenever the opportunity presented itself, gleefully allude to his humble Arkansas beginnings.

Rather than "reared", Clinton was "raised" by a singleton mother, and he was sired by an absent father, who sired one or two half-siblings to the future president. In urban dyslore, "bubba" is a derogatory sobriquet.

Now, let's tackle "in.try.ode", which is pronounced pretty much the way its spelling suggests. The syllables "in" and "ode" are pulled, in part, out of the word "intro", which is a term in jazz for an introductory musical passage. And the "de" particle is meant to suggest the past tense.

Now, here's where I take pride. The two syllables "try" and "ode" are meant to allude to the triode vacuum tube. Funny story about its inventor, Thomas Alva Edison.

Whatever he could claim having invented, he would swiftly attempt to patent. According to his biographers, he was as much business man as inventor ... there's lots of money to be made from licensing this or that economically fruitful invention.

It must be that Edison the father had a rather low opinion of his son. In spite of his most persuasive efforts, the kid failed in getting the old man to patent the triode vacuum tube. It was that invention that would later make radio and later television marvels of communication

... oh, br'dah! we're not talking millions of dollars ... oh, sweet ever lovin' lord, we're talking hundreds of millions at a time, when a dollar was worth, in today's money, fifteen (15) dollars ... ya'know, that's one hell'va lot of chicken feed ... oh, yeah ...

The word play in the syllables "try" and "ode" is meant to suggest the type of progress "bubba da prez" was trying to achieve for the country. Just to emphasize the point a bit, please, dear Reader, recall what you've just read about the triode vacuum tube.

Just as that invention enabled a sea change in people's capacity to communicate, had "bubba da prez" succeeded, there would've been a similar sea change in how economic policy gets formulated. (ah, sorry about that elongated sentence) ... oh, yeah, the syllable "try" is meant to suggest attempting.

True enough, this or that following passage is off the topic. In my case, the spirit is simply too susceptible to temptation. Rather recently, some financial concern was trying to suck in fish ... ah, I mean rather ... "attract clientele" with rather unusual commercials. In those commercials, visionaries are being persecuted by mobs of benighted local yokels.

Here's something that's bound to enflame the ire of the benighted dolts, who pursued the impeachment of bubba da prez. It's simply way too easy to posit a comparison between "bubba da prez" and those persecuted visionaries.

Even further off the topic, it would be all too easy to note the difference in the persecution of Clinton and the censure of "dum'ass botch". In the case of the former, the impetus for impeachment was ejaculated down from the top, whereas in the case of the latter, it's sprouting up from the bottom.

ah, yes, what about "evolutionary economics".

As I remember recent history, President Clinton opened the way for evolutionary economics by getting his political party to push through, with his Vice President's tie-breaking vote, tax increases on our country's wealthiest tax payers.

Whatever else those tax increases might have accomplished, they did allow the possibility of hope for paying down the nation's debt. Under "dum'ass botch", such a hope would be justifiably considered a deranged pipe dream.

Here's a question that some astute historian would love to ask former President Clinton:

"When you proposed those tax increases, which outraged the country's right wing, were (?) you aware that you were acquainting the country with "evolutionary economics"!

However he might answer, the fact of the matter is that he was indeed acquainting the country with "evolutionary economics".

Here and now, let's suppose the former president were to answer in the negative. That would raise another question. "How on earth could (?) he have acquired knowledge of evolutionary economics! Somehow, he knew more evolutionary economics than he could articulate.

As an aside, I remember a professor, who talked about shipbuilders, who were plying their trade years before Newton published his three laws of motion ... mirable dictu ships were being built within Newtonian constraints. Anyway, the professor asserted that ship builders back then knew more physics than they could articulate.

With regard to the former president, the unarticulated knowledge of evolutionary economics must've come his way through some sort of intellectual osmosis.

The osmosis must have begun with a doctoral dissertation, written by young Mister John Forbes Nash jr, while he was a graduate math student at Princeton. About the first thing he did, when he got to Princeton, was talk with the "pope of physics", Albert Einstein.

With regard to the importance of Doctor Nash's dissertation, it would be hard to exaggerate both its significance and its future impact. In certain respects, the way Nash circumscribed economics matches in intellectual achievement the way Einstein circumscribed physics.

Okay, that last sentence may call for some illustration ... very well, here it is. Whenever our rocket scientists send, to the outer shells of our solar system, rockets with cargo to harvest scientific data, they run up against constraints, derived with stomach-churning rigor from Einstein's theory of relativity. Those rockets can go just so fast for just so long on just so much fuel.

In economics, similar constraints, as derived from Nash's dissertation NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES, apply with regard to trade and commerce, and even biological evolution.

