Tuesday, May 31, 2011

More On Memes

George Will.   I agree with him more often than not.  But he's in the Peggy Noonan wing of the Washington GOP Insider Elite.

Which means he can't stand Sarah Palin.  Because she is a threat to the carefully cultured impression that you have to belong to their Culture Club before you're qualified to run the country. 

Well, last I checked, you had to be at least 35 and a natural born US citizen.

But nobody's allowed to double-check any of that.

So we'll make it 35, natural born citizen, or a member of a sanctioned protected minority.   :-)

At any rate, today I saw an article with video on Mediaite where George Will says, referring to Sarah Palin
“The threshold question, not usually asked, but it’s in everyone’s mind in a presidential election. ‘Should we give this person nuclear weapons?’ And the answer is ... answers itself.”
Now George does have a wry and ironic sense of humor, and I suppose he could be slipping one by us here -- because he really doesn't actually come out and say what he thinks that answer is.  So he could mean "yes".  But I doubt it.  George has over time shown himself to be less than a fan.

I don't care if George doesn't like her prospects or disagrees with something she's said or stood for.  But really, what, exactly, about Sarah Palin leads George to believe that she couldn't be trusted with the nation's nuclear arsenal?   I mean, be specific, George.

Because if you're not, then you're engaging in a sad kind of intellectual dishonesty -- the intellectual side-step.  The avoidance of making an argument by asserting it is beneath you to back up your assertions.   "Everyone knows", and "anyone who doesn't is an idiot."

To further go down the road of the Washinton Inside The Beltway tunnel-vision, look at what "expert" Johnathan Karl comes up with next on whether or not Palin will run:
I see absolutely no evidence that Sarah Palin is preparing to run for president.   Doesn't mean that she ... could change her mind, but look, she doesn't even have a scheduler, she has no donor network built up, she doesn't have a press secretaryEvery decision as [far as?] we can tell is being made strictly by Sarah, or Todd Palin...  [emphasis mine]
Wow.  And they wonder what we see in this woman.


I used to be quite the scraggle-head.
It may surprise some readers that this "winger nut-job" is Grateful Dead fan who has read a lot of (and still appreciates) Alan Watts.  I would imagine that I am in a minority of people who would call themselves anything like a "fan" of his that has the political outlook that I have.  He's very popular with the new-agey TM mystical spirutual crowd, most of whom you will find decidedly on the collectivist side of the political spectrum.

I recently contributed to the making of a documentary on the man, and as one of my "perks" I got for donating I got an audio CD .... a compilation of exerpts from lectures and radio programs.  And something he said in one of them really stuck out at me.

A person who thinks all the time has nothing to think about except thoughts. So he loses touch with reality, and lives in a world of illusions. By thoughts, I mean specifically, chatter in the skull. Perpetual and compulsive repetition of words of reckoning and calculating. I'm not saying that thinking is "bad". Like everything else it's useful in moderation. A good servant, but a bad master. And all so-called civilized peoples have increasingly become crazy and self-destructive, because through excessive thinking they have lost touch with reality. That's to say, we confuse signs - words, numbers, symbols, and ideas -- with the real world. with reality.
I have experience with people, a couple of them fairly close to me, who have fallen into a life where they have become out of touch with life the way most people experience it and have dived in to the realm of over-thinking to find meaning or to shore up what they want to find meaningful ... in their lives.  And the saying "idle hands are the devil's workshop" came to mind. 

It got me to thinking of Things I Know #3  "Models are not reality. Models are expressions of belief about reality".  This is really what Alan Watts is driving at in the above, and I probably understand it as well as I do thanks to Watts and Pirsig.  This is as true in atmospheric science as it is in economics, and manifests itself in anthropogenic global warming studies as well as in Keyensian economics.

Which got me to thinking about the intellectual left in general.  People who have done nothing but crack books and have discussions in coffee houses and attend events and seminars all their lives who somehow have the answers to all of our problems with theories developed from layers of layers of theories -- which are themselves symbols, getting farther and farther removed from reality.  They deal with people in a very small circles because they are not forced to deal with people whose beliefs fall outside of their spheres of belief like those of us who have jobs do -- and can afford to shun anyone with ideas that challenge their own.  Which in turn gives them the [false] sense of relevance and certainty that they seek.

An idle, isolated mind with self-esteem issues ... There is something about having too much time on your hands combined with a hunger to prove to yourself that you matter that can lead to all kinds of mischief.
They say that the left side of the brain controls the right
They say that the right side has to work hard all night
Maybe I think too much for my own good
Some people say so
Other people say no no
The fact is You don't think
As much as you could
hmmm  -
Paul Simon

Why 9/11 Worked

Here's a guy working the night shift at Wal-Greens, confronted by armed robbers.  He gets his gun, which I assume he isn't "supposed" to have at work, and causes the robbers to flee.

For this he is fired.

This is the attitude that allowed the hijackers on 9/11 to hijack a plane with boxcutters and crash them into buildings ... until, of course, some people on the fourth plane were tipped off to what was going to happen that they had nothing to lose by fighting back.

Let 'em have what they want.  Let the police deal with it.   What a tragedy that you were killed.  Don't worry.  We'll catch 'em.

Oh.  Thanks.

Oh, Mann ... Tornadoes on the Rise. And it's AGW, of course! Not.

Also frome IceCap.
May 29, 2011

MSU Prof: “Number Of Tornadoes Has Dropped Dramatically”. NOAA:"Natural”; Mann, UCS: It’s AGW By P Gosselin on 29. Mai 2011

The German online Die Zeit here takes a look at the series of tornadoes that have ravaged the USA and conducted an interview with US meteorologist and Mississippi State University professor Grady Dixon.

Meteorology professor Grady Dixon: “Terrible mistake” to relate tornado up-tick to climate change.

Die Zeit asks the question: “Herr Dixon, is the number of such lethal storms rising in the USA?” Dixon replies:
No, to the contrary. Over the long term the number of deadly tornadoes has even dropped dramatically. [...] However, we have to expect that more people will be hit by tornadoes in the future. Not because there are more storms, but because the population is growing and suburbs and cities are expanding. In any case, 2011 is an unusually violent tornado year and it is just a fluke.”
Dixon is also asked if climate change favors the creation of more tornadoes. Dixon answers:
"Research results are mixed on this. [...] But all indications show that it does not necessarily mean that tornadoes will be increasing in frequency.”
On the frequency of tornadoes, Dixon is also quoted by the English-language France 24 here:
"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.
But he said it would be ‘a terrible mistake’ to relate the up-tick to climate change.”

France 24 also quotes a FEMA official:

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: ‘Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,’ he said.
"Many people think of Oklahoma as ‘Tornado Alley and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer’.”
Many weeks back I recall Joe Bastardi predicting a humdinger of a tornado season, and of course we now see that his warnings were spot on. This spike in tornadoes is not due to warmth, but to cooling brought on by La Nina, with cold northern air smashing into warm, moist southern air.

David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma adds:
“We knew it was going to be a big tornado year. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet.”
A rare moment of sanity coming from the NOAA? Sorry Romm, but on this one you’re a lone fool (again) out in the desert.
Unrelated: Benny Peiser brings or attention to news that a Global Climate Treaty Is DOA. Looks like Europe will be joining Romm out in the desert.

Note; Two other Ph.D.’s prove that a Ph.D. does not guarantee intelligence or at least that for some dogma trumps common sense in this story.

A Giant Middle Finger to the MSM

I'm likin' what Sarah Palin is doing on this tour.   Keep the MSM back on their heels.  They don't know where she's going to be or when, so they are playing catch up trying to pre-frame and pre-digest it for their audience.

How are we going to tell people what to think if we don't know what we're reporting on?

They want to cover her to show us how unimportant and unpresidential she is, and she's just trotting around with her family to American Historical sites.

Who, me?  Run for president?

This could all be a giant fundraiser for candidates for the next election.  It's certainly a distraction from YAS-man Obama  ("Yet Another Speech") and from the brouhaha brewing in the GOP field.

It's certainly whipping up energy.

I really don't care at this point if she runs or not.  I'd take Michele any day.  And there are a few others that aren't bad.  Especially considering.

If people like Palin can continue to direct the conversation in the right direction ... away from "America Bad/One World Collectivist Citizenship Good" ... and focus on our history (good and bad) and the Constitution and what America IS, I'm all for it.

You go, Sarah!  Whatever you decide.

Keep pissin' off all the right people!

FOIA Not for Skeptics

Heh.  From the Junk Science to the Washington Post via IceCap.

WashPost: Freedom of Information Act not for skeptics’ use
Junk Science responds to WAPO editorial

In a bizarre Memorial Day editorial, the Washington Post criticized climate skeptics for using the Freedom of Information Act to pry documents concerning Climategater Michael Mann from the University of Virginia.

The Post labeled the skeptics’ FOIA efforts as “harrassing” and “nuisance tactics.”

The Post, however, has been entirely silent on Greenpeace’s efforts to FOIA documents from the University of Virginia concerning Pat Michaels, University of Delaware concerning David Legates and from Harvard University concerning Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas - efforts that are truly “harrassing” and “nuisance” in nature as Greenpeace acted entirely in retaliation to the FOIA request concerning Mann.

The editorial is especially gross coming on the day when America commemorates those who died to preserve everyone’s freedoms - not just those of the politically correct.

See post and be sure to read the comments.
I wonder where the Washington Post comes down on the harrassing lawsuits filed against Sarah Palin in Alaska, taking advantage of an unique Alaskan law that allowed it. 

On second thought... no, I really don't.

If you're at all interested in the skeptics' side of the AGW debate (you know, the one the warmists declared "over" years ago) and  IceCap isn't on at least your informal weekly list for you to hit and browse ... it should be.

Sunday, May 29, 2011


Best Paragraph I've Heard or Read Lately....
Liberals believe in derailing any discussion that becomes thoughtful enough that their own ideas are treated with anything but instant acceptance. They believe in marginalizing the opposition as a primary means of exchanging ideas. They believe in prerationalism. “So, we’re all on board, right?” is the only sentiment they see as valid in any meeting-of-the-minds about anything…they don’t know what to do with dissent and they don’t even know what to do with questions.
Except … on that last part, they know what to do. Or at least, they are consistent about what they do. They go to the well. Ridicule. Baseless ridicule, that is. A sneering tone, a few baseless insults, implying that anyone who disagrees with their ridicule and insult is by definition an idiot. So it’s really more of the same.

And the BISHORL comes from Morgan's friend Mike Simone:
If you voted for Obama in ‘08 to prove you’re not a racist, you’ll need to vote for someone else in ‘12 to prove you’re not an idiot.
I know. The second seems at face value to be an example of the first. But I've got things besides quoting Tina Fey or hollering "money grubber" or "quitter" (or slut???) to back that up.

Speaking of that, could somebody point me to someone on Fox News using the kind of language that gets you a week's forced vacation on MSNBC?)

Ministry of Information

I guess Big O has moved his media SWAT team into the White House.

This is a bit of a sticky wicket ... the White House should be able to defend itself.  It's one thing G.W. handled poorly, I think.

I completely disagree (and this is not the first place I've heard it) with the assertion that there's something wrong with Obama being overseas during local natural disasters. It is not the President's job to console disaster victims.   The president, except maybe in extreme cases like Katrina or a massive earthquake, should probably keep going about any larger scope business he's had planned.   If the issue is the double-standard, as Megan finally pushed Reagan into saying -- fine.  Good point, but make it at the beginning.  Carping about the same things THEY carp about makes you as bad as they are.  I hate it.  It needs to stop.

On the other hand, having an in-house, tax-payer funded arm of your .... let's face it, Presidential campaign ... I think there's a bit of a conflict of interest there.

