Solving the Problem of Wyoming
All eyes are on Wyoming. Actually no eyes are on Wyoming. But they do hold a set of Democratic Caucuses this Saturday, a chance for the dozen or so Wyoming Democrats to get together and put in their two cents on Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama. In a phone booth. (Actually, phone booths don’t exist much anymore, which goodamnedit if a Will Rogersism from the 1930s, in describing the state of the Republican party at the time, hasn’t fallen down the wayside.)
The state of the Wyoming Democratic Party? They have a Democratic Governor. Sort of. Not one with any partisan predilictions, and one who once told a group of state party activists that “I’m afraid I am as Conservative as you fear I am.” He might be a good governor — I don’t know. Down the list of Democratic Interior West trend-lines to cheer up Democrats after the 2004 election was the fact that the county home of Dick Cheney voted for Kerry. The outer edge of the trend, I suppose, as Wyoming was state #50 on the list of Democratic percentages, as I believe it was in 2000. And there was a competitive House race in 2006, the Democratic candidate ready to try again in 2008. But, then again, the DNC strategically stayed out of it lest the “D” serve to weigh the candidate down.
As a state, Wyoming angers me. Its geographical dimensions are all wrong. I had thought that Wyoming was square, based on some distorted maps I had seen. Thus I gave it the unofficial nickname “The Square State”. Then I learned that Wyoming was not square — and was no different than Colorado. This is a problem. The solution, so it seems to me, is for the bordering states to suck up or grant Wyoming bits of land. Idaho needs to grab some land, and Montana needs to give some land, so that Wyoming can become Square. I think Mike Gravel is still in the race. Maybe he can make Squaring Wyoming his local cause amongst his national campaign — sort of how politicians tout Ethanol production when in Iowa. I think Wyomingers want their state to be Square. If they don’t, I will just have to move there in order to be an Activist to push the cause of Squaring Wyoming.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am
No one reads your blog. I see “no comments” over and over. I’ve been away a looooong time and see the same few bitter losers posting. You need me to get some traffic. I can see that.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
None except for the audience I have. Excepting the usual Larouche-commenters, and I you will note that I had taken a one month hiatus from that topic, let’s see… my last few comments go like so:
#
etho | etho@gmail.com
God I hate this strip. The tone is preachy, the characters are unlikable (the teacher wags his finger at everyone! It’s so obnoxious!) and worst of all, the jokes simply aren’t funny. Nine times out of ten, it just uses some unbelievably trite comic strip cliche (kids are better with computers than adults! students dislike homework! HAHAHA.) and the rest of the time, it simply doesn’t make sense.
Here’s a link to one of the strips, the only one I can find online:
http://www.nea.org/people/images/comicrelief2.jpg
If I were a waiter, and someone did that to me, I’d spit in his food.
Feb 23, 12:39 PM —Adams’ Apple
#
Ann | shiroikin@hotmail.com |
Seems like a cult to me. All the elements of cultism are there. It’s disturbing. Now I know how Hilter won Germany.
Feb 23, 1:16 AM Obama… Cult?
#
TODD | iamstodd@yahoo.com
I was just wondering what the purpose of posting the comic study hearings from 55 is. Seriously.
Feb 13, 9:31 PM Seduction of the Innocent
#
Language for Sale | wonky@wawawa-notreally.com
I am going to trademark the word “theâ€. 😉
Feb 13, 12:27 PM
#
Bianca Reagan
Chester Arthur. Hee hee!
Feb 13, 11:41 AM
……………………………………………
Hm. It all works just fine. I’m satisfied.
But please either have something to say here or stick to the Larouche posts. Mind you, I’m not going to do anything about that, but it seems like good etiquette.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
For all I care you can jump off a bridge.
Okay?
Ban me… I know a teeny weeny bit about IP etc.
Or, better yet, call the cops.
Go ahead, jump… because you’re a nothing and the rest of your soap opera characters are empty husks… dead souls.
Go ahead, ban me. You can’t handle the truth so you would probably be best to go ahead and ban me.
Notice the recent Tremonti (Italian Finance Minister, former lol — do excuse me) book? Read Italian?
Scan Italian websites… a dozen and counting: it is the HEADLINE story. It’s your pal LaRouche — he seems to have some influence in Italy. Wonder why? I thought it was all over there.
Later, gotta go listen to New York by Cat Power (love that song by her).