Ahem, NOW, dear Reader, do you (?) comprehend whence comes the "evolutionary" in evolutionary economics!

And that, my dear little chick-a-dees, is what I'm trying to get across with the term "evolutionary economics".

As for the three "rallying cries" that mentioned in the enclosed graphic, well, I think I did justice with regard to the third. As for the one that immediately precedes that, you, dear Reader, may easily find the post, where I discuss it in detail. Heck, I've even appended a note of demurral from some blogger, known as Maximus Clarke.

The way I understand what is chancefiring between that blogger and me, the transaction is rather, well, convoluted. Let's start with the movie title THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW. With regard to "that was then", yeah, it's a good bet we'd concur. As for "this is now", it may be a good bet we concur. Where I leave that sapsucker in the dust comes with HERE'S HOW IT WILL BE.

I still say that Supreme Court justices should keep in mind that they serve, ULTIMATELY, at the pleasure of the people.

What I mean by the very first new rallying cry can be found somewhere in my blog ... look for LAW AND ORDER.

Getting that ad to run in my home town weekly cost me ninety-four dollars ($94). Whoever doesn't believe me is perfectly free to call its editor and publisher.

The ad is classified as "political" in that it expresses my hope to enter the House of Representatives as the occupant of the seat for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District.

ya'know, I'm speculating about what objections my likely opponent will raise against me. The guy might claim that I think that I'm better than regular people, who work hard, provide for their family's welfare, pay their taxes, go to church, and in general "play by the rules".

I can hear myself countering with something like so:

"My opponent claims that I think I'm better than regular people. In as much as he claims he's regular people, that has to mean more than he understands. Quite frankly, he has to believe that I think I'm better than he is.

Let's take it a couple steps further. He has to believe that I think I'm his superior. He has to believe that I think he is my inferior.

Well, let's suppose all the foregoing is true. Maybe, I do indeed think this and the other thing. In my defense, let me ask this question:

"Does my thinking that I'm better than he is make him any more or any less human?"

Quite candidly, I don't think so. Whether I think he is my inferior, or my equal, or even my superior, that does not make him any more or any less human. In theological terms, what I think about him has absolutely nothing to do with how his soul is perceived by God. In the eyes of the Lord, his soul is just as precious as anybody else's, just as precious as mine, just as precious as yours.

ya'know, that reminds me of a certain sour-candy joke ... here's how it goes:

GOOD NEWS: you don't have an inferiority complex.
BAD NEWS: you really are inferior.

Just because I feel like doing so, I'll now delve into the concept of regular folks. Let's face it ... regular folks do not chide our supposedly conservative Supreme Court for setting this country on the road to a "Marxist" state. If you, dear Reader, will recall the previous paragraphs in this essay, I can affirm in all good conscience that I do so.

Lemme reiterate. Yes and yes again, I do chide our supposedly conservative Supreme Court for setting this country on the road to a "Marxist" state.

When all the foregoing is taken into consideration, what should a reasonable person conclude? ... that I'm "regular folks" ... aaaay, c'mon ... I don't think so.

Let's push the envelope a bit more with another rhetorical question. Does my being (?) outside the category of "regular folks" make me any more or any less human! Again, I don't think so.

toodles
....../
.he who is known as sefton



APPENDED NOTE -

Yes, I did promise Orrin a link to a certain article on that brothersjudd blog. Unfortunately, when I try to insert the entirety of that link into this post, blogger.com goes haywire.

So, what is the intriqued reader to do? Such a reader need only comply with the following simple directions, after clicking on the hyperlink below the response of those fabulous and furry brothersjudd. The reader will then click on the "Reviews" tab, which then brings up a window with various page titles. Found under the page title "Book Author", the "M" hyperlink should be clicked on ... hang on, you're almost there.

That will bring up another window with a list of various authors. Look for, and then click on "James MacDonald". The reference one is seeking gets pulled up with just one more click on the title ... ta da ....

A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy.

The text in green contains the response, and that in blue, the hyperlink.


We can't discharge our debt without collapsing the world economy
and
> it's so inconsequential there's no coherent reason to try.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/

In Islam ... BLASPHEMY ==> innovation

For now, here's some speculation about recent disturbances in the world of Islam.

For a bit there, I considered whether I should title this piece, sort of like so:

"what's (?) the deal with Islam!"

Well, I guess I did. Oh, well, lemme start this piece with a "heads up" for both Muslim and "jiaour" readers. I for one firmly believe that Islam blew off a "once-in-a-millennium" opportunity. If verifying the wager were now possible, I'd be betting my five doughnuts to somebody's three. The bet I have in mind might be considered rather pompously erudite.

