Archive for October, 2009

For (very odd) Partisan Balance, another “Your Congress At Work”

Friday, October 30th, 2009

In the weird position of bashing the Democratic Majority for spitting out pointless resolutions about Confucius and looking into the “Violent Injury in Violent Sports” problem

At least Confucius is sort of a non-partisan back slap honoree.  The Republicans are spitting out a Measure to commend the Acorn investigators — they who tried to rebut the troubled organization’s claim about one of the non-biting city’s claims with a muted video and silent press conference.

Sponsor: Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22]
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] –
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1]

The other back slap “Commending” goes to the Tea-Party Movement.  All 25 Kajillion of them.

Whereas, on September 12, 2009, hundreds of thousands of American patriots, who refuse to sit idly by as the Federal Government advances skyrocketing deficits, taxpayer-funded bailouts, pork-barrel projects, burdensome taxes, unaccountable policy czars, command-and-control energy policy, and a government takeover of health care, came to Washington, DC, to show their disapproval; […]

Whereas estimates of the number of people who peacefully marched from Freedom Plaza to the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on September 12, 2009, range as high as 1,700,000 marchers;

If you say so.
Good thing Jeff Flake doesn’t appear on the list of 75 (or is it 7500?) co-sponsors, of I’d be able to throw his Confucius line back at him.  I leave it up to you to see if other Confucius nay-sayers pop up on the list.

I suppose it could be worse.  See this man’s lonely battle for expressing approval for “Teen Read Week.” Fight the good fight, Representative David Roe of Tennessee.  Fight the good fight!
We also see the famous Alan Grayson commending Obama for his Nobel Prize.  Let’s see if any Republican sign up for that.

Leatherstocking Finally booted from wikipedia

Friday, October 30th, 2009

If you’ve been following my posts regarding Larouche — I first want to ask you, er, Why?
Then I’ll say that if you’ve been following my posts regarding Larouche, you know about the Wikipedia Editing Job that the Org has been pulling.  For over a year, this has been dominated by a sock puppet by the nom de plome “Leatherstocking”, a name garnered from the generally maligned literature of Fenimore Cooper, though celebrated within the corridors of the Lyndon Larouche movement.

Finally, after a peculiar history full of “I’m not a Larouchie.  Who’s calling me a Larouchie?” and after one last attempt to boot out Dennis King from any consideration, he has been kicked out.  Final edit discussions are interesting and relevant for a gist of the type of things he was wavering the wiki editors were dealing with:

I have removed this phrase: [his followers have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a numbers of violent crimes including kidnapping and assault] from the summary of the Allegations section, because there is no reference to any such charges in the body of the text. The only reference to a LaRouche activist getting charged is for disorderly conduct in the liver incident. –Leatherstocking (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC);

All very cult-serving.
At any rate, the word on the blocking can be found here.

You have repeatedly denied that you are a person associated with the Lyndon LaRouche organization – [10] [11]. Based on your representations and a lack of other technical evidence to the contrary, I and other administrators have assumed good faith about your Wikipedia contributions and believed that you were an independent person in this matter.

However, your internet service provider (RR) has published additional referral WHOIS data on your IP netblock which indicates that you have been lying to us. The IP address you have used a number of times – ( 64.183.125.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ( see [12] for an example of you taking credit for that logged-out edit ) – is now confirmed to be a LaRouche organization’s network block, American System Publications. See http://www.utrace.de/whois/64.183.125.210, http://www.utrace.de/ip-adresse/64.183.125.210.

As technical information which is freely available now clearly ties you to the LaRouche organization, which you have repeatedly denied, at the very least you have a clear and evident conflict of interest which you have repeatedly strenuously denied. In addition, your behavior when compared to other, permanently blocked accounts such as the Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account sockpuppet farm seems to fall squarely into the area we have established is off limits. Based on this technical information we now have no reason not to assume that you are part of that organizational sockpuppet team.