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/11/tremonti-new-bretton-woods-key-proposal-my-book.html
March 11, 2008 (LPAC)–Former Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti’s call for a New Bretton Woods has become the headline story in at least a dozen websites in Italy as of today, based on an interview Tremonti gave to Italyglobalnation, a service run by the national press agency ADN-Kronos, entirely focussed on the new Bretton Woods. Ign’s headline reads: “Tremonti: a global agreement to avert the crisis – The former Economics Minister to Ign: `We need a new Bretton Woods. We must govern globalization with new instruments if we do not want to be overrun.’ (…).”
“A new global agreement like the one in Bretton Woods 1944, an attempt to establish a world government architecture to govern globalization after a decade in which ‘the economy ran politics’. This is Giulio Tremonti’s recipe for facing the economic crisis which is arriving in Europe.”
Tremonti is reported as saying that the responsibility for the crisis is to be found “in a comprehensive structure that started from the world of culture and ideas, that produced the ideological motor of this whole process. Those who built their fortunes on an ideology such as that based on the market, now find that the crisis comes from the very depths of the economy, from America, from the financial structure of the economy.”
Speaking of his new book Fear and Hope, Tremonti says: “The key proposal in the book is the proposal for a new Bretton Woods, that is, a new global agreement on the terms of currency exchange and trade. This is exactly the opposite of anti-globalization [i.e. Tremonti is not against “global” trade, he wants to save it from the crisis -ed.], is the opposite of a chain of errors that would lead to a crisis which I want to avert with instruments for governing globalization. In 1944, in New Hampshire, those responsible for politics and economics in the world agreed on some issues that remained in place for half a century. This is what I believe we must do: understand that the crisis is not banal, but fundamental; it is not conjunctural but structural.”
Interest rate cuts and tax cuts do not have “great effects on the current crisis. Liquidity injections are not a radical cure; it is a counterproductive way of keeping sick people alive. Now, I believe that we need new instruments. The paradigm has changed… it is fundamental that we understand the intensity of the crisis and change the paradigm to avoid it: Bretton Woods.”
Readers familiar with Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal for a New Bretton Woods, of which there are many in Italy, where the parliament has twice passed resolutions in favor of such financial reorganization, will recognize his influence in Tremonti’s proposals.
March 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Can you read? Why are you going off about “banning” and “calling the cops” (What?).
Key phrase:
I’m not going to do anything about that.
But, whatever.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Thought I’d post this here, too–just in case revenire missed it where I put it originally:
Personally, I welcome revenire’s remarks.
Now, that may seem strange, since I knew/know Ken and Molly Kronberg very well, and was and am very close to both of them.
HOWEVER, it’s my view that every time revenire opens his/her mouth(s), or sets pen to paper or finger to keyboard, he/she makes a HUGE mistake.
I mean, Good Lord! Even if you thought all those crazed things, most people would try to hide it and come across as more moral, charitable, etc., than they really are.
But that’s the great thing about revenire. He/she is like a walking billboard, a proof that LaRouche and his crowd are as nutty as we anti-LaRouche types say.
It’s the sort of thing Lyn always does. Says something so hair-raising that even the loyal last few make a face, and go get more work.
(I notice from recent briefings that Lyn has been beating up the NEC for working at “outside†jobs and shirking their duties to him.)
The thing that strikes me about revenire is that he/she/it/they may be drunk. Because some of that invective is just so UNBELIEVABLY unhinged.
Revenire, old thing–or maybe young thing, but aging fast: Do you really think ranting and raving about jumping off a bridge is going to have a positive effect? Going to recruit those masses to Lyn?
Do you really think throwing some LPAC URLs up there makes any difference? I mean, who CARES if Lyn hornswoggled some dignitary into something? Just remember Indira Gandhi: “Never bring that man here again.†As witnessed by people still in the org, my friend.
I say, have at it! Revenire. Keep impressing us with your Power of Reason. You’re hot, don’t stop now! I mean, from my perspective, there’s a crane flying out of your mouth every time you open it. Know what I mean?
The gratuitous attacks on the Kronberg cousin whom you call “Stew†were, at first blush, a bit much–but then I thought, Bingo! This revenire guy/gal/gang is NUTS! This is great!
He/she/it/they doesn’t know Ken’s cousin from a hole in the ground. So let’s have those attacks on Ken’s family keep on coming. They’re so classy. They impress people so much….
The dumb bile of revenire’s posts is so strong I can hardly decide which one of the idiots still in the org wrote it–or which team of idiots. But when I close my eyes, I can almost see it/them/he/she furrowing his/her/their brow(s) and looking for that perfect psychological zinger that will reduce all us LaRouche-dislikers to jelly.
What can I say? If revenire didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him….
Say, d’ya thnk….?
Nah! Couldn’t be….
But still….