Looking down to the wikipedia article segment on how the Chinese government treats the Tiananmen Square Protests, I can’t help but thinking that in two decades we’ll see much the same for the current protests in Burma.
Archive for September, 2007
However, a new article from the LaRouche Youth explains the real menace facing American life today: Dick Cheney’s plot to have us play computer games.
There is some method to this madness, and it probably does have some recruiting ability on a college campus. A handful is all that is needed, and all that is desirable for this shammy whammy. But, going to the item of interest from the “Larouche Youth Intelligence”, um…
For all those individuals salivating about the new Halo 3 video game, ask yourself the question: what is the difference between man and beast?
NOOOOOO!!! Kill me.
II. It appears that “someone” has edited history and deleted the raving remarks that I noted above.The Schiller Institute (sic) site now provides a transcript:
but it OMITS LAR’s final remarks, including his World-Delusional Ejack-adulation:
“Q: You were just talking about, it’s so important to get Cheney out of office: And who can get Cheney out of office?
LAROUCHE: Me! Or, nobody can. Either one.”
But the above still appears at the original location:
Still, EITHER ONE “is” madness.
III. Because the world is demanding to read the cult’s internal daily briefings:
MORNING BRIEFING |
Tuesday, September 25, 2007|
LaRouche Says a Kick in the Testicles Is Neededb~~~~Commenting on the Herbert Hoover-like delusion expressed by some Democrats and others that the present financial crisis is not a breakdown crisis, Lyndon LaRouche said today that we have to be tough. If people in the Democratic Party continue to hold onto this incompetent opinion, we may find ourselves losing the nation and civilization. This is a breakdown crisis. It was forecast by Lyndon LaRouche and that forecast is proven to be correct beyond any doubt. Unfortunately some Congressmen have been sucked into the view that the current crisis is not a breakdown crisis, under pressure from hedge funds, among others. To the extent that they continue to hold that incompetent view, the solutions which they offer are also incompetent. Moreover, they are delaying on erecting the necessary firewall as proposed by LaRouche to protect homeowners and state and federally chartered banks.
b~~~~LaRouche emphasized that there is no room for compromise. Anyone who says this is not a breakdown crisis should be told the he or she is incompetent, and that the price for that incompetence is beyond anything they’re willing to pay. Because of such incompetence we may lose the nation. Therefore any opinion that this is not a systemic breakdown crisis is not only incompetent, but a threat to the welfare of the nation.
b~~~~This is our line, period! A kick in the testicles is needed.
Which leads us directly to this challenge of note:
I was unaware of this latest “forecast” when, a week ago, my friendly Leesberg contact – a well-known Boomer from the old FEF, called to tell me that by October 15th, the dollar would be worth ZERO.“Zero” ($0.0) I asked. “Surely you must be joking! Why do you keep telling me these things? You/LAR are always wrong. Yet, with each new crisis, you have the same high confidence. WTF are you trying to pull off? I’ve been hearing this nonsense for 30-40 years.”
The boomer tells me that “THIS time, it is all coming down. The CRASH is coming.”
I reply: “Surely you must have an out of some kind? Is it October 15th by 11:59PM, is that when it will end? Or will you fudge the date?”
“Yes, Oct. 15. The system is finished. Everything will vanish.”
“But perhaps YOU/LAR will intervene to save us – is that the excuse you will use when the crash does not materialize by 11:59PM on October 15th?”
So, of course, the boomer tells me about some proposal they are trying to get congress to pass (I knew nothing about it.).
I then ask, “Well, what is the cut-off date, after which the forecast will be written in stone?”
Boomer replies, “The end of September – if the bill is not enacted, the crash will come by the 15th.”
I ask, “What will the crash look like? Are you going to weasel out of that too, like you have all the other times? How can we MEASURE this crash.”
Boomer: “Money will be worthless – you will not be able to buy a loaf of bread for $100,000. The dollar will go to zero.”
I reply: “I am writing this down – I will hold you to this. So you say that $10 will not buy a loaf of bread, nor $100, nor $1,000, nor $10,000, not even $100,000.
Boomer: “Yes, exactly.”
