Archive for June, 2010


Saturday, June 19th, 2010

Perhaps you saw this bit Jon Stewart did on Wednesday.  “Fool me twice, Shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me 8 times — am I a F#ing Idiot?”  And ba-de-dumb, ba-de-boom — So, what’s that about other sources of energy and moving off our addiction to forieng oil or Oil in general?


There is one thing about the clip that needs to be noted, though.  The clip for Ronald Reagan came from the year 1981, paying homage to the concept even as he was removing the Solar Panels from the White House, even as James Watt was appointed to the Interior.  The clip for Bill Clinton came in 2000, Bill Clinton sliding out the door and leaving a maker for the historical record, “Eight long years, did some things, dealt with a hostile Congress, and as for thing I didn’t deal with — oh, I was aware.”  George Herbert Walker Bush’s clip slides easily toward “Oil Exploration”.  In the great panoply of eight presidents, we have a two decade hole — and really, W always seemed to fill his State of the Union messages with free floating domestic concepts he never had any interest in grabbing to the ground — though, I suppose that makes W (as we would expect) the most glaring example of the premise.

Unless we go the nature of Multi-National Corporate marketing, the premise of “Sell the Sizzle, not the Steak” moving into hyperdrive to “Selling Concepts” — grounded or not in the reality.  Create a logo that has a premise behind it and communicates a message.


There is something I want to see tackled.  I keep hearing politicians from various states wander on and off the stage making pronouncements about moving forward to a post-oil economy.  Sometimes making it clear that their product is “a short term fix”, other times an answer.  “And the greatest source for Wind resides right in my home state of” — Fill in the Blank.  I suspect we’ll know we’ve arrived somewhere when a plurality of people, and not just a fringe, jump “off the grid”, or something in a 1979 book  with a mere residual out in the state of Maine — and this becomes something other than a sales gimmick  stashed in a college town enclave — AND when some politician from, say, the state of Montana comes out and states that what we need is investment in — whatever, and the Greatest source of whatever in the world resides in Connecticut.”
… Lest we suffer the T Boone Pickens Effect.

Sharron Angle hates her media appearance

Friday, June 18th, 2010

Wait.  What?
Sharron Angle is the most radical major-party candidate to seek statewide office since David Duke was the Republican nominee for governor in Louisiana in 1991.
This may or may not be true.  It sure is jarring, at any rate.  Whatever I think of her politics in the aggregate, somehow I just can’t quite squash these politics into a one dimensional line, to place Sharron Angle’s Prohibitionism on a continuum with David Duke’s Institutional Racism.

If you want me to dredge forth a Senator or Senate candidate with some similar third party pedigree, I can quite easily point to Senator Bernie Sanders in Vermont.  And I can also state that between the time he ran against Patrick Leahy to the tune of a mere few percentage points to the time he joined Patrick Leahy in the Halls of the Senate, his Party brethern — Pete Diamondstone — had found him lacking and ran against him… to the tune of .2 percent of the vote.

The oddest thing is the stories permeating into broader media about Sharron Angle.  This week, the Oregonian ran an AP (or similar wire service) story about Sharron Angle on what just might be the most banal item in her background.  In the year 1984, it seems, right there as Ronald Reagan was cruising to a 49 state victory, Sharron Angle changed her voters’ registration from Republican to Democrat.  Odd?  Perhaps.  Interesting?  Not really.  When she comes out of hiding, sometime after her current intensive coaching sessions at the NRSC with John Cornyn fine-tuning her down to the proper talking points, when she finally gets out of the media world she is inhabiting where she can find use for Thomas Jefferson — the same use as Congressional candidates in Alabama have for other Founding Fathers, I suppose — people to commiserate about with in their minds on armed insurrection — when she peaks into broader media for an interview, I don’t want a question wasted on that topic.

We do have this appearance to go on.  She don’t much like.

In light of recent Republican Party ramblings for the party factions to call a “truce” on Social issues — everyone’s distrustful about that one — maybe we can leave aside the social issues of the legalization of Alcohol or whether two parents should be working while raising a child and just stick to whether she agrees with Representative Burton.

Rachel Brown is ON THE BALLOT! Again: Rachel Brown is ON THE BALLOT!

Friday, June 18th, 2010

So.  It’s been, what, ten days?  How many votes did Summer Shields receive?  Still waiting?
The party hacks blocked Summer from running in the primary as a Democrat, so he’s a write in candidate. No word yet on the results.
No word then, any word yet?  Go to the Elections Office and demand a count.  And, no, Lizard People does not count.

“I am announcing today my candidacy for the Congressional seat currently held by Nancy Pelosi, as a write-in candidate in the general election. I would have preferred the opportunity to defeat Speaker Pelosi in last week’s Democratic primary. However, due to a technical problem with my voter registration, I was disqualified from appearing on the Democratic Party primary ballot.

That’s the closest we’ve heard about the why.  Anyway, the Campaign Continues, I guess.  Novel approach — just keep running even after losing an election.  Move onward so people can sight you like so.

Meanwhile, the campaign for Rachel Brown is getting some notice.  Apparently there is a campaign video on the LPAC websites which shows Rachel Brown going through all the administrative processes in getting on the ballot — walking up to the Mass. elections division office window, submitting signatures, and finally, being certified on the ballot.  Visual evidence in the wake of the Great Summer Shields Campaign.  Which, you know, maybe there was a quid pro quo with the “Party Hacks” in San Francisco on that one — “We leave you off the ballot — and you get to not be on the ballot.  Deal?”

My guess is that years from now, we will be referencing the “Frank – Brown” debate format the same way we do now the “Lincoln – Douglas” format.  Scholarships will be rewarded in debate tournaments to students who mastered the technique — you have one debate sparrer in the audience throwing out a Hitler reference, another at the lectern responding with an Insult — points earned by style and technique.

The Massachusetts 4th Congressional Democratic Primary 2010 Race:


Watching Rachel Brown roam the Mashed Potato Circuit of Party meetings and dinners (the type Alvin Greene was invited to but didn’t attend), I imagine party honchos at various low-level meetings making some quick decisions, it’s possible that we won’t see Rachel Brown at too many more of these.  “Should we bother inviting her to any more of these?” The “Party hack” conspiracy continues, in the clatter of this video — skip to 3:40 on “Mars”, and to  5:05 for the “WHAT?  Boo!” of the crowd.

The quickee description of this meeting is here, complete with what I suppose we’ll see more of in the way of LYMer responses.  Thanks again for the erudition, I’m not sure I can tell you how you have influenced my whole basis of thought!!!  Hm.  There’s a piece on LPAC for you, I suppose, that makes liberal use of puns on the word “frank”.
Really, I’m afraid, of course, that this primary contest already peaked last August.

rockwell_speech_hey  “Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy?”  (No, I’m afraid to photoshop the word balloon in the image and to stick the Obama – Hitler face pamphlet in his pocket is a case of too much effort for too little reward.)

This has a pretty niche market.  But it’s more digestable to read than to watch the actual Larouche conflab itself — beyond my level of tolerability.  So we get this… and maybe you care, maybe you don’t care about the internal office politics of a Cult’s boot-licking session… Like I said, a pretty niche market.
About 20 minutes into the rambling discourse, John Hoefle rather daringly and quite unwisely injects his own theory into the mix, hypothesizing that the oil disaster is a London response to the American people’s war on Obama and British imperialism.
Boy…, that was a mistake, John!
Lyn rebukes John—right on camera!
“No!! I don’t believe in event-driven history! I belief in policy-driven events!”
Oh. Poor John. He nervously digs his massive paws into the aged fabric of his pants leg, eyes darting back and forth, perhaps feeling as though he has been thrown headlong into a canyon of denunciation! Nancy Spannaus is afraid to even blink, lest Lyn should hear it.
Lyn grinds additional salt into John’s heavily gored heart by denouncing “those older people, even older members of this organisation who think in short-term hit-and-run operations.” Ouch, John. Ouch.
The sad thing for John is that, of course, he said the same thing as Lyn, that the spill is “a policy driving the events at hand,” and he knows he did. It is evident by the excruciating conflict scored into his face. But the horrible reality is, he stepped out onto a limb confident in his ability to woo his elder and better with decades of EIR-brand geoeconomics, but utterly failed to take into account his master’s unpredictable propensity for sawing the limb out from under his enormous ass.

The item of relevance comes about here.
For extra frosting on the cake, Lyn brings up the “Jeremy Case” in great detail, insisting that Jeremy’s unhappy family life made him a confessed suicide prone character on heavy medication to handle chronic suicidal tendencies.  […]
“Not only does the mother continue to conduct a campaign of lies … some within the United States, some former associates, have latched onto the Jeremy case as sympathizers of the British Empire, demanding justice.”
Nancy chirps, “And they’re all led from higher up, aren’t they?”
Fortunately, assures Lyn, “We have the force of history on our side.” John Hoefle folds his arthritic paws lightly in relief, believing the worst is over for him.
So it is there that I jump to the video.  Launch over to 37:55, and I pick that moment only because it is here that I get a good few seconds of a visage of John Hoefel and see to what the above account in referring.  And there we get a few minutes of something … um… something entirely convoluted and maddening.   I can’t diagram this.  To 42 minutes — “Glass Steagall” — No, seriously!  (End at 43:35 — “We have the force of History behind Us.  [I have to write about it… working on it] We are riding on what is potentially the Road to Victory.”  Hm.  We have another incoherent jumbo of randomly thrown historical names coming soon.

Erica Duggan has more grounded concerns than the “force of history”.  But, well, Larouche is concerned.  You see here that Howie G is concerned. 
Take Dave Emory at arms’ length.  More sanely, and more insanely:
Jeremiah was in Germany to attend a conference hosted by the LaRouche organisation. The Ham&High understands the group headed by American radical Lyndon LaRouche has applied to be an ‘interested party’ at the inquest.
Clever ruse of control, that.

I do want to point out something of note from wikipedia:
But then again, nobody in the world is foolish enough to take Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, Will Beback, SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet and Dennis King serious.
Flawed though wikipedia may be — its history is of giving the Larouchies too much credence in shaping these articles — I see a recent banned user diggint away at the article for “Glass Steagall” alongside one of the larouche articles — this is just ridiculous.  First, citing Jimb Wales seems like cursing Steven Spielberg for the stickiness of of the floor of your local Multiplex.  Second, there are just too many incarnations here for that to be credibly believed by this isp #.  Thirdly, I’ve seen too many people on the web referencing wikipedia and seeing the warning sign — recently, a black fan of David Duke on “what happened to Jeremiah Duggan” — which, I take that brand of severe and acute Contrarianism to be just the sort of alignment susceptible to this crap.

Back to the electoral political campaigns of the trio — Shields and Brown… Not to be outdone, the campaign for Kesha Rogers continues at Post offices and Airports in the Houston area.

“And then you have Barack Obama on the other side, whose policy is to bail out the financial markets and kill people, that’s why we put the mustache on him,” the man at the booth told a passerby.
Only organizations with a nonprofit status can apply to solicit at the airport, and they are assigned to specific locations on a first-come, first-served basis.
The airport said it neither endorses nor supports the display.
Good to know the Airport doesn’t endorse the display.

In the “I voted for the Larouchies in 1986 Illinois” camp in explaining the situation in South Carolina.
And, I probably shouldn’t note but Cliff Kincaid has a headline regarding a recent MSNBC piece about the quote-in-quote “Radical Right”, prominently featured Alex Jones, with title “MSNBC Works With Alex Jones to Discredit Tea Party Movement.”  Hard to take that one seriously.

Culture Coarsening for Late Adopters

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Walking up a street.  There is a woman walking toward me.  She is talking on her hands free cell phone — the conversation on her end goes something like:
“Saturday, right? 2?  No?  How about 3?  All right, good.”

As she walks into a building, another person approaches, walking by, says something — vitriolic, though hard to say if you can call it cowardly or aware of some manners —

“Quit talking to yourself, you fucking loon.”

Now.  I have two issues with this.  One — I don’t understand — this person is not keeping up with new technological advances that have become common-place in the last decade?  Two — assuming that she is talking to herself — what is the point?

Third thought: it occurs to me, now that I think about it, that by talking past the person supposedly “talking to herself”, the person who was really talking to himself was the one taking offense at the idea — meaning he was a Self-Loathing Talking-to-himself person.

weirdest proposition ever

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Elderly male, somewhat jovial demenor, sits next to me — waiting for the Max to come by.  Strung-out unhealthy in a bit too skinny (and important to note a bit over-tanned) woman walks by — I will suggest, though I don’t really much care to make aspersions, likely a prositute and likely has a drug addiction.  I say this with a note that I’d generally let these things fly and am open to assuming the best in cases where I don’t have reason to really care.

She stops, and makes a flirtatious remark to the old man.  If I could recollect what she said, I would pass it on — but, alas, it’s faded away never to return to my memory.
The man chuckles and responds with what I can only describe as, contextually amongst the most cringe-inducing and discomforting sentence I’ve ever heard in my life.

“Thank you.  And that’s a really beautiful brown body you’ve got on you.”

So I look away.  The girl says, sweetly, “I’ll give you a dance for a dollar?”
To which the man says, “No.  I’m not carrying any money right now” — again, a chuckle.

After a pause, the woman states, “And that’s a Cell Phone you’re carrying in your pocket” — which I think I can take to mean she had eyed the man based on a perceived wallet.

The man says, “Yesirre.”

And when the Max rolls in, I see the woman was gone.

There are other candidates…

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

I’ve been aware of this controvery, actually since sometime before even a couple of liberal blogs batted it about months ago. 

But those medical credentials are in question after a report from The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., found that Paul is not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology, the most well-known group in the profession. Instead, Paul is certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, a group he formed in 1997 to protest a policy disagreement with the ABO. His group is not recognized by the American Medical Association.

But Paul, who has been licensed to practice ophthalmology in Kentucky since 1993, says the fuss over his certification is unwarranted. “Do you think that they’re going to recognize a competitor?” he asked.
The GOP candidate once belonged to the American Board of Ophthalmology, but says he founded his own group after the ABO required younger doctors to renew their certification but grandfathered older physicians in. In a statement to The Washington Post, Paul said the group’s policy reminded him “of Congress passing health care legislation but exempting themselves from their own laws.”

So he set up his own “Rand Paul Doctor’s License”.  Of course he did.  This is the way the Blimp travels — through new coinage and new regulatory system that will evade a Centralized Government.


I have every reason to believe that Rand Paul is a competent Ophthalmologist — snide response to his “Accidents happen” statement about the Gulf Oil Gusher notwithstanding.  The result of that thought is something to the effect of the Goldwater / Paul stand on the Civil Rights Act: oh yeah, Barry Goldwater hired and hires black people and does not discriminate in his business practice.
I suppose if Rand Paul were to offer his unique certification system as something with more stringent requirement in addition to the government one, argue that that one is too susceptable to the Warren Harding / George W Bush school of Regulatory Oversight, he might have something.  Otherwise, his “do you think the AMA is going to recognize a competitor” winds us to the Craigslist School of Consumer Information.

The points about this supposedly novel article, which was posted with a point about Rand Paul and internet coverage of things, was actually a point brought up by Mark Ambinder at the supposed “Shock” of learning about Rand Paul’s views on Civil Rights.  Local media — the decimated newspaper industry– is hurting and becoming less equipped to cover the contours of local new politicians.  The thing I don’t understand about this argument is why I have not seen anyone bring it forward to the situation in the South Carolina primary race.  The explanation that Vic Rawl’s name recognition was bleak is passed on by various news entities without any further reflection on some implications:  I don’t think it’s entirely up to the “legitimate” Democratic candidate to keep his name identification to a respectable clip, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the Media to do survey dips of the whereabouts and whosabouts of the “other” candidates on the ballot.  Arguably they produce boring stories, in the case of the Vic Rawl campaign, but the news is not supposed to be always exciting.


I suppose Vic Rawl’s somewhat angry statements about some corners remarking on his low name recongition as though “he did as little campaigning” as his primary opponent — Mr. Greene — is…
… well, I take it that politicians who are not not all that likely to win in the General have a greater belief in their likelihood to win than the reality, and Vic Rawl is no exception.
For today’s thoughts on Jim Clyburn’s “Elephant Dung” comment, we turn to the rapidly shifting wikipedia entries on these related articles, where we see this comment:
The possibility has also been raised that Greene was put up by non-partisan political consultants that were bored.
I wish I could just leave it there with no further explanation, but the article goes on.: 
Nu Wexler, the former executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, commented “You have consultants doing this kind of thing just because they get bored, and they want something to tell good stories about. It’s almost like fraternity pranks.”

For my daily exercise of  “exploring the avenues” of this South Carolina result — wherever they go– and theydo lead in different directions — something shady going on, something not shady going on — brings us to — Point #1:
A review of the primary election showed that of the state’s 46 counties, half have a significant gap between the absentee and election day ballots. For example, in Lancaster County, Rawl won the absentees with 84%, while Greene won election day by a double digit margin. Rawl’s campaign manager also claimed that “In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast.
All right.  The question become: is there that massive a difference between what is likely a far better informed electorate voting absentee and the less informed electorate that run in the day of the election?  Actually, perhaps: it may be the case that the electorate voting absentee has a pretty good habit of looking at the voters’ pamphlet as they vote, even looking at these below the radar not hyped by anyone elections.
Or it may be Diebold.
Item #2 — and here you will see my bias in automatically assuming that Alvin Greene was the legitimate winner.  Does everyone remember Bob Conley?

I mentioned his 2008 Senate campaign a number of times — see here, and here.  This election nomination was the result, I suspect, some issues of agreement between him and the democratic rank and file — see Ron Paul and the wars, as well the nature of the residual Solid South Democratic Party in this electorate.  (See the third candidate in the Arkansas Democratic Primary that obtained ten percent running as a Tea Partier.)  Tell me if this isn’t vaguely familiar.:

Conley, who had switched to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party,[7] was opposed by much of the Democratic establishment because of his controversial positions such as his vocal opposition to the immigration reform and same-sex marriage and his support of Ron Paul‘s presidential bid. A number of prominent Democratic figures in the state, including U.S. Congressman James Clyburn, supported Lindsey Graham over Conley in the general election.[8] Political scientist Bill Moore claimed “The bottom line is, by not paying attention to this race, they ended up embarrassed by what has transpired: a Republican getting the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate and a Republican who comes across as even more conservative than Lindsey Graham.“

Graham had $3.8 million. In fact, he’s spent more time on the campaign trail for John McCain than he has defending his own seat. Conley only raised $23,628 during the campaign. Conley was so unknown that even Graham admitted “Almost no one knows my opponent. The Democrats really didn’t field a — make a serious challenge — in terms of trying to find an opponent for me.“

Recently, from the odds and ends of the “Daily Paul”, I saw a video from the “Southern Avenger” who I guess you’d know if you have enough of a specific type of blog in your purview — railing against Lindsey Graham and making citations toward Bob Conley — it was a tedious commentary — but that was the last time I saw mention of Bob Conley anywhere.  The one thing to note about Conley, though, is that he did run a campaign and did state actual issues and positions and did attract his electorate and there is no doubt they knew what they were voting for — that cannot be said of the result in 2010.

It is worth mentioning that South Carolina does have Green Party candidate.  Naturally, the party appears to be salivating at their opportunity for increased vote total chances.  The one thing I will say is that I have spelled out my belief that all State wide and federal elections should come equipped with a required and necessary almost “Eat your Brocilla” type requirements to local media to cover Debate — as opposed to today where the underequipped challenger always makes the request and the entrenched Incumbent rebuffs the offer, except when they don’t.  To think further on my theory of the Debate requirement and fine-tune it — perhaps a minimal test might be put in place that could — in cases like South Carolina — have some minimal competence requirement that could leave Mr. Greene aside and put the Green candidate — Tom Clements — in his stead.

I’d also like to note something about the Green Party — as you ponder something in relation to the contest in Arkansas and you know — something a bit familiar with Bill Halter’s warning about Blanche Lincoln moving on after the nomination to this arena — does have a candidate in Arkansas.  They also had one in 2008, an election with no Republican Party candidate — thus the Greens received 20.47% — no idea how many were Republicans to Mark Pryor’s right.  Apparently the Green Party candidate there is the mayor of Greenland — population 907 as of the 2000 Census.  Make of it what you must.

Campaign updates Round the Bend

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Another interview with Alvin Greene — and it is here that I will suggest we can close the door on media interviews with Alvin Greene.  I do not see what purpose any more attention can serve.  Sure, Investigate all curious avenues — but keep some other avenues in mind which work against your claims.
I have a problem with Representative Clyburn.  I do not want to preclude a primary challenge against Clyburn, even from possible gadflys or incompetents, or the threat for 10 percent of the primary vote.  His “suspicion” against his primary challenger shades a little too far in precluding challengers.  As for the matter of the other flukey Democratic that beat the “Real” Democrat — that may just be the same Election Night Syndrome that brought Greene the nomination, and instead of strengthening the case for “Plant” shenanagins, strengthens the case for “The Credible Candidate didn’t wage a Credible Campaign.”

My question for Vic Rawls — after explaining the perimeters of his relatively piddling but highly typical when feeling that your candidacy is pretty well assured — and this is a point to be made to ALL candidates in his situation — by any rights, the probably challenger against the Incumbent, and far enough behind that you’re not likely to garner substantial backing for a credible “World Beater” campaign — seeing as the path to victory is such a steep climb — shouldn’t you be treating the Primary Campaign as an extension of the General Election and forcing your name awareness upward — that is the only way you’re going to put in effect anything except a static and flat donor base, and ensure against losing to Al Green.

Alvin Greene, as you see in the interview, is just not altogether there.  The two points of clearest reference come in with his “pivot” from “My Lawyer’s dealing with it” with regard to his Felony Charge over to the visible mind search to a sort of cue card “(2:55) Relates to the third issue I’m dealing with — Justice in the Judicial system — [trails off badly]”, and the exchange   to charge of mental impairment from state legislators: [4:00] “I say that back to them then… they’re the knuckle-heads” and on to his answer of if he’s [5:20] “No — Just” …

It’s good to see the Alex Jones “Prison Planet” website go to bat for Sharron Angle on the issue of Fluoridation.  My sense of rightful propriety has been restored.
I do have a sense of dread on certain campaign politicking against Sharron Angle, as I do against Rand Paul.  Harry Reid’s new ad, coming from an issue discussed in the primary against Sue Lowden, targets Sharron Angle for having promoted “Massages” for prisoners — this particular program coming from a service provided by the Church of Scientology.  We probably do not want to provide the prison population massages, though I do not think that is an outlandish idea — and that’s my problem here.  If we did have some massage program in the prisons, it certainly shouldn’t be this thing — the Church of Scientology having an ulterior motive.
My problem is that there are various Prison programs that will come across about the same to swarths of the electorate who veer toward the opinion that Prisons should resemble Attica, and that this is what Harry Reid is exploiting.  I don’t really want to see a flanking to the right on Prisoner treatment.  I almost would be happier if Reid proposed his own entirely different Prison Massage Program — something which, obviously, is never going to happen.

Similarly, the liberal talk radio host Thom Hartmann has come across a tad annoying in his discussing of Rand Paul.  “Wait until the Republicans in his state” learn about various libertarian stances from Rand Paul.  Top of the list includes Drug Decriminalization and cutting back the Pentagon budget.  Leaving aside the problem these positions are not held by Rand Paul, and for a minute pretend they are.  Hartmann is, eseentially, proposing that the Democratic candidate — Jack Conway — defeat Rand Paul by defeating stances that Thom Hartmann supports.
As opposed to against …


I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there.”


The thing about Carly Fiorina’s “is the mic on” gaffe — other than her non-apology apology for a matter which I think the public is pretty understandable in a “I can relate” kind of way of knowing that people say crude things in private that they wouldn’t in public —
The thing about Carly Fiornina’s comment about Barbara Boxer’s hair is that having undergone chemotherapy for breast cancer and all that entails — to her hair, for instance — I would think that would provide her with some grounding of perspective against such catty and superficial disparagmennts.
Regretably, Fironina is not beyound using her experience with “Cancer” card in a debate where his opponent brought up something about her CEO-record, and she responded with a non-sequitur time-line wise which suggested the issue was beyond bounds — “Did you hear what I just said?”.

Okay.  I DARE the Democratic Party in California to run another refashioned “Demon Sheep” ad!  The closer to the original ad the better.
Just like I dare the Republican Party to refurbish the Dead Kennedy’s song “California Uber Alles” for the Gubernatorial race between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.  Though, I suppose Jello Biafra would not be one to give clearance for use of the song — his opinion of Jerry Brown has evolved.

Rounding things up here … Okay.  Fine.  Rick Barber for Congress.  Weee!  Also, note to Bob Etheridge: Um.  Everyone’s a blogger and everyone’s carrying around a video, you know that right?  I also need to note a good reason not to donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — as we see here, money will be spear-headed to the effort to elect this guy.


Sunday, June 13th, 2010

There is some rather odd reporting regarding the Missing Six Year old boy.  It was enough to make me suspect smoke signals are being sent — a quick radio report snippet that “tips are coming in from all over” — a Psychic called in that she conjured up his presence in Northern California, and a report came also came in from Northern California of a spotting with him with an elderly couple — that was checked up in, and it turned out to be a boy with the same appearance.

All right.  Good to know (perhaps?) about the high profile nature of the case coming up with a mist-sighting — but did we really need to know that a “psychic” called in?

Mostly, I suspect, we’re just filling time here.  It’s a story that’s got to be left into the public awareness, but there really just is not anything of substantive news.  Drop information on donation fund for “Search and Rescue” efforts, and what else?  It’s a sad story, and in a flash I can come up with a number of scenarios.  A “bad outcome” scenarios are more likely than than a “good outcome” scenarios.  From what I gather, the best outcome is that he was kidnapped by very benevelont (though, I guess, emotionally needy) kidnappers who are taking good care of him.  Seriously — you have anything better than that?

Meantime, the local chapter (or whatever) of the “National Alliance” has taken full advantage of the situation.  If you’re in whatever parts of the city, you’ve seen those godawful yellow stickers they place — in the dead of night, naturally — at posts.  “Preserve the White Race”, and blah de blah.  They’ve cheap adhesive, such that to remove them is to end up with difficulty scraping them off — by design, I suppose.  So, yesterday, and today, in the front of a free newspaper dispenser (The Portland Tribune, I believe) what is there?  A flier.  “Missing” — picture of a baby “White Children’s Future”, and blah de blah.  I, naturally, pulled them out, crumpled them, and threw them away.