Anyway, I'd be betting that some graduate student is contemplating a thesis that would explore the mass psychology of the Islamic world. This particular student is about to delve into the emotional connection between missing the aforementioned opportunity and the recent riots that were sparked by "blasphemous" cartoon depictions of Islam's founder.

As I remember what I saw, the cartoonist caricatured the Prophet in headgear that was fashioned from bombs. Here's what I suspect the cartoonist was trying to convey. The recent bombings by homicidal suicides, supposedly in the service of Islam, disgraced the memory and message of the Prophet.

At this point, I'd like to speculate a little about Muslims, who are supposed to know better. I mean such authorities as scholars and imams, who are supposed to be steeped in the innermost spirit of their Faith, and are therefore accorded immense prestige by their coreligionists.

I wonder. Could (?) it be possible that Islam is in such a state that its prestigious authorities are incapable of introspection. Maybe, they feel some foreboding with regard to what they might find in introspection.

Is there any Muslim in the world, who wonders what (?) could've inspired that cartoonist. Taking this speculation a tad further, one might wonder whether there is any Muslim in the world, who wonders what (?) could've validated that cartoon in the minds of those knowledgeable non-Muslims, for whose viewing that cartoon was intended.

Maybe, I'm threatening to burst the constraints of reasonable speculation. Even so, I'm wondering, here and now, whether there is any Muslim in the world, capable of introspection.

If going any further than that, means bursting those constraints, KISMET ... that is a polite way of saying kiss my noble ginny ass. I can say that, because every person of Italian extraction has noble blood. Let's face it ... when the Italian nobility went about getting around, they were, by no means, slackers.

Here's what gets me about the people of the Prophet. Among them, Jesus of Nazareth, whom they regard as both prophet and a predecessor to their prophet, is much revered and loved. What's more, they're urged in passages of their Koran to accord the highest of honors to the Messiah of the people of the Son.

In one passage of the Christian Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying,

"Why [do you behold] the mote (speck) that is in [your] brother's eye, but [perceive] (recognize) not the beam that is in [your] own eye? . . . [You] hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of [your] own eye, and then [you shall] see clearly to pull out the mote that is in [your] brother's eye " (Luke 6:41-42).

Well, while we're here, I'd like to comment on what is supposed to be the underlying humane goal of Hamas, the members of which organization are considered terrorists by Americans with very good cause. Anyway, Hamas claims their goal, after the destruction of Israel, is a state, in which Muslims and Christians and Jews can live together in peace and prosperity.

Here's the funny thing about that, Hamas is about sixty (60) years late in espousing that goal. That could've happened in a narrow window of history, after the end of the Second World War in Europe and before the United Nations' partition of Palestine.

Apropos of that missed opportunity, here's a "bon mot" in circulation among Jews, who pursue commercial success on the "island" of Manhattan ... "you snooze, you lose".

Even funnier yet, Hamas is based in a region of the world, where insults inflicted a hundred years call for reprisal sometime this afternoon. So, here's Hamas blithely ignoring the past sixty years with their call for an ideal state.

By the bye, I'm speculating that, as Hamas tries to take over the reins of power in their portion of Palestine, both they and the people they hope to govern are in a series of rude awakenings ... eYep.

toodles
....../
.he who is known as sefton

EPIMETHEAN COMMENT -

here's more funny stuff ... those imams, who are instigating riots over those "blasphemous cartoons", are efficaciously undermining that legendary islamic religiosity.

Without those riots that call attention to such stuff, it would still be virtually impossible for Muslims to even entertain the possibility of blasphemy ... oooh, that's a thought seed that's bound to sprout, and eventually yield new strange fruit ... apologies to Billie Holliday.

However either progress or regression is described, one thing's for "leadpipe cinch" certain. There's a sea change a-brewing in the world of Islam.

- - here's a follow-up to previous comment - -

If it weren't for the senseless bloodshed, a certain convocation of Iraqi imams would be hilarious. Here's what I mean. They pose for the camera clasping upraised hands in an appeal for peace among the various Muslim sects. The very next day, they're made to look like fools, as innocent people get blown to smithereens.

I'm told there's a saying that's circulating in certain Jewish circles. And it goes like so:

. . . . . hypocrites make the most odious of fools . . . .

So, that set me to wondering. How many (?) of those imams, appealing for peace, preached sermons that praised those suicide bombers, who killed and maimed Israeli civilians in the name of Islam.

I also wonder whether the Koran contains a verse like so:

. . . as ye reap, so shall ye sow . . .

oh, well, maybe, such speculation such as that is not meant for my type of guy.