On October 16th, I want to send my guy a loaf of bread, probably via UPS. Any advice on what type I should send?
So we have two things that are dominating the “political work” of the Larouche organization at this moment. The BAE Scandal and Halo 3. No. Not the BAE Scandal. Um. A bill that is oh-so-being prodded into various state legislators that will solve the morgage crisis, and stave off the upcoming Dark Ages brought with the destruction of the economy…
… not to be confused with the Dark Ages that are being unleashed by Halo 3.
IV. Now available online: http://www.archive.org/details/SexualImpotenceOf
Take note of the provocative question “What is Male Impotence?”
This one requires you put your computer screen on your side. Or something. http://www.archive.org/details/WhatEveryConservativeShould
… Because, you know, the world is demanding to see 30 and 40 year old Larouche propaganda.
V. One interesting thought on why Larouche insists on referencing Jeremiah Duggan as “Jeremy”, and I either posited it or nearly did so on this blog already, but was mentioned again at FACTNet. It may be a deliberate psychopathic slap at Mrs. Duggan, who looked Larouche up on the Internet before her son went to the “Schiller Institute” meeting, but she misspelled his name. Or… it may be a refusal of Larouche to use the name “Jeremiah”, for one of “those reasons”…
Every so often I witness a police altercation of one sort or another. I think anyone who spends any amount of time in the downtown of any city will witness it every once in a while — and the same with any — um — “red light” or “exclusionary” zoned area of any city.
I watched something shake down the other day. My view was largely obstructed, so I was not able to see what was the deal was — it boiled down to one man who had to be restrained — perhaps some mixture of drugs and petty thievery — with one irritant witness who may have been the victim and after helping run him down jabbed with the police that came on the scene and provided his witnessed report. But this is all conjecture.
Something bothers me with this, and it is the case with just about any “police ride in on the scene” case I have seen, and something that can be witnessed in this photograph of the James Chasse tragedy of a year ago (link picked arbitrarily off of the top page in a google search)…
Maybe I am a little bit naive, but why are there so many police officers on the scene?
In the scene I watched the other day, I saw two people of interest that the police were dealing with. And I watched two police cars come in, each with two officers. Then I watched two more cars come in, each with two more officers. Then there was the ubiquitous fire department truck, apparently customary for anything and everything whether they are needed or not. And then, just for kicks, one more police patrol happened by. The result was 11 officers standing there, maybe five of them useful for most likely contingencies I can think of, with the “Too many cooks spoiling the brew” effect in full effect.
I assume everything played out well yesterday.
Former President Bill Clinton has sharply criticized the Republican presidential frontrunners for snubbing an African-American voter forum this week.
“This says more about the evolution of the Republican party than anything,” Clinton told Tavis Smiley on his Public Radio International show, which will air this Friday. “Keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president and Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House. And after Theodore Roosevelt, the parties began to switch places.”
It is interesting to look back and see how black Americans and civil rights figured into the two political parties through the ages, and here we ask the question of how we have come to the post-Civil War point where the vast majority of black Americans, or those who were not disenfranchised via Jim Crowe, voted for the Republican party to the point where the vast majority vote for the Democratic Party. I am tempted to list the diverging point, on the national level — aka the election of presidents– as the 1924 election.
The problem with Bill Clinton’s statement on “parties began to switch places” is that rolling into the 1912 election, various black leaders (W E B DuBois) getting a little angry at the diminishing level of return in supporting the Republicans — and DuBois generally thinking that Booker T Washington was making himself a patronage king within that party and not advancing anything– gambled by endorsing Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson’s presidency was probably the low point in terms of civil rights in the post-Civil War. Rolling into the 1920 election, the Democratic candidate — desparate– degenerated into a lot of race-baiting. So, on that score, we can count out a 12 year interugum between Theodore Roosevelt and 1924’s John Davis (and a strange convention debate over the KKK) as the shaking of the two parties in terms of the black vote — where the interests of the black vote collided with the interests of the traditional democratic admittedly machine-controlled urban immigrant (Catholic) vote. Followed by another intergum of 40 years, up to 1964 and the Voting Rights Act and Barry Goldwater — within which the Democrats slid forward and backward in advancing civil rights.