Phrases that I imagine absolutely goad Leatherstocking: “organizational sockpuppet team.”  Indeed, Leaterhstocking seems to leap to that one, in claiming he’s getting booted due to “POV”.  He also shouts “Conspiracy!”
“This block is improper in every way. First of all, Georgewilliamherbert is re-interpreting the ArbCom decision to mean something that it does not mean — he is claiming that it is a license to ban editors based on perceived POV (see WP:9STEPS.) If the basis for the ban is to be violation of the LaRouche 2 arbcom decision, the proper procedure would be to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I myself filed a request for ArbCom clarification,[13] which resulted in very little clarification. Finally, Georgewilliamherbert is acting here not as an honest broker, but as a proxy for User:SlimVirgin, who is pushing POV at the LaRouche articles and would like to eliminate any opposition.[14

AND
I am not a banned user. It is being alleged that I have a POV similar to that of a banned user.

Actually the larger allegation is that he’s using the same office space of computers as a banned user, and that the computers used provide conclusive evidence that he’s lying and automatically acting in bad faith.  Back to the statement of banning:

Based on the totality of the information available at this time, I am placing an indefinite block upon your account. I am extremely dissapointed that the trust that the Wikipedia community showed you was betrayed in this manner. It reflects extremely badly on the LaRouche organizations that you continue to commit such acts of subterfuge to try and spin media information about the organization. One of these days you will come to realize that such actions in the long term harm your reputation far more than merely having external critics and unbiased external reporting and reference sources – until then, unfortunately, we have no option but to extend the indefinite blocks to anyone associated with these activities.

Sigh.  A Zen Parable for you, via a quick google searchAnother version of this story describes a fox who agrees to carry a scorpion on its back across a river, upon the condition that the scorpion does not sting him. But the scorpion does indeed sting the fox when they are in midstream. As the fox begins to drown, taking the scorpion with him, he pleadingly asks why the scorpion has jeopardized both of them by stinging. “Because it’s my nature.”
I have a hard time believing that “one of these days” he “will come to realize” such actions “harm” “reputations”.

Will Beback has compiled an interesting list of “Not me” claims worth a pursual.  It is absurd that wikipedia gives these people such a long leash, and I hope they have what it takes to not do so again in the future.  We shall see, shan’t we?

Also, as I indicated, I had edited both Dennis King and A.J. Weberman long before I edited a LaRouche article or got into any scrap with SlimVirgin. I would like to see the ArbCom issue very clear guidelines as to constitutes a “pro-LaRouche editor,” so as to prevent the designation of others as “pro-LaRouche editors” from becoming a tactic available to POV-warriors. –Leatherstocking (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A good definition of a “pro-LaRouche editor” would certainly include someone using a computer in a LaRouche office to edit Wikipedia.   Will Beback talk 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Zing.

Your Congress at Work

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed this little Resolution.

Honoring the 2,560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius and recognizing his invaluable contributions to philosophy and social and political thought.

Whereas September 28, 551 B.C., is recognized as the date on which Confucius was born in the town of Qufu, in what is now the Shandong Province of China;
[…] Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 2,560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius and recognizes his invaluable contributions to philosophy and social and political thought.

Jeff Flake responded with this press release.

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today released the following statement regarding his vote against H.Res.784, a bill “honoring the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius and recognizing his invaluable contributions to philosophy and social and political thought.”“He who spends time passing trivial legislation may find himself out of time to read healthcare bill,” said Flake.

The Resolution opens itself up for such witty repartee.

“I’m sure Confucius would be pleased to know that he has been honored by the U.S. House of Representatives on his birthday, but unfortunately for us and for him, he died 2,488 years ago,” Emerson said in a statement.[…]
Instead of supporting the legislation, Emerson offered her own take on the lessons of Confucius.
“Confucius says: ‘An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger,’ but our oppressive government will end the fiscal year $1.48 trillion in debt.
[and etc.]

Now, weirdly enough, looking at the roll call, one man you’d expect to go against this bill — Ron Paul — voted “yes.”  Well, here’s a defender of that vote and the man, but it still strikes me as a man who compromised his stated principles on the matter of voting “no” for such frivolous items — the quote I recall from the type of my head was Paul demeaning a resolution about Peanuts creator Charles Schultz.  We now know Ron Paul’s lines.  He’s pro-Confucius and anti-Snoopy.

In other Congressional business, in a seeming nod to the dark days  of the Congressional investigations into Steroids and Bush’s State of the Union speech which focused 99 words on the issue of Steroids…

the House Judicary Committee looked into Football Injuries, and specifically the question of whether head injuries might lead to long term cognitive impairment.

