Archive for April, 2011

figure out pumas at your peril

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

At the time of the 2008 election, I looked over to see what that constituency of “PUMA”s — or what of them exist — were saying upon the election of Obama.  I saw a gleeful crunching of numbers to rationalize Obama’s victory as pyrrhic, inevitably a one termer (or less, what with the Chicago corruption that lead to that stolen nomination) — the victory coming from depressed Republican turnout, and I — a lifetime Democrat — just cast my proudest vote ever for McCain and Palin, the latter in opposition to Obama in demonstrating where the two candidates stand on Women’s Equality.  Add in conspicuous links to free republic sites and world net daily — which is an alliance that will come back to bite these PUMAs on the back.

The Internet can aggregate anyone of any interest.  This page here, Hm, a “PUMA blog aggregator”, looks about what you would imagine.  Like the Howard Dean blogs at the end of his nomination, only taken through past the November election.  I guess they have these Clinton ads to create, these documentaries to make — all outside the scope of anything Hillary Clinton is interested in doing,  (Allegedly).

The PUMA aggregagor is, politically, all over the place. “That is the PUMA way”, the top of this page says — before popping out a link to “Inside Job” (an indictment of the system which heaps as much scorn on the Clinton administration as everyone else), and a page against gun violence.

You had to see it to appreciate it. Before the start of the seventh inning Seattle Mariners vs Cleveland Indians baseball game the roving reporter had a Felix Hernandez bobblehead to give away. The contest between mom and daughter was to name all of the presidents in a row.
The two knew all the presidents and they sang them out in unison in a sort of sing songy way. At the very end, they yelled out Barack Obama very loudly, giddy that they were done.
The reporter then asked them who would be the next president in 2012, and after a relatively short pause, mom says, “Clinton again.” Probably referring to Bill’s better half. But how can that be when our own cable news media is so polarized to the far left and far right, leaving the vast huge middle of the country unrepresented?

Self styled “Centrist”.  It’s a tough gambit. About as tough as watching the Mariners and seeing their pitching staff and Ichiro being wasted on historically anemic offenses.  But skip here to  see…


So if you know PUMA’s who don’t think the home mortgage issue is of importance, they are not real PUMAs, since this was a core Hillary Clinton campaign issue. I recently defriended an alleged well known PUMA who had no time to ever view Daily PUMA, and claimed my Swarm the Banks blog was pointless.
I don’t know.  There’s a certain logic to this portion on the page — toss up a Greenwald column while you are at it.  But before we get too commondreamsy on you, we ask: is CATO PUMA?  They’ve been siphoned into this page, see, on this page:


Paul Ryan on CBS. He is the man.


One of my biggest pet peeves against Barack Obama was that he was writing his tribute book about his sperm donor father in the early 90’s in Bali, even as his mother was being diagnosed and fighting cancer in Hawaii. Barack Obama literally had to fly over where his mother was fighting cancer in Hawaii to go Bali.
I have not been able to find an actual exact Timeline of Barack Obama’s book writing in Bali and his mother’s battle with cancer in Hawaii, but even if the book was barely finished when Stanley Ann Dunham was first diagnosed with cancer, isn’t it odd that a book about his deadbeat and passed father was of such priority that he could not find the time to fight for the life of his still living mother?

Seems like personal animus.  Might be what holds this together, but I go back to seeing the snippets of free republic pages and see the “What the heck?” come back to bite them with this:


What a vile vile website American Thinker is. The comments section regarding Hillary Clinton are soooo deranged, off you go from Daily PUMA. On top of that, someone from American Thinker actually checked out dailypuma because I put a link to it within my comment that I left in your comments section, but my comment never ran. So whomever reviewed my comment chose not to run it.
bye bye American Thinker, you worthless pile of crap. And your commenters are among the dumbest in the land. If I ever felt Daily PUMA readers were even half as dumb as yours, I’d shut it down. Not only are the HIllary Clinton commenters vile, stupid and depraved people, it’s the PERCENTAGE of the comments that were universally squalid that I found most memorable.
How malignant are these commenters at American Thinker in regards to Hillary Clinton? If Hillary Clinton discovered the cure for cancer, those idiots would probably take less than a minute to accuse her of creating cancer in the first place, that’s how deranged they are.
It begs the question: the operators of this website do have a historical memory that stretches back to Bill Clinton’s term and the epithets your Rush Limbaughs and the type of people who write on the American Thinker were throwing around about Hillary Clinton, don’t they?  Before 2008, everything they have on Clinton comes across like they’d say about Obama — even if they can bop over to intermural party conflicts after 2008.
But. then again… she’s a Hillary Clinton fan, into PUMA:
Jan Brewer vetos “Birther Bill”‘ the right decision for the wrong reasons
Years late, we’re finally getting an audit of Obama 2008. Perhaps it is that courage is contagious and Donald Trump’s two-fist attacks on Obama are bringing Obama opponents out of the woodwork – but something is happening to raise the level of truth-telling. Michelle Bachman, usually not a shrinking violet, is all of a sudden talking birth certificate. Bachman says she is going to bring her birth certificate to the first Republican debate.
This will dominate as long as this page exists.  As well the Sarah Palin love.