I admit to not having a terribly interesting thing to say about the following. If you are into this type of thing, than do what you must — in my daily interactions is sort of confined to seeing that people have written stuff in chalk on sidewalks. What I will say is … it is an interesting cartoon. More interesting than most of the things I see on the editorial page of the daily paper — but probably only due to the somewhat esoteric subject matter.
One of these days I will be drawn into a political cartoon in a congo line. Where, I don’t know. Maybe my good friends in the Laroach organization can draw that one up.
At first I thought I saw an advertisement for the upcoming return of Jesus Christ and the Good Times He is sure to Bring — in The Washington Monthly magazine, but looking into it it’s an advertisement for the upcoming return of the Buddha — or some derivation thereof — seems to be a newly minted creation…
… with seemingly the same consequences. Jesus is coming with him. As is everybody else. With their attendant End of World purview, even if they contradict each other and themselves.
I don’t quite get it. Why is there an advertisement for the Apocalypse in this political magazine? Is this the equivalent of the occasional sighting of Reverend Moon conferences I see in newspapers (The Oregonian, for example) from time to time?
Whatever pays the bills. I hope this isn’t the “Political Left” I occasionally hear about trying to gets its voting clout together.
(By the way, be sure to pick up the next issue of The Washington Monthly. I’m not in it, but I’m closer to being in it than in any other issue of any other publication.)
This article seems to belong in Gandhi’s second phase. So, that’s a start. Time to work even harder, folks!
His political career arc — to be forgotten shortly by everybody except people who travel in libertarian circles — and to be forgotten even sooner than I had thought since he has expressly forbid a run in a third party — goes something like:
First they ignore you, than they ridicule you, than they ignore you again.
There are no gay people in Iran. And there are no gay Senators from Idaho. These two concepts defy the laws of science — to contemplate it is akin to dividing a number by zero, and your mind will approach absolute mush. To posit either is an absurdity, which crumbles ipsofactoly.
If you heard otherwise, you have been misled.
“I have always thought that the nine scariest words in the English language were ‘My God! My skin is melting away my bones!!” — Ronald Reagan, I think.
“First they ignore you, than they ridicule you, than they ignore you again.” — Mahatma Ghandi, I think.
Fills me with an urge to Defecate. Or, you know, vote for Nader.
Solving the Problem de la Democratic Party is a tough one. I understand that in technical jargon it takes 41 votes to end the war in Iraq, at the end of Bush’s Administration — you vote no on the next military appropriations bill, if more than 50 votes materializes it, you filibuster it. And I recognize this as never going to happen. They are cutting money off to the troops, you understand, and why do these 41 Senators hate the troops and America? (Also, it’s a two party duopoly.)
I am thinking the Congress should be pounding the Webb bill — military deployment equal to military home-stays. This the Democratic leadership seemed to simply allow to flitter away into dust — obstructed by Mitch McConnell, and that’s the way of the world. But now you just force an actual filibuster. Which is to say, force an actual defense against this act. The argument against it, you understand, is that this is simply a back-handed way of lowering our involvement in Iraq. The argument is wrong, but in the interest of keeping up their side of the two party duopoly and winning political points, at this point in the political zietgist, that strikes me as an argument that would work in favor of the Democrats — isn’t that the point of their last election? Mind you, even if it’s not true that the party hierarchy gives a whiff.
The political wise-guys who rate these things report that Mitch McConnell, our uber – obstructionist minority leader (yes, more obstructionist than the Daschle – Reid team, who tended toward stopping a handful of judges before giving up that ghost in a stupdifying political deal), the Weekly Standard has taken to calling a tactical genius for simply playing the 60 Seat game, has had his seat up in 2008 down-graded from “Safe Republican” to “Republican Favored”. My only suggestion to any Democrat looking to run but deeming the 2010 cycle with either the senile Jim Bunning as the opponent or an open Senate seat a lot easier a nut to crack is that a good showing against McConnell is as good a spring-board as any, if one falls short. Tactical Geniuses of his sort may as well be floated away.