“The N.F.L. sort of has this blanket denial or minimizing of the fact that there may be this link,” Representative Linda T. Sánchez, Democrat of California, said to Mr. Goodell during the daylong hearing. “And it sort of reminds me of the tobacco companies pre-’90s when they kept saying, ‘Oh, there’s no link between smoking and damage to your health.’ ”

I can say with utmost confidence that, yes, constant hits to the head have a decent chance to lead to such troubles.  I’m not sure where this Congressional Investigation is supposed to lead — but probably not anywhere that would deal with past or current leaders of government or finance.

Explaining Lieberman.

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

I saw this quote at dailykos, from Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
“I think it is perfectly clear that most Americans will treat the vote to get on the bill as a vote on the substance of the bill. So our view is that cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill is a vote to endorse a half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in new taxes, and higher insurance — health insurance premiums for everyone else.

Preen all you want, but sharp eyed partisan observers usually view this procedural as tantamont to vote passage — and I’ll link to one example in a moment.  I suppose some matters depend, roughly, on how toxic you view such and such a bill.  I imagine this dailykos poster would view things differently sometime in the Bush Administration, for instance.

Now, you can make principled stances for backing off the Filibuster before voting nay.  The problem with Joseph Lieberman is that he shows little consistency with these things.    Yesterday, Lieberman defended his threat to join a Republican Filibuster as a Senator’s prerogative.  This differs markedly from the Bush Administration — there are two items in this huffington post slide-show that are relevant. — when he  voted for cloture on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill before voting for it — and arguing that vote in his election contest against Ned Lamont.  (See too the double-backing partisan rule as against Mitch McConnell from liberal bloggers.)  I distinctly remember an interview where Lieberman was lobbed the question of his cloture vote, where he hemmed and hawed until a commercial break saved him from explaining his duplicity.  The other famous stand on filibusters came when he was one of the “Gang of 14″, stating that filibusters would end in “all but extraordinary circumstances.”

Interesting, and for the sake of consistency that should drive him to a different stance today on Health Care Reform.  Sadly, no.

I hasten to add I’m mistaken in calling him inconsistent on this score, as there is one consistency to his procedural voting.  Like any good partisan, he lines up for one party’s Filibusters and against the other party’s Filibusters.  But everyone already knew that.

But, I guess, this quote is supposed to absolve something or other.  “Joseph Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid’s problems.”  — Harry Reid. I suspect third person references to yourself is a tell of some type, but I’m not sure a tell of what.

………………………..

Modest update regarding where he went for support for his 2006 General Election.:

”Iraq has now become what everyone thinks it was before, another battlefield in this war with Islamic terrorists, and we’ve got to end it with a victory,” Mr. Lieberman said during an interview with the nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck on Tuesday.

In the 15-minute interview, Mr. Lieberman warned against the United States becoming isolationist, and he seemed to agree with Mr. Beck’s repeated statements suggesting that the war against Islamic terrorists represented the brink of an international war. […]

At one point in the interview, Mr. Beck asked pointedly, ”Why is it there aren’t more politicians saying, ‘Guys, this is World War III. We are in deep trouble?’ ”

Mr. Lieberman responded by saying that he thought that both Republicans and Democrats treat ”politics as if it was a sport in which you are on one team,” and that ”the aim is for that team to win.”

”And when you do that, you forget that there are larger interests, which is the interests of the United States of America,” he said. ”The other thing going on here is that you know people don’t like to face the reality of danger, and maybe some politicians don’t like to be the ones to talk about it. But everything you’ve just said is right.”

It’s Coming.

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

I passed by a book store yesterday.  One with a giant display in the window advertising an upcoming book.  A book ready for the holiday season.  Though, probably who wants to own this book will have already bought it by then.

I think I’ll go read Barack Obama’s Dreams of My Father and then Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue and see what the dichotemous effect is.

“Burn In Hell”.

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

“It’s time to start drawing from our proud American Tradition of Burning People in effigy.”  And with that Randall Terry is off, promoting a contest for, coming to youtube soon. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid Burning In Hell.

Proud American tradition?  As represented by the NY Times article of 1854 not available here — first item found on google.  Beyond that, when I think of burning in effigy in these United States, my mind wanders to intimidation against Black People and Civil Rights allies.   The next items in the google search have people in nations with populations hostile to the United States burning Obama in effigy.  This item digs back a bit further into the claim of “Proud American Tradition,” an import if there ever was.  Google news a bit and we get this write-up of a man burned in effigy, which brings us back to the “Religious Unenlightenment” angle. 