Parenting, good bad and neutral

Monday, April 18th, 2011

Woman removing a bunch of stuff, pinkish clearly items belonging to her daughter — or girl she was care taking in some capacity.  She yells to a woman out on the sidewalk to greet her, “I packed all of Magelline’s stuff and forgot to bring Magelline!”
“Oh My gosh!  Did you leave her at the MALL?”, asked more urgently.
“No.  Back at the house.”
It occurs to me that if she had left her at the mall, she would have shouted with more urgency than at the house.  I think for a moment, overthinking, that maybe this shouldn’t be the case — that maybe the multitudes of people at the mall would ensue Magelline safe passage to a “Lost and Found” as against the house where  Magelline is on her own — but then realize, no the possibility of abduction and all that…

A woman is walking along with her young son on a bicycle and her young daughter on a tricycle.  She sometimes has to push the tricycle ahead.
The boy says to his mom, “Mom, I don’t think I need this helmet.  Everytime I fall, I never land on my head.”
The mom says, “Oh, but you’ve never fallen really badly.  You need the helmet.”
This strikes me as good parenting.  It’s unlikely she will ever leave these kids back at the house, or at the mall.

At a Starbucks I go to once a week or so at the same time and see this same group when I do — an obese woman is riding around down a brief aisle on a motor-cart with her friend’s baby going “wee”.  A surly twenty-something grunts, to his friends but seemingly at this group of women, “If I ever get that fat, kill me.”  Rather mean, sure, one of the women darts a dirty look, but shakes it off.
A couple of minutes later, he is asking everyone if they have a cigarette.  This includes the group he just insulted.  My thought runs along the lines of — you’re on okay ground with the insult, you’re on okay group bumming a cigarette, you are not on okay ground trying to bum a cigarette from a group you just insulted.

They Came in Third

Sunday, April 17th, 2011

2008:   00.56%:  Ralph Nader
2004:   00.38%:  Ralph Nader
2000:  02.74%:  Ralph Nader, Green
1996:   08.4 %:    Ross Perot, Reform
1992:   18.9%:     Ross Perot, United We Stand
1988:  00.47%:  Ron Paul, Libertarian
1984:  00.25%:  David Bergland, Libertarian
1980:  06.6%:  John Anderson
1976:  00.9%:  Eugene McCarthy
1972:  01.4%:  John Schmitz, American Independent
1968:  13.5%:  George Wallace, American Independent
1964:  00.0%:  Eric Hass, Socialist Labor Party
1960:  00.42% “Unpledged” to Harry Byrd
1956:  00.2%      T Coleman Andrews, States Rights
1952:  00.2%    Vincent Hallinan, Progressive
1948:  02.43%   Strom Thurmond, States Rights Democratic Party
1944:  00.2%     Norman Thomas, Socialist
1940:  00.2%  Norman Thomas, Socialist
1936:  02  %    William Lemke, Union
1932:  02.23%  Norman Thomas, Socialist
1928:  00.7 %   Norman Thomas, Socialist
1924:  16.6%  Robert La Follette, Progressive
1920:  03.4%  Eugene Debs, Socialist
1916:  03.2%  Allan Louis Benson, Socialist
1912:  23.2%  William Howard Taft, Republican
1908:  02.8%  Eugene Debs, Socialist
1904:  03  %   Eugene Debs, Socialist
1900:  01.5%  John Granville Wooley, Prohibition
1896:  0.96%  John Palmer, National Democratic
1892:  08.5%  James Weaver, Populist
1888:  02.2%  Clinton Bowen Fisk, Prohibition
1884:  01.7%  Benjamin Franklin Butler, Greenback / Anti-Monopoly
1880:  03.3%  James Weaver, Greenback / Labor
1876:  0.9%    Peter Cooper, Greenback
1872:  0.3%  Charles O’Connor, Bourbon Democrat
1860:  18.1%  John Breckinridge, Southern Democratic
1856:  21.6%  Millard Fillmore, Know Nothing
1852:  04.9%  John Parker hale, Free Soil
1848:  10.1%  Martin Van Buren, Free Soil
1844:  0.33%  James Birney, Liberty
1840:  0.33%  James Birney, Liberty
1836:  09.7%  Hugh Lawson White, Whig
1832:  07.8%  William Wirt, Anti-Masons