Monday, May 23, 2011

It's All That Debt and Regulation

It's probably all that debt and regulation. Or it could just be the enormous ego.

"Here I am, brain the size of a planet ..."

Friday, May 20, 2011

1967 Borders

So ... if I have this straight, the West Bank was designated as part of Syria when Israel was originally created by the U.N. in 1948.  Jordan was called "Trans-Jordan" and it was to be the Arab Palestinian State.  But during the civil war that immediately followed the creation of Israel, Jordan took it from Syria.

In th 6-Day War of 1967, if we look at the series of events, Israel took it from Jordan when Jordan attacked Israel.  Same with the Golan Heights and Syria.

Now if Jordan and/or Syria had won that war, they would have expected to retain any of Israel they conquered and not be questioned about it. (Jordan nabbed the West Bank from Syria in 1948, and they expected to keep it, right?) However, in 1967 Israel captured in the fighting after Jordan attacked Israel as mentioned above -- and for some reason it is considered illegitimate for Israel to expect to retain territory it conquered.

Israel also took the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt.  The aggression on that front of the war is a little fuzzier.  Apparently the Russians mis-fed information to Egypt that Israel was massing troops on the border there, and Egypt started massing troops on their side in "response".  The buildup on the Egyptian side of the border had been going on for some time, and Israel blinked and destroyed Egypt's airforce in one day as it sat on the ground ... in a pre-emptive strike, thus kicking off the famous Six Day War.

But Israel gave the Sinai back a long time ago (1978? though one could argue that she shouldn't have had to ... but she did), and Gaza just a few years ago went to "The Palestinians", who elected Hamas to govern them.

After destroying the highly technical agricultural infrastructure Israel just gave to them, Hamas immediately began shelling Israel from Gaza.  But I digress -- the important point here is that those areas are back to the 1967 borders already.

Which leaves the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.  Which as we've demonstrated above were justly conquered territories, and the Golan Heights, especially -- is a very strategic position from which the Syrians had routinely shelled Israeli towns over the years.  I can see why Israel'd be reluctant to give it back.

And I now turn it over to Bill Whittle to illustrate what belongs to whom.  (I know he's talking about Lubbock, TX, but try to follow, m-kay?  I assume we all have enough grey matter to draw the parallel)

Bill. Nails it. Again.

There was a conversation over on facebook which got to the relative manners of Obama and "Bush and Palin Combined".  I threw up my defense of Bush, when it comes to class and manners (even though I had major disagreements with some of his domestic policies).   It was once again down to "Bush Idiot".  "Palin Idiot".   Where do these narratives come from, and how do they persist?  Bill knows.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Philmon responds to a back-handed compliment

From Salon's Joan Walsh to Michelle Bachmann

Before we get to Joan's direct comments on Michelle, I feel compelled to address the "Gingrich RACIST" thing.  I'm not a big Newt fan, but can we stop already with the "coded racist remarks" bit? The only people who apparently understand that code is the Left that keeps making the charges. The rest of us look at you and ask what the heck you're talking about.

The anti-Tea Party media is quick to dismiss references to things they don't know as "ignorance".

"You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord" ... hmmm, sounds to me like she knew where the shots were fired, maybe she was just confused as to what state she was in when she was giving her talk. If you could please let us know which of the 57 states those shots were heard in, we'll make a note of her ignorance.

Also, many founders did work to eradicate slavery, even some who owned slaves. It's not as cut and dried as you think. Try, for once, to assume that you don't know everything and that someone who says something outside of your knowledgebase is not obviously wrong from the outset. Don't go to today's "experts". Go to original sources and read for yourself.

And as far as gangster government ... the bribes, the back-room deals in Obamacare alone ... and this.

Cut the lady some slack and at least investigate both sides.

Oh Goody. Another Speech.

Another "Teh Best Speech Evah" scheduled for later today.  It'll be very important.  Somethin' about some stuff, with hope and change, or some variants upon those terribly specific tomes.  There'll be talk of building, maybe a little bit on freedom, and the Middle East will be changed forever, because of the brilliant words spoken by this brilliant man that we're so lucky to have ... and everyone will remember it forever promptly forget about it.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Democrat Game Plan - Second Verse, Same as the First

The Race Card.

Like you needed to guess.  The narrative is all who oppose the Democrats are racist.

Article in today's USA Today:

Brazile: GOP's 2012 game plan is to keep [black] voters home

Yes, I inserted the [black], because that is what the article ultimately claims.
Across America, Republican lawmakers have talked a big game about cutting budgets, but they also are seeking reductions to something much more fundamental: Americans' voting rights. From coast to coast, the GOP is engaged in what appears to be a coordinated, expensive effort to block voters from the polls.
The motivation is political — a cynical effort to restrict voting by traditionally Democratic-leaning Americans. In more than 30 states, GOP legislators are on the move, from a sweeping rewrite of Florida's election laws to new rules for photo identification in Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina and more than 20 other states.
Or ... they could just go out and get photo ids like the rest of us.  As one commenter put it, it's not like election day sneaks up on us.  We are responsible (hey, remember that word?) for making sure we know where to vote, when to vote, and what documentation we need to have available to us to prove that we are eligible to vote.  Everything else is just a smokescreen.  And besides.... Things I Know #34: If A is "political" and B is opposition to A, then B is also "political".

Using race as a smokescreen, the Democratic Party would like to keep voter fraud as easy as possible. It wrote the book on it in the first place. They don't want to lose this important tool to impose their agenda over the will of the people. This is why you find them opposing every measure that would make fraud harder, and pushing any measure that will make fraud easier.

Nobody's "rights" are being taken away.  We'd just like voters to demonstrate some responsibility.  They go hand in hand.

Monday, May 16, 2011

The Making of America

Our local Tea Party group has been reading and discussing the Constitution .... as much and as far as we can get in an hour every two weeks in a session before our regular meetings.

I sadly missed, due to a family visit, the day long "The Making of America" seminar our Mid Missouri Fulton Chapter put on a few weeks ago.    I hear it was fantastic, and I'll "totally" go to one if we put one on again (which our group is now talking about doing)

But Fred brought the text book you can get for it to our last meeting, and it ... it's invaluable for any reading and discussion of the Constitution.  After brief biographies of many of the founders, and chapters covering some of the more influential founders and the history of the Revolution itself, each article, section, and amendment is written with contextual explanation to aid in discussion and understanding. (They sell it for $30, but you can get it for half that in orders of 10 or more for you groups out there, and you can often find it for $15-$17 on Amazon).   I cannot recommend it enough. I just bought a second copy to lend out.  And you can get a DVD of the seminar here. (To answer your question, no, I am not associated with CCS... I'm just impressed).

Seriously.  Get it for a reference book.   Tell some stories from it.  Leave it out for your kids to read.  It will balance out what they've likely been learning in school.

My big push in this Tea Party movement is to get educated and not only stop echoes, but to evangelize what a gift we've been given and to get people to realize that the basic questions of a free government have been answered ... if we as a people will only re-discover what is right in front of our noses.  This is the most important and useful thing we can do.  Remember the (perhaps bogus, but still prescient quote):
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president."
To be clear, this whole movement has very little to do with Obama, but with the mode of thought he represents which infects our society.   Education and advocacy are the antibiotics.

Get the people (or enough of them) thinking clearly again with the knowledge of the Constitution in its original intent (no, I don't mean form, I mean intent and contrary to popular belief there is plenty of contextual writing that makes it clear) and the rest will follow.  Elect a few sane politicians and they're gone in the next reactionary election.  It's We the People, not We the Politicians, and as much as it pains us, We the People have to pay attention and hold them accountable to The Framework.   It is only We the People who can change our representation in any meaningful, long-term way.  And only We the People can push the system back inside the proper framework.

Somewhere I have the fully agreed upon mission statement for our group, but this is basically what it is:
To promote the peaceful restoration America's focus on her Constitutionally Limited Government and the values that precipitated it through education, awareness, and advocacy.
Oh ... and if you're feeling flush, how about having a bunch of these around to give to anyone who seems the slightest bit interested?

Then maybe invite 'em over for beer, pizza, and that DVD.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The Chillllllllllldren ... again

I'm on a mailing list for The Nation Magazine.   So I get all kinds of interesting alerts and pleas from the Left.
How do you *know*,
little girl? 

Today's was particularly gripping.  Or griping.

"Children of Progressive Activists Are Under Attack!!!"

Dear Nation Reader,
It's tough enough to be a parent without having to worry about the impact of your commitment to social justice on your children's future. Even worse, as the letter below explains, many activist parents are seeing their kids suffer, too.
That's right, for no other reason than their parents' political leanings and vocalizations thereof, we have the long arm of the law swooping down upon the children.  I'm sure it happens all the time.

Fatima and Rachel were stunned and confused when the FBI searched their homes, and ransacked and photographed their belongings. Their parents, members of peace and justice groups in the Midwest, are among those who were targeted recently by grand juries investigating anti-war and international solidarity activists for supposedly providing material support for terrorist organizations. These girls, five and six years old, now face possible separation from one or both of their parents.
Well, maybe mommy and daddy should have considered that when they opened themselves via probable cause to a search warrant.

You know, if mommy and/or daddy were trespassing or vandalizing for Social Justice™, or perhaps aiding and abeting organizations bent on the overthrow transformation of the United States and its Constitution and align themselves with terrorists freedom fighters, or burning SUV's for Mother Gaia -- why make the poor kids suffer?  It's not mommy or daddy's fault, it's those bad, bad, "wingers", to the right of Stalin -- who hate puppies and swing kitties by their tails to beat wide-eyed, innocent children.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011


Seen on the news this morning.  A poll.

After Bin Laden, President Obama should focus on
Gas Prices
Ok. So I guess the president has been "focused" on Bin Laden for 2.5 years and hasn't really been paying much attention to anything else, then. Little did we know.

And since the president can ONLY focus on ONE thing at a time... I guess we have to pick ONE.

I dunno, how about addressing the proper size and scope of the Federal Government as outlined in the Constitution, the massive overspending, and enforcing our current immigration laws?

Just for starters?

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Question For Ya

We've been told ad nauseum for 10 years now that most Muslims dispise Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden, who hijacked their peaceful religion and that they're just like the rest of us and want justice to be done.

The Left insisted we release ALL of the Abu Ghraib photos, which would clearly offend Muslim sensibilities -- and that was fine.  Because it would hurt the war effort and most importantly, George W. Bush.

But now we are to believe that releasing a the final mug shot of the guy who hijacked their religion and did not represent them in any way whatsoever ... would offend their sensibilities?


So which is it?

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Thus Opening the Door for a "Deather" Movement

White House Won't Release "Death Photos"

"It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool," [..] "We don't trot out this stuff as trophies," [..] "The fact of the matter is, this is somebody who was deserving of the justice that he received."
So we must take your word for it. Got it.

This is the reason he released his birth certificate last week, I'm tellin' ya.  To pave the way for this announcement.  Question this, and you look like a chump.

Again, not sayin' it didn't go down exactly as reported.  But that's why he finally released the "long form".

Update: It's already started. But overseas. :-)

“We still have no reason to believe that bin Laden is dead because America has not provided any cogent proof to prove its claim” - Qari Zabiullah, Taliban Spokesman

Alex. Calling Alex. Calling Alex Jones.

Suppose my made up conspiracy turned out to mirror the truth too closely ... might I expect to see hits like this on my blog?

Oh oh. :-o

Now where did I put that roll of heavy duty tinfoil?

Intelligence Timeline -- Most Interesting

From The Ace of Spades.

Just go read it.  I have nothing to add.

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Freedom of the Press

Reading "Original Intent" by David Barton
... too often today the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and speech have been misinterpreted to protect the irresponsible and even irrational exercises of personal vindictive prerogatives.  Without the requirement of accountability, Justice Joseph Story warned us that the press would "become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form."
He served as Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845.   Prophetic, no?

Your Obligitory "Looks Like I Was Wrong" Post

So woke up Monday Morning to the sound of a Bin Laden-free world.

And over the last several years yours truly here has all but insisted that Bin Laden was dead, buried under the rubble of some collapsed cave somewhere.

But apparently not.  Apparently after years of tracking Osama down by courier, The Team That Cannot Be Mentioned slipped in, took him out, and then took him OUT... to sea, where they disposed of him in a place that will be very difficult to gather 'round and build a shrine.

Of course, in this day and age of conspiracy theories, it did occurr to me that that story line would be a perfect cover for a faked assasination, and I got to thinking.... like an Escher drawing, where I suddenly saw the whole thing inside-out....

Now let me make it clear that I'm buying the story, as real conspiracies tend to get ratted out, and the bigger, the more quickly.  But before I went to bed last night, this wild conspiracy theory popped into my head.

Suppose ... suppose Bin Laden had been dead for years.  And suppose Obama was sinking in the polls.  And suppose he knew Osama had been dead for years, but nobody could prove it.  And he wanted to improve his image.  So what if he wanted to "catch" Bin Laden and give himself a bump in the polls?  But there was this "birther" conspiracy out there to which this would only add more fuel.

Suppose Oprah had a friend named Donald Trump, a man widely liked for his TV "reality" show.  Suppose they had him hint at running for president, and start pushing the birther issue, so that the birthers would rally behind him, and Obama -- after years of refusing to release that "long form" and apparently spending a substantial amount to keep it from seeing the light of day ... would give in to the "pressure" from this "right-wing nut-job", look like the victim, and produce the birth certificate (or a facimile of it).   This once and for all marginalizes the birthers to the absolute fringe, and they lose any sympathy anyone in the "middle" had for them.  Anyone who still holds to that crazy conspiracy is officially a nut-job now.

And to hold to any further conspiracy theory would bring down mounds of derision and dismissal.

Then we stage a raid by a team that "doesn't exist" where they "kill" Osama, and whisk his body off to an air-craft carrier to be dumped into the ocean for very good reasons (and reasons I agree with, for the record) ... and there's no trace of the man who was killed and nobody who was "there" that you could even ask about it, because they don't exist.

Now Obama's the guy who "got Bin Laden", his poll numbers go up, and he has a "tough guy" notch in his belt from which to help campaign.

Or, suppose it really WAS Bin Laden (which I do believe, and this is actually more plausible) ... and that we figured out this was his compound last August and a couple of months ago our intelligence agencies said we have the intel now to pinpoint his location and take him out at any time .... but that the plan was do NOT take him alive and do NOT let his body be buiried in a place around which his supporters can rally.

But there's a problem.  It'll look, pardon the pun, "fishy".  And we've already got 38% of the population who either are themselves or don't completly reject "birtherism".... and this would only add to suspicion.  So staffers say "Mr. President, we really need to lay this birther thing to rest."  But after years of refusing to release that "long form" and apparently spending a substantial amount to keep it from seeing the light of day ... it would look a little strange for the president to just suddenly release it without a reason.

So Oprah's buddy Donald is recruited to "start" a presidential campaign (which would surprise nobody, since he's made noises about it before) and as a part of his campaign, he would "pressure" Obama (bad cop) to release the birth certificate.  Obama would resist, then finally give in -- him looking like the victim, Trump eventually fading into the background, and the birthers completely marginalized and untouchable.

Which would set the stage for the raid.  And in this version of the story it's an actual real raid against the real, living Bin Laden which could now be carried out in the manner desired and in such a political climate that the number of people who would publicly question the veracity of the story would be minimized.   Which would be good all around for national and world security.

Either one would make a fun movie plot, eh?

In the end, the conspiracy theorist is right that there was covertness, but that it was carried out for the right reasons.  Which would blast a hole in the lefty worldview that all covertness is wrong.