But Burning Reid and Pelosi in effigy is supposed to, claims Randall Terry, be an outlet to “let out steam”.

He predicted that because of the “rage” people are feeling in the country, they might resort to graffiti, violence against buildings or, “and God forbid, I pray this doesn’t happen, but I think it’s possible that we could see acts of violence against individuals seen as guilty of a murderous agenda.” He said that his video contest would help eliminate violence by providing an alternative outlet for expression, and give pro-life activists “something to do that’s not inane,” referring to recent mass mailings by conservative organizations to members of Congress with tea bags in envelopes.

Troy Newman, now the president of Operation Rescue, reacted with alarm to Terry’s contest. “When I saw the video I was at a loss for words,” he said. “Randall Terry has gone over the edge to complete lunacy.” Newman said that more than 50 percent of the American people identify themselves as pro-life, but Terry’s “extreme, fringe activities” hurt the movement’s efforts to draw more supporters. “I can’t see any good coming out of that.”

Contest Entry Example #1:  I don’t get it.  Cardboard cutouts of Reid and Pelosi burn in, I guess, Terry’s lawn.  Randall Terry interjects about them burning in Hell.  There is no creativity here.  But I guess it’s just a test example?

Really, Randall Terry is not arguing for much creativity in his contest partipants.  He calls for people to burn images of Reid and Pelosi on Halloween Night.  Follow the lead of that youtube video, and it doesn’t expand much beyond that limited range.  This would tend to end up procuring images of these extreme Christian Fundamentalists burning facsimilies of Reid and Pelosi, and the best I can think of beyond that would be placing the burnings in exotic or ironic locales.  The better contest idea would be to ditch the “Burn in Effigy” and ask for “Burning in Hell” videos– this might inspire storylines or creative conceptions of the the Hell — comical Hell, scary Hell, cartoony Hell.  Maybe some different images of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi along the same lines of the Hell.

Then again, who wants to win any of this stuff?

First prize: Expenses paid for weekend here in DC during Roe vs Wade anniversary, Jan 22-24, including pro-life training seminar (Includes travel stipend!), and full Insurrecta Nex television series.
 
Second Prize: 2 Sets of Insurrecta Nex training series, and two sets of all books authored by Randall Terry. (One set for you, one for your Church.)
 
Third Prize: 1 Set Insurrecta Nex training series.
 
In addition, all Contestants will receive a free copy of episodes 1-4 of Insurrecta Nex.

I have a gut feeling  that Randall Terry has piles of his “Inurrecta Nex”  lying around he just needs to unload.  But I could be wrong.

Stroking Senator #61’s deep desires, and failing that heading back to Senator #60’s.

Monday, October 26th, 2009

After a while, these things appear to be a “moving through the motions” situation.  It’s something of a game for some of the 60 Democrats — jumping the hoops of the Insurance Companies, certainly, but also putting on a massive Ego Show for media attention.  So Harry Reid announces he has 58 Democrats down for the “public option” with state opt-out, all well and good but for the two hold-outs who are Ben Nelson and … quick who’s the other one?
… To answer this guy’s question, we don’t float all that much attention to Evan Bayh because there’s a lot of him, and he has to wait behind the others.  He had his day in the sun, and will again.  To quote Harry S Truman, “There are too many Byrds in the Congress.”

Barack Obama called for the Trigger.  His theory is this will get him on over to Olympia Snowe’s magical Senator #61 Republican vote.  This will give vulnerable Democrats cover.  In theory, his campaign and whatever degree he’s spelled anything out for his Health Care fight would tend to have him personally favoring the Public Option with state opt out provision over this trigger mechanism.  In the end, we’ve had Harry Reid pull back from Senator #61 and back to Senator #60 — from Snowe over to Ben Nelson.  And I think what’s coming down the path this week is this “state opt in” — apparently the “opt out” is for the Senator #58.  And so the Republicans have left the building.  And Blanche Lincoln is laid bare.