There are three third party candidates who were former presidents — Van Buren and Theodore Roosevelt are most comparable of the three — animated by quarrels about the direction of their political party or personal animus.  Van Buren either was taking it out on his former party as its Southern wing grew larger than his designed stronger Northern wing, was just upset he wasn’t nominated again, or sincerely cared about slavery.  The Free Soil Party was the second of three parties to take on slavery — more diluted in focus than the previous Liberty Party though less diluted than its successor Republican Party.  Millard Fillmore ran on one of the two sucessors to the Whig Party he saw collapse before him — the xenophobic and conspiratorial party — the Anti-Masons for a new generation — but not even the fire power of a Millard Fillmore could keep the party from losing the Post-Whig Derby to the Republican Party and its flaky adventurer candidate, the founder of the “Bear Flag Republic” in California.
Clearly James Weaver was the Populist, or Greenback Party’s, best candidate.  Absent him, they were liable to fall behind the Prohibitionist Party.  But just as it seemed the party was going anywhere, with Weaver at 8.5% in 1892, the Democrats nominated Bryan and the Populist Party absorbed itself into the Democratic Party.  Cleveland’s loyalists maintained some control of the party by running a spoiler candidate with the stated goal of keeping Bryan out of the White House.  (Taft would do the same against Roosevelt, but with the Republican Party.)
Eugene Debs for the Socialists maintained an even 3 percent through five elections, with an outlier in the year he went fourth but with 6 percent.  Norman Thomas’s tenure was either more erratic or just shoved further into the margins where more noise in vote tally can take place — his high in the Depression era of 2.23 percent goes down to .2 percent against the shadow of World War.
That .2 percent for Vincent Hallinan from a beat up party apparatus post Henry Wallace is of the same type as John Schmitz’s 1.4 percent from the beat up party apparatus post George Wallace.  You might say the same for the various “States Rights” candidacies as against Strom Thurmond, but then again — everyone liked Ike.
I can’t really figure why Ralph Nader rebounded from a 2004 low back to his 1996 level.  My theory about Nader’s 2000 run as set against Obama is that in 2012, “elements of the left” or liberals who sublimated their frustration of Obama will again be ready to run a third candidate — to the tune of a similar couple percentage of the vote.  In the meantime, for 2012, I note that Ron Paul, after 24 years, is back in position for a re-energized presidential campaign — Jesse Ventura would be a willing vice presidential running mate.  There is a flavor of the “Anti-Mason” party in that one — oddly enough, that Anti-Mason candidate?  He was a Mason.
The most curious figure on this list, in the “studying rare exotic species of floral” type, might be Eric Hass of 1964 — who, if you round his vote total to the nearest 100,000 would have zero votes.  His is the oldest Socialist party in the United States, currently a paper organization.  Reading the wikipedia article, it appears the two most famous members of the party — people anyone might recognize — are Jack Landon, and the author of schlocky science fiction who has the distinction as being the writer of the first Star Trek novel.  The vote total in 1964 was part of a focus on electoral elections, representing a series of elections which was historically large for the party but — is rounded to zero.  It is amusing that they came in third, but I suppose if we follow Richard Holfstadter’s thesis the votes of discontent moved into Barry Goldwater’s campaign — I suppose later showing up with the Schmitzs of the world.

Things that are dying

Saturday, April 16th, 2011

Things that are dying out, somewhat #1.  Daily Daytime Soap Operas.

There are now only four remaining soap operas, NBC’s “Days of Our Lives,” CBS’s “Young & the Restless” and “The Bold & the Beautiful,” and ABC’s “General Hospital.”

ABC just canceled a couple of them, and are replacing them with cooking shows.  Cooking shows have been all the rage ever since the genre (and niche cable network) was infiltrated by the pornography industry.  Obviously it’s a long term change by society which has lead to the gradual demise — though they were the most video-taped television programs–, but the immediate demise of soap operas is linked to Procter and Gamble’s advertising decision — they have enough of a monopoly over cleaning supplies, I suppose.  I thought maybe the remaining shows were the true legacy programs which started out on radio and carried over on television — but looking it up, they appear not to be .
I can’t say I weep.  Neither do I weep for this
But over the last 16 years, numbers for Little League Baseball, which accounts for about two-thirds of the country’s youth play, have been steadily dropping. And there are signs the pace is accelerating.
It’s an evergreen news story anyway.  And an evergreen point of discussion.  Last year I listened to a bunch of old guys talk wistfully on the new baseball season, striking this note “The game’s not followed by as many people as it used to be.”

“The days of kids being born with a glove next to their ear in the crib and boys playing catch in the backyard by age three, those are over,” said Len Coleman, the former president of the National League.

Coleman, who counts Hall of Famers Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson as close friends, said he watched his son, now 23, drop baseball as a teenager for soccer—the sport he starred in at Georgetown University. “I even tried to keep him interested by having him catch so he’d be involved in every play,” Coleman said.

According to scouts, the declining numbers are beginning to alter the talent pool in ways that could have a noticeable impact on player quality. “There are still players, but there aren’t the numbers out there anymore,” said David Bloom, a scout with the Baltimore Orioles. “The great players just don’t stand out like they used to.”

A funny thing here –  The Oregonian recently published an editorial for the local focus on such matters — Portland’s triple A baseball team has departed and a major league soccer team has replaced the minor league soccer team (both minor in comparison with world competition).

I know they published it because it was in the letter to the editor section today — a couple of people bemoaning the demise of baseball.

I thoroughly enjoyed Rick Attig’s April 11 piece, “Picture day in Mudville,” in which he laments the local decline in baseball interest. As a former youth coach and administrator — and hopeless baseball geek — I’ve studied this issue closely.
Have you?

One of baseball’s great appeals is its demographic diversity. People from all economic walks of life love the game. My grandfather, an industrial painter, took me to many Portland Beavers games in the ’60s.
I observed over the years and from major league cities that a large number of baseball aficionados were blue-collar folks who made a decent wage. I’ve seen this at various levels of the game — factory cities generally make for good baseball towns. Prospering businesses that manufacture or build are typically big sponsors of youth baseball.
I submit that waning support for baseball, except for its most avid fans, has a lot to do with the decline of our manufacturing sector, which reduces a significant base of local support.
When we decide to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector and actually start making things again, baseball will be a wonderful side benefit. Without the support of a solid working-class society, baseball may be down to its last strike.

Interesting.  The Wall Street Journal article begins with a kid from major baseball family claiming the sport is “too slow”.  I note that he wrote a letter to the editor, which sits side by side with another letter on the same topic.  I also note that the article’s appearance on the Oregonian website comes with zero reader comments.  Of course, print is decaying as well — the recent closing of Border’s and recent layoff at Powell’s testify to that — the IPAD surged ahead of book sales at last year.  I welcome this new digitized future.  I had an argument a while ago with someone bemoaning the fretful day when books will all be loaded onto your ipad device, but   there are shows on television which shows society’s contempt for clutter, so if we have to follow those dictates, I’d just have to leave clutter of volumes of books and music somehow —

No, it’s not all positive.  We’ve become a world of writers –but not necessarily good or insightful writers, and writers who often adhere to a tight format of 140 characters or less.  (I wonder if Haikus came about from a lost technology that forced this stricture — sure, the wikipedia article makes this claim of evolution, but I bet it came from limited gigabytes.)

Also, wasn’t the Strike of 94 baseball’s last strike — or was it baseball’s first strike?  No, it was revitalized through the use of Steroids — maybe we can get it pumped up again if we agree as a society to look the other way on that issue again.

I don’t know what will happen with Portland’s “Major League Soccer” franchise.  The current ad campaign is content on focusing on the fans in the stand, which propelled attendance over the past few years.  This gets you so far.  Soccer fans have spent over three decades insisting this sport will overtake America.  Things are bifurcated a lot, (Soap Operas make sense in a three network universe) and I imagine it doesn’t necessarily follow a faltering of a sport to rise somewhat.  But it doesn’t hurt.

In 1950 the three biggest and most followed sports in America were boxing, horse racing, and baseball.  Things are not as static as they seem to those who believe we live in a world of a hierarchy of a trio of sports in the foreground  on the sports’ page — baseball, football, basketball.

Banned Book Week?

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

The “ALA” Banned Book List and Week is, I have stated before and will state again, a joke and a cheap marketing gimmick.  There is an element of back-slapping here for everyone upholding First Amendment values, and keeping the flame of reading and the exchange of ideas flowing.  The campaign goes with libraries and book stores throwing up a display — “I Read Banned Books”.  Questions loom — Why do I not feel terribly rebellious for having read some of them, and is it okay if I read some non-banned book?

The list always produces certain arch-types.  This year’s “Heather Has Two Moms” is “And Tango Makes Three”.  I have never seen either book, but judging from the descriptions I think this makes for an improvement — the story of the gay penguins sounds more promising.
One year we have Orwell’s 1984, the next (and this year) Huxley’s Brave New World, another perhaps Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.  This gets picked up in the “irony” meter for some cheap message.  Let me know if you are having trouble finding a copy of Brave New World.

I see Stephanie Meyer’s Twighlight made the list.  This straddles a couple of genres which always find its way here — sort of both Gossip Girl and Harry Potter.  There’s always room for angry yammering about the “Occult” on the latter score.  On the former, I will take this as an upgrade.  Some time ago, I listened as an early 20s-year old described a show he was that came from the WB, (Roswell) and his comment — “It was exactly like Twilight”.  I had the same reaction on seeing a Twilight parody on SNL — “They could have done this sketch several years’ back and it would’ve been a parody of one of the WB’s teen drama.”  But the formula runs deep.  Thinking about these things, it occurs to me that the WB had a makeshift affiliate line-up, not gettable everywhere, so maybe the line “Let me know if you’re having trouble finding a copy” could have attached itself to Roswell.  As for Gossip Girl, I imagine a good case made for opting out of it due to allocation of researches at most school libraries, though school librarians seem to just as soon bring it in with an auxiliary “Beyond Gossip Girl” list the ALA likes to throw together for popular books, particularly of iffy literary value.

Good news… maybe?  I actually recently read the number two book on the list.  Sherman Alexie’s New York Times best-seller “Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian”.

I guess I recommend it?  Can’t hurt — you are beyond its reading level, so it’ll only take a couple of hours.

I imagine any young adult book that passes a few mentions of masturbation is going to get a few parents gnashing their teeth, whether the fuller implications of the book’s social and political messages is or is not the unstated subtext of any complaints.  It’s a a book which apparently is read in High School literature classes, and the good news here is that if some parents have scuttled in some districts  it out of being taught in the classroom, the book comes with a study guide of pointed essay questions for kids who want to create that experience denied to them.

Hm.  Here’s something a little bit more honest than “banned book week” to get riled about:

The US Justice Department is asking a federal judge in South Carolina to allow it to intervene in a lawsuit against a sheriff who allegedly forbids prisoners in his jail from receiving books, magazines, or printed materials other than copies of the King James version of the Bible.

Berkeley County Sheriff H. Wayne DeWitt denies that restrictions imposed at the county lockup in Moncks Corner, S.C., rise to the level of a constitutional violation or violate US law.

He maintains that any actions taken at the jail are justified to preserve health and safety, and to further the pursuit of “legitimate penological objectives.”

Send them the Penguin book.

Also of more censorship concern:

New guidelines issued on March 31 discourage plot lines that contain elements of “fantasy, time-travel, random compilations of mythical stories, bizarre plots, absurd techniques, even propagating feudal superstitions, fatalism and reincarnation, ambiguous moral lessons, and a lack of positive thinking.”

“The government says … TV dramas shouldn’t have characters that travel back in time and rewrite history. They say this goes against Chinese heritage,” reports CNN’s Eunice Yoon. “They also say that myth, superstitions and reincarnation are all questionable.”

Given the recent changes made to Red Dawn to appease China, we can only hope our film industry doesn’t start making movies to appease Chinese Government officials.

Kyl and Trump.

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

“If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” — Jon Kyl
“His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.” — the office of Jon Kyl, upon media asking him with respect to statistics showing that Abortion is actually about 3 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.

I don’t know what to say anymore about things like this.  There are statements politicians may make in a spirit of, say, sarcasm — or slip up in making a misstatement.  There are disagreements of cause and effect in our world of multiple contradictory policies.  Then there’s the bald-faced line, “I didn’t mean what I said there.  Not literally.”

As per Donald Trump.  I would have to scour Bloom Countys to figure out if he was actually running, or “running”, for president in 1988.  Also, how close was he to running for the Reform Party ticket in the aftermath of Jesse Ventura’s gubernatorial victory and before it became clear Pat Buchanan had successfully taken over the party apparatus?  He is now, I guess, a perennial presidential candidate.  On closer inspection, his engagement with “birther”ism is the one gambit he has available for polling success — I gather he will pull the plug before electoral success becomes an issue — as he has no other peg with which to meet the portion of nuts in the Republican base.  I imagine past runs through the last half of the twentieth century would meet with runs against Fluoridation, Communist Infiltration, and for Creationism.
It’s probably too damned late in the game for Jon Kyl’s abortion rhetoric.

This article, byGarrett Epps, brings me back first to the historical context of the WND claim that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s Dreams of My Father — which has historical roots in claims that slave narratives were not written by their authors — and then this smacked me with something:

During my years in the Pacific Northwest, I used frequently to meet people who assured me that they were “sovereign citizens,” white males who were at the center of the “organic Constitution”; outsiders–Native Americans, black people, Asian Americans, women–were citizens, true, but only “Fourteenth-Amendment citizens,” in a separate, lesser category under the law.

I ran into a man, online, who threw around the phrase “Fourteenth Amendment citizens”.  I don’t think this was his definition — I gather he had a conception that the Federal Government took over with the Fourteenth Amendment and we all became slaves.  (Given that the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to expand the rights of Corporations and backed away from protecting freed slaves, maybe he had a skittle of a point.)  But given this man’s full ideology, I think his conception is related and at points interchangeable.

There is something ringing false on all these scores.  We’ve arrived at the two political sides setting up for a budgetary battle to compromise between two “Cat Food Commission”s.  Simpsons — Bowles is “Centrist”, by definition somehow, and that’s where Obama wants to be.  Ryan’s is Conservative “Bold” — and the Libertarians and tea party believe it to be a “good start”.  It appears his speech has won over a good deal of liberals who’ve soured on him — which is, I guess, the routine of these things.  We’ll see where lines in the sand are drawn and how everyone pulls it out.  Remember the budget sucks that blew the deficit out of proportion in the first place.

Countdown: the five biggest larouche stories of the past 10 days

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011


Yes, congratulations to the Org for joining the horde of “Vatican Assassins”.  For the sake of getting as large an audience as possible, from some lead in from media attention, nothing beats the day of the Charlie Sheen interview.  But the day Larouche got on Alex Jones falls into the next rung — though it is a distant second in terms of attention.  Fox News fired Glenn Beck, and due to their symbiotic relationship (which gets complicated) — and while it pains me to do so, I do have to give Beck kudos for that one), Jones would have to address the matter.
But this only goes so far.  I don’t remember who Jones had on after Charlie Sheen, and I would be more likely than most to catch that.  Media Matters stops at Jones discussing Beck — not much gist for the partisan mill to be mined in sticking around, no way to slam Fox News.  The Examiner won’t bother to shift past that either.  Had they, we would have seen Lyndon Larouche and David Icke — The British Empire and then the Lizard People.

Hm. Given that, wait a few years and Jones will bring on Beck and vice versa.  Maybe Joel Skousen will decide that what Beck did to promote his uncle deserves them to be pulled together.
Like Sean Stone brought together Jones with the Larouche Movement.  Or so was said as Stone followed Jeffrey Steinberg.  Actually, I don’t really believe that.  There’s something a little funny going on, and I don’t know what it is.  I see the benefits for Larouche — they really do need a platform, and this is the largest available for their market segment.  Jones, I guess, just has the need to throw as many “truth Seekers” into his tent to be pissing outside his tent instead of standing outside pissing into his tent.  (Is that how that metaphor goes?)  I think someone really needs to do an investigative documentary dvd on this — show how the Cabal of Conspiranoid Junkets works — call it, in reference to Jones, “When the Mask Slips”.  I’ve got the final scene: it’s of someone shouting at Jones’s house in a bullhorn.

I can’t figure out whether to recommend actually listening to this interview.  Jones and Larouche spend a good deal of time talking past each other, and I imagine that I would not know the difference between the transcript of what Larouche says here and the transcript of a Larouche webcast.  Larouche makes sure to stay a top of Jones, and we see that when — at one point — he responds to some conspiracy posited by Jones with “Th — That’s part of it.  That’s part of it”, a mere part of it — you understand.  (12:17 here.)
Also of some note, I guess… Who killed Kennedy?  (They did.)

Larouche brings out the biggie at 9:50 here — “We’ve got intel that tells us they’re planning on overthrowing the Monarchs.” …
What we’re looking at is the famous mythical story of Zeus and Prometheus.
And it goes on and on. The 62 Million Year Cycle brings us to the verge of our Crisis of Humanity.  And in the Ventian Inner Alpha Group, we see the Face of Pure Evil.

Demonstrating his judicious research skills — the type that lead Jones to review the work of the Larouche movement and look further to see its validity — Jones quotes Jefferson.  He ran into this “an hour ago”.  Yes, here it is — on snopes.

The mention of FDR draws Jones to find common ground.  We can debate these things about welfare, but first we have to break down the common enemy — as Ron Paul said the other day on his show.  This, I suppose could nod to a divergence of matters — how do they each view Rand Paul?  To Alex Jones, Rand Paul is a mole within the beast — to Larouche, Rand Paul is a Hitler mustached partner in crime with Obama.  Maybe next time, they can get into this issue?  (Whatever happened to the Rand Paul Hitler Mustache campaign anyway?)

The reviews are coming in.

Now I know what Stephen Zarlenga, founder of The American Monetary Institute, was talking about in one of his interviews when he said that LaRouche supporters jump off the deep end with some of their proposed solutions. In this case, I think LaRouche did multiple Olympic gold medal winning jumps off the deep end throughout most of his interview.

It is funny how these things come together.  This line now comes with a new meaning now that they’re all together.

I knew it, blame it on the jews
You sound like David Ike.
Lyndon Larouche ?
Here come the lizard people.


When the show comes up on youtube lets make this go viral!

I admit I had my doubts when I saw this suggestion.  But I was impressed to see that they had succeeded in getting the discussion between Alex Jones and Lyndon Larouche to go “viral”.  The trick was to clip it down to its most important and succinct two minutes, and it became the biggest thing on the Internet for a day or so.  Here it is — Alex Jones and Lyndon Larouche holding forth.

Actually there was something Larouchian that did “go viral”.  It was big enough to make memeorandum, at least.  Larouchie card table operator punched.  It’s, unfortunate, and people really should not do that, but it’s instructive to see why it received the amount of attention it did.

The San Francisco paper botched the story, and also published a file photograph of an Obama supporter sign waver, giving a suggestion that it was this man who was punched.  Charges of media bias in focusing so much on conservatives behaving badly and not showing liberals behaving badly were mixed with allegations of conspiratorial plants and mixed with charges of “Leftist” overplaying a victim card.  Oddly, the “Even in San Francisco” meme could straddle before pre and post correction.  Next a post correction came in, the assailants and victims were identified, and liberal commenters came in with a “Can’t you read?”  The conservative commenters and bloggers general line shifted to “Left on Left Violence!”, charged the liberal assailant with being over emotionally to their “Dear Leader”, and we got some discussion on which dictator Obama better resembles,  As well an attempted clarification of circumstances.

Other false notes bob up: Why wouldn’t this be classified as a hate crime? Oh, that’s right white victims don’t count.
A decent amount of extricating the Larouchies from any real partisan battle takes place:

Another young, impressionable 20-something brainwashed by the Lyndon LaRouche Cult.
Don’t know why anyone would waste their time on this dolt. Idiot isn’t worth the effort put into a punch.
“…the victim supports left-wing activist Lyndon LaRouche.” It’s not enough that anyone to the left of the extreme right is accused of being a communist. Now, we’re to be lumped in with the likes of Lyndon LaRouche? Give me a break. LaRouche’s political philosophy is so incoherent as to defy any description. He is not a left wing activist; he is a crazy man.
don’t think you’ll find too many left-wing extremists who, for example, are adamant about their view that Leibowitz invented calculus rather than Newton, or who believe that nuclear-powered maglev trains are the way to go for a public transit infrastructure in the US.

I’m not sure LaRouche can be categorized as left- or right-wing. His wing is in a direction that doesn’t exist in three-dimensional space.


Sympathy for the assailants is expressed:

I saw those “LaRouchies” in Costa Mesa with their card table and both Bush and Obama pictures with Hitler mustaches. I told them that I was voting for Ron Paul and they both went off like a couple of idiots. Good for whoever it was who messed with them. They deserve that and more.

According to a witness, he was farther left than President Obama!?!? Isn’t complete socialism the only thing farther left than President Obama. I kind of don’t feel sorry for this guy getting beaten up.


Those LaRouche people are just out there to enrage people. I was waiting in line to cus them out a while ago on 16th and Mission until a hail of eggs came flying at their table and they had to pack up and leave.

Bottom line: All I know about the guy is that their supporters rang every single buzzer at my old building early one Saturday, and thinking it was a neighbor who was locked out, I went downstairs. Once I figured out what was going on, I think I interrupted their schpiel with “Wait, I came down here for this? It’s barely 9am. What the hell?” – turned around and went back upstairs, grumbling. Their flyer somehow made it into my hands though. I’m still pissed.

Or, botome line: troll?

It’s spreading… kind of.  Dateline Healdsburg:

Wesley Vanderschaaf, one of the two activists at the table, said he and the other person, who declined to give her name, were there to oppose Obama’s policies on taxes, Wall Street bailouts, budget issues and healthcare and to solicit support for six congressional candidates backed by the Leesburg, Va.-based Lyndon LaRouche political action committee.
“We’re just getting contact information,” said Vanderschaaf, pointing to a mailing list that people could sign.
Asked about the Hitler-style mustache on Obama, Vanderschaaf said Obama’s policies are “indifferent to the wishes of the population,” similar, he said, to those that Hitler espoused in the 1930s and which led to the Holocaust. He also referred to the earthquakes in Japan, saying that Obama’s budget decisions would lead to shortages in emergency services in the U.S.
Felix, however, who is Jewish, said she was so upset by the display that she later called a local peace group to let them know about it.

Not too bad, I guess, call the Peace Groups — police won’t “do something”.  McWhirr chimes in:

Henry McWhirr:  Secondly, in response to your statement about “defiling the memory of those who died in the Holocaust,” I should think that the best way to honor their memory is to be vigilant against any recurrence of those policies.

Uh huh. There’s nothing all that much to get upset over.  Besides which, it feeds them a false Messianic claim of Martydom.  Note how the trifling San Francisco incident made the Alex Jones description — mass strike indeed.


And so it goes:  Obamer-Listen to anything this guy has to say-Study this man– He has something to say—-LISTEN TO HIM—-He studies what you are seeing now- We see what he is saying because we havent listend before- Is it to late? I dont know but I do know this – If we dont do anything we are in TROUBLE——-The movement has begun- where do ou stand-Ed
He’s alright, I disagree with a bit of his stuff. Mos def on our side though.

And so it goes:

It is, without question, THE most important, most concise and direct briefing to the American people and to the world who exactly the enemy is and what can and MUST be done in order to reverse course and rout humanity’s enemies.
[…]Keep up the good fight until the Lord Jesus Christ comes to finish the war once and for all!!!
Interesting audience segment, that one.

But a few comments leap out at the infowars page:

Lyndon LaRouche knows perfectly well that when he looks in the mirror he sees the face of evil. I have followed this truly wild eyed nutcase sine the early 70s and he is as wacko as they come.
fuck you douche bag your so full of shit your eyes are brown.

I agree 100% it is the zionist, and Im not buying into the middle east riots as a spontanious or mass whatever. any fool can see it is organized Im not taking anything away from Lyndon LaRouche, but i dont think he really knows what hes talking about.. as to who is behind it all.Lyndon is a fake? Yeah…right. Lyndon has been fighting the good fight since before you were an itch in your daddy’s pants, pal.

Gotta say, I’m a little dissapointed that AJ interviewed Larouche. Larouche is basically a cult leader and con man. Its not enough that he says something occasionally correct, AJ shouldn’t support tyrannical people.
go away and don’t back……and knock on my door for food

I’ve seen the LaRouche people at my University campus several times with their Obama Hitler mustache posters. I don’t talk to them.

These receive responses.  Well, not that last one.  What doesn’t?

Search for “The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites,” a LaRouche essay from the late 70s where he addresses this issue at length.
To paraphrase his view of judaism, it’s at its roots an irrational cult, but certain versions of it (ie that of Moses Mendelssohn) are perfectly tolerable. The elite “Jews” you see (with a few exceptions like the Rothschilds) are basically a shield for people with real money and power, most of whom can be traced back to the venetian “fondi” (family funds) of the middle ages.
Judaism isn’t a root doctrine. So while Jews like the Rotschilds have the same outlook as the “satanic” outlook of certain European nobility, “satanism,” or whatever you’d call it, is older. Judaism was created to advance the same agenda – LaRouche often refers to the story of prometheus – keep the people stupid and scared so you can control them.
Zionism is a British franchise. The history of Israel is laid out pretty clearly in LaRouche’s “Dope, Inc.”

The truth of 311 seismic terror : It’s a D. Rockefeller’s job.
1. 311 quake was the combination of 3 consecutive [blah blah blah]
6. D.Rockefeller will implement the similar tactics in U.S. and other area in order to let Christian consider this could be the initiation of Armageddon before “2nd coming”. But, one should know D. Rockefeller is a Marrano Jewish who tries to make use of Christian to establish ONE WORLD to be reigned by STEALTH JEWISH.

It is a lie to focuse on terms like “the Queen,” and the British crown’s machinations or the “Rothschilds” when in fact a racial element is obviously central… not everything… not even the majority numerically for sure… but central.
By not confronting Jewish people at the Ashkenazim’s racist control, we deny them the opportunity to break their tribal programing and to join us… that is humanity without a racial caveat.
(He then proceeds to ask a series of questions of “Who controls this” and “Who did that?” to which his answer is “The Jews”.)
The sublimating the above facts to “England,” the Queen, etc. does not help. Yes Britain is controlled by the same entity and British Intelligence worked American before WW 1 and 11 etc. and yes Jewish men have been members of the English aristocracy since they bought their way in after they elevated Cromwell with their money. Hell… THE CITY is a sovereign nation is my understanding! For the Deity’s sake! Who controls The City? […]
The Elite is a Treasonous element within all the world now… just go through the Aspen Institute’s site and look at the pictures… but my objection is that if we don’t tell the whole truth we are too bending information and will not be given the power of the great force of Light in the Universe that in the end is what judges us all for our survival … its terms are these: do we bring Light to the Universe? Do we bring knowing? [blah blah blah

Well, it’s all a merry circus!

I am sure you, and many of your listeners are Christians. As such, I want to address the issue of conspiracy that so often is raised in your program. […]
So either people like Soros or the Queen of England are directly working in cooperation with Satan, or they are his “useful idiots” doing his bidding thinking they are working to ultimately help humanity. As you say Alex -”they are deluded”.

Maybe Webster Tarpley can be reunited sometime soon…

This was a terrific interview. Perhaps Alex’s greatest strength is his respect for many diverse opinions — all pointing in the general direction of truth. La Rouche has some fabulous ideas and solutions for the current crisis. Its a shame W. Tarpley had a fallout with him – they both are lighthouses. There is a cult-personality though within La Rouche’s movement which is slightly disturbing, but then again how many in the truth movement are stupid Jesus freaks or marginalized high school dropouts as well ?


David P Goldman defended his notability, a step in with his desire to be sole author of his wikipedia article.  I have passed by any number of people of notability level on part with Goldman, and who have had their problems with wikipedia, who have taken the opposite tact — desiring to have their wikipedia articles be gone.  Goldman goes the other way.  It’s not as though the less Goldman – authored piece is detrimental to him.  I think I see part of his motivation around here:
Even Spengler–a reformed La Rouche follower–now legitimate– calls DEBKA crazy.
The key word is “even”.
For Dreyfuss… the answer is ‘no’, and I guess here’s one of his defenders.  He probably has more to gribe about with his wikipedia article, but I guess some things are in his court.

The most random editing attempt happened from a “MAINEiac 4434” who added “Plato Truman”, apparently a candidate in 1986 for Maine’s 1st Congressional district on the US Labor Ticket, to the party’s list.  Will Beback removed this for lack of citation, but I trust the person whose description suggests he’s a keeper of all thins Maine.
The second most random editing attempt came from an ISP # with a history showing unrelated to larouche interests, who in the Larouche Criminal Trials article changