Ever wonder how these largely un-filmed drug lords of Mexico are making uber-bank in their trade despite global economic woes; or how for the Weather Channel for years portraying literally all the USA as in permanent drought, same is rarely if ever a campaign or budget issue; or how ever-dwindling smokers, one in five or less of adults ( http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking.asp ), will provide enough tax money on smokes to pay for the infinite healthcare of the world; or why Latinos or New Urban housing are but thimblefuls of the USA landscape?

Anyway, the other night, local news showed some press release video of bin Laden, making threats anew after almost eight long years following 2001 AUMF; same time, Oprah, King, et al shown implying American men...not Congo or anti-WOZA troops...are very bad. Darn...who wants to embolden Laden now by say criticizing any official, or look like a hotheaded male risking women and children for not quaking before Laden?

The real question is: why is Laden given this carte blanche to our media without rebuttals? For all the blood and treasure the USA has spent since 911, it seems mostly aimed at keeping a perimeter around Laden's hosts including Pakistan which claims to use him against Pashtun leaders (re Mumbai obviously a rather porous border), while the USA inter alia pour aid into Laden's nesting lands...and the USA mulls a borderless homeland.

Quite obviously, Laden is unfazed by mortgage, cash, and credit woes, and needs no "emboldening" beyond that...recall 911 hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and "killer" seems miffed everyday Americans expect more than they now face. Alternately, he has to know Pakistan is trying to say the USA is "racist" against Islam, yet most Muslims reject Ladenism, and it doesn't seem a "race card" to say India, the USA, or anyone else can't see why Laden hosts don't do more themselves against him, let ANY forces capture him instead, or both.

Then some say that not accepting such status quo re Laden will subject us to risks of provoking him, so such dissent needs silencing...and that USA females should do what it takes to over-ride male voices of dissent and bow to the wills of these foreign killers for peace and the children. 

In "Feminism As Subversion: Reflections on the Muslim Concept of NuzHuz", in "Speaking of Faith: Global Perspectives on Women, Religion and Social Change", New Society Publishers, 1987, Fatima Mernissi indicated on e nation run by Islamic fundamentalists once dealt with men pushing women's rights by saying the very governmentally-enforced way men HAD to treat women made them incompetent to protest on behalf OF women even if Islamic law only lets men do so; wouldn't it be weird if anyone suggested all USA male voices be silenced by women, before Ladenists who don't care what women say could be approached for women's rights, as if "no male impurators" would sway them...or suggested low- to deeply cut women's wages, abusive relationships or not, and high costs proved to fundamentalists abroad USA women want no disruption to low expectations for Islamic women, just themselves sans men?

Then again, all the currently hyped abuse themes in media all at once could just be to distract from economic talk, talk as to why Laden still exists, or even be PSYOPS to create impression State and local VAWA officials and clergy are watching women and senior parents, at a time due to foreclosures and job losses families might try crowding together...actual physical abuse is one rightfully actionable type, but historically many other non-physical everyday things tend to be pronounced "abuse", down to simply being in the presence of a spouse or parent without a job, even women "abusing" parents thusly in absence of parental complaints. 

As for Laden, his image could just be to justify keeping foreclosed and jobless folks off most public ways, so Laden can't slip an operative into unmonitored aimless groupings...and Latinos ditto, since they often look Mid-Eastern; plus, people roaming sidewalks doesn't present an upbeat economic scene.

[Editor's Notes: USA Faith office Churches have a theme of God giving financial security to His favored, and taking it away from sinners and non-sinners alike...the latter sounds in fundamentalist Islam, which ascribes prosperity of both sinners and faithful as coming from God; the Faith office must find such context a "security sop" to Ladenists, even if it means Ladenists claim where good and evil are both funded by God, He still lets rejecters of His word into Heaven even if killing innocents, on warped definition of Allah such that we all act as His puppets with no wills of our own ( twists Al-Ashari theology claiming God runs good and evil ).

Iranian government Twelver Shiites follow Al-Hilli theology on that, which insists God has no need of human incarnation to make people listen to Him ( yet does need human prophets ); but refutes Ladenists on Allah, saying: "The will to do evil is impossible for Him, for that will is evil", and "Our acts occur by free choice, and reason requires this". It may be too tempting for some to not sop to the Laden/Pakistani government Al-Ashari theology in some gambit against Iran's nuclear ambitions...does "eye-for-an-eye, plays favorites, discriminator Jesus", itself a neo-hybrid, provoke or actually COMPLIMENT Ladenism?

Lastly, in State Islam African nations not known as USA attackers, actual people in much of that continent historically up to now mostly interested in spiritual healing cults rather than "ism", many western and USA Christians sell the neo-hybrid Jesus, but with a direct injection of Islamic Surah 75...all die body AND soul until some future mass Resurrection, and so did Jesus. Perhaps some try to sop even to Sudan's Bashir, haven-maker for Ladenistic genociders Janjaweed re Darfur, to court another Al-Ashari voice against Iran.

If this truly is the "aid war on terror and economics" game plan, i.e. comport at arm's length with Islamic Al-Ashari fundamentalists, when does it begin desired results and stop looking like a club the USA joined; and is everything from civil rights to religious beliefs to economics always on the table to meet every demand of Al-Ashari "allies" against Iran?]