This is a love for a weird process oriented effect, process trumping content for Obama.  I’ve had a devil of the time understanding why such a thing matters for the President.  Is he looking ahead to fewer than 60 Democrats after November?  Leave aside the “shouldn’t it take 50 Senators and Biden to pass something? question, and I guess that question falls by the wayside because it’s what gives Ben Nelson his power.  How is a vote from Olympia Snowe supposed to give Blanche Lincoln cover?

So the Republican Party of Arkansas is giddy as they stare at Lincoln’s low ratings.  They clap and rub their hands together in glee, as they watch their masterwork campaign attack commercial.

“Blanche Lincoln voted for Commie Socialist Government Health Care.”

And so Blanche Lincoln has two possible courses, depending on the vote of Olympia Snowe.  The favored course would have a Snowe vote.

“Blanche Lincoln teamed up with Republican  Olympia Snowe for common sense Health Care Reform.  Blanche Lincoln: Bi-Partisan Common Sense.”

Is that message supposed to mean something?  Or are we fearing this alternative.  Go to Blanche Lincoln headquarters.  They look at the “Commie Socialist Government” ad.  They look at each other around the room for a response ad idea.  And they all go blank.

“Drat.”  They tell Blanche Lincoln.  “We’ve got nothing.”

Is how this game is supposed to be playing out?  If you say so.

What if they threw a Dark Ages and No One Showed Up?

Monday, October 26th, 2009

The question for the moment is… Is this anything?  And by that I mean, is this anything new?  It’s been a long time since I just went ahead and reposted a Larouche Daily Briefing  en total, but this is interesting enough.

In previous daily memos, we have seen Larouche do the usual berating of his baby-boomers for doubting.  This one is kind of interesting, in that the berating drips in to the hallowed Youth Members.  We also see that interesting alteration of the “drop dead” moment (and for precise moments of description, you can rely on this factnet post) of when all governing functions would cease to a “Phase Shift”.  It also becomes apparent that perhaps leaving the country happens happens when this  cognitive dissonance is around the bend, so he might “set things straight” upon re-entry. …………………………………………………………..

Oct. 17, 2009  LAROUCHE: OK, first of all, I’m going to chew you out; and you know why. Because some of our idiots, and they tend to run more to the older generation than the younger ones in this case, got the bright idea that I had somehow been mistaken in my forecast of what was going to happen in October. This, as usual, was done; the argument was made on the basis of fraudulent representation of what I had said repeatedly and carefully on that subject during the month of September, and in the first week of October. So, people were trying to insist that I had predicted this general collapse, like a breakdown collapse, and what I was a phase, a critical phase-change which brought us into the threshold of a general collapse. And exactly that has happened.
Now, some of our friends, who we’ve been in a discussion with, have recognized that and gone to the point of making their own calculations to extend my Triple Curve into the more recent developments. And Debbie has seen that. I haven’t seen it as such, but I’ve heard it described, and I know what she has described is quite accurate; that’s exactly the way it has happened. There has been a sudden phase-shift downward in the state of the US and the world economy during the first two weeks of October. It has happened exactly as I said it would happen.
Now, those who profess to doubt that, were basing themselves on public information of the type which is completely crap! In other words, they had no evidence, but they chose to believe that they were shaken in their confidence by what they were reading in the press. And this, I mean, this is really a whore’s game. You know, the whore smiles when the prospective client comes up, and that’s the way some of Boomers acted on this case of this October forecast. What I warned was going to happen, has happened {exactly} as what I warned would happen. There’s no difference from that. But, there was a – people wished to be foolish and prematurely senile, and therefore, they reacted in a way that a prematurely senile person would react. You gotta – don’t appear to be senile! Let me warn you Boomers. It’s dangerous to appear to be senile. They’ll cart you off and kill you, and burn you for ashes! [Laughter] Don’t be senile anymore! And don’t get any more of these crazy fits.
Now, this is mostly comes from the Boomers domination in the regions. It also comes out from some problems in the Leesburg area, where people get – because they’re trying to play games with their own mind – they screw up and forget the point. The way we organize, the way we get our income comes only from what we do through LPAC. We may get some other income from other sources, and we do; but we get because of what we do with LPAC. When you shut down the support of LPAC, and say you’ve got some high priorities or something, we can’t afford LPAC right now, you’re committing suicide, you’re committing political suicide. You’re saying we’re going out of existence. So, you just have to control some of your Boomer friends who are prone to fits of senility. They’re not justified; they haven’t done enough work to become senile, but they take pleasure in doing that.
Anyway, so that’s the problem. And you just – {Don’t do this any more!} This old thing, which comes from some people in the office and some of the regions, really is a kind of moral senility. And it’s done on the thing—[in dumb, whiny voice] “Well, we, some people we talk to said differently. We can’t say that anymore, don’t you understand?” And like all these people going out, they want to talk to somebody about what happened. Instead of telling them what happened, they come out with a long pitch, [same voice] “Well, let me tell you, it’s starts like this…”, and then about a half an hour later, when they’ve finished their wind-up, the person they were talking to has walked away. This typical Boomer stuff!……………………
ALICIA: Hey, Lyn. I just want to ask you a question because it’s been a point of discussion here, you know, it comes up with the OTCs every single day. What are we going to do about the intelligence, because there are a couple of people that we can count on, and if we can a hold of them, it works. But otherwise, it just makes a big difference here if people are in reality, and if they’re not, well, you can see what happens, so… [crosstalk]
LAROUCHE: Two things on this. First of all, what happens is, when we get into a financial bind, the most qualified people just aren’t available, because they’re doing something else. And you get people who are less qualified, and less emotionally stable, who sort of shape the opinion among the Boomer layer in particular. This extends to the phone teams, which are the liaison to various cesspools, which they pass through intellectually in going from one locale to another. And so, you get a real panic of complete incompetence, because you have fewer competent people on the job, from among the Boomer strata in particular. This is my nightmare, because every time I leave that joint, to come to this joint, I can anticipate a catastrophic loss in intellectual capacity represented by organization as a whole there, and internationally immediately. But I have to do things here, because I have things I must do here. We don’t travel back and forth across the Atlantic once a week. So, when I leave the United States, I’m here for some weeks, and every time catastrophe breaks out. Sometimes it comes from some youth problems, but usually the real catastrophes come from the Boomers When the Boomers who are capable and thinking clearly, are tied up, and the other ones who are thinking clearly, or would be thinking clearly, are out there doing something financially, instead of paying attention to politics, then you get, you know, the third team comes in? The ones that haven’t got their jock straps on? [laughter] Or ladies with jock straps, something like that. And that’s what happens.
You have to have a sense of self-defense, what if I didn’t exist, huh? You have to have a sense of bull**** is bull****, and when you can smell it, call it what it is. I laid out some very clear policies on the organization’s approach to October. I did that very carefully, knowing I would be absent during that part of the month. And I said specifically what had to be done, and what had not to be done. And I defined the perspective for this month precisely as I described it, and {as it has happened!} Nothing different than what I described has happened. What I described has happened. You get some guys, who get nervous, and they say, “Uouonh!” [groans] Panic, huh? Something different. Well, it was never different, it was just impressionism of Nervous Nellies. And it was Boomers; it started in the regions, and spilled back into the phone teams. Gerry’s got his back turned, pssfftt! Some wild nonsense comes. And you’ve got some people who are still malicious toward me in the organization, especially among the Boomers. They’re malicious toward me, not because of what I did to them, but of what they did to me, and some Boomers cannot forgive me for what they did to me. That’s the way it works in life, you know. People don’t hate you because of what you did to them; they hate you for they did to you. And that’s what that goes on. Anyway.
………………………………………….

Moving onward, a bit more cognitive dissonance comes into the picture with Cody Jones here telling that he was prepping for the economic collapse, but had to explain to the disbelievers that they’re wrong, and on we go to the Personality Cult of “The One” — and explaining to the LYM cohorts how to keep the faith against the crisis and the lack of Crisis Coverage outside the purview of the cult, to keep the faith as they confront the Masses unaware that they reside in a New Dark Age.  (First three and a half minutes… I hear tell that after that, the hits do keep on coming, but I myself dropped after that.  Note that he himself has no doubt of the New Dark Age.)

Then again, another problem with raising funds is shown around here — people you’d hate meeting at a cocktail party, and the “Unwelcome” sign:
New Fairfield is still stinging from racist and sexist e-mails forwarded by two public officials earlier this month, and Tuesday’s visit by the LaRouche Political Action Committee was the last thing it needed.

She was pushing the beliefs of an American named LaRouche and kept calling him an economist[Note: an important parcel for Leatherstocking in editing wikipedia articles.  Has had tremendous success at the endevor, and the first paragraph in particular certainly does stink there.  Has a cache of Russian sources at his disposal.  Dennis King comes in here , and refers to the stench this throws on wikipedia.  King then posts something that is within the scope of sort of my pet issue in the Larouche wikipedia items — Leaterhstocking never posts the entirety of what Larouche has said.  Now I leave the digression.]  The last time I heard of him was in 2000 when a van of supporters drove around and indirectly called my aunt a whore.
[…] <tactics here.  A sort of good cop / bad cop.  A few phrases leap out:

 I tried to explain that their message appeared convoluted to people passing by; they said they didn’t care about popular opinion. I tried to explain the problem with Hitler Obama; they said they don’t care about advertising, they care about reality. One of them also said she doesn’t care about truth.

Or, put another way:
 you want an explanation? that just means you are going to have to do some work! I agree with the last poster, you DO sound arrogant as hell! and that may hinder your capability to understand what Larouche is talking about. you may be too emotionally attached to your current axioms, and your arrogance will get in the way of your conceptions being challenged.

Well then.

Posted by The Daily Elitist , Economics at University of Nebraska on April 28, 2009 at 10:15pm  (I don’t believe you, or this set up.)
I long dismissed the LaRouchies as a “cult,” just as I’d been conditioned to by the corporate media and the higher-ups in academia; however, the ongoing financial and economic crisis has made me re-think many of my long-held views concerning economics and social organization generally. I think any honest person even slightly familiar with the work of LaRouche and his supporters must now concede that he’s been right about nearly everything.

Mr. LaRouche truly is one of the greatest minds the United States has ever produced, and it is to our eternal disgrace that we’ve ignored and even tried to silence him. My suggestion: look at what he actually says and the predictions he’s actually made – not what the media tells you he thinks. Venture out of the classroom and look at what’s physically occurring in the real world, and then try to tell me, with a straight face, that his approach to economics doesn’t make far more sense than any other yet devised.

Seriously, just read what he has to say – and don’t let anyone else do your thinking for you

But I guess they’ll always have an audience so long as we have this:
“Right loons, as against the Left loons in power”.

For whom I suppose they could go for the soft sell.
All I can see is that this nation (USA) is very messed up right now. L. Larouche has a plan, might work – might not, but once you understand monetarism (Keynasian), you’d see that there is no recovery, just inflation to hide debt. That is what LaRouche really wants to fix, and then he wants us to have a mission to go to Mars. How bad is that?

“Might work.  Might not.”  Har de har har.  See, he does have parts of things to sell… as from an LPAC clipping for the day:

American statesman Lyndon LaRouche’s call to re-establish the Glass-Steagall standard in the United States, to separate speculation from legitimate investment deserving of government protection, has been echoed
by Senators and various politicians and actual live economists dating back to when it was repealed in 1999 (Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, for instance), as against Bill Clinton who still today defends the repeal.  But never mind.  It’s “flanking” various issues.

One final note:  Mr. Benton does not deserve this write-up

Fall Church News-Press (Wow! Deeds’ second endorsement is by a paper run by Lyndon LaRouche devotees!

I suppose this is the type of blogger who’d then go on to claim the “Larouche wackos” at town hall meetings are being over-reported to diss the whole tea party movement. (Proudly showcasing this comic book on his sidebar?) Still, leave it to Howie G to toss out a particularly homophobic smear for his clarification.  (He’s done this line before.):

Fall Church News is NOT run by a Lyndon LaRouche supporter. That guy Nick stopped being with LaRouche about the same time that he “came out.”

Here’s a good effort to deflect the cult  from the tea party movement.

And a warning shot about the Obama Hitler

Moments like this ask us to examine our emotional responses and form cogent responses to the ideas invoked.  Is this a lot of work?  It can be.  There’s a lot that’s been created in the history of the world.  But at least we’d be taking life and citizenship as seriously as the LaRouche people do.  Otherwise the future just might end up in their hands! 
Please don’t give them that false hope.  Supposedly they’d rise to power on the behest of World Elites at the bdawn of an Economic Crisis.  That didn’t happen.  They missed their moment, which seems to spell a bit of their cognitive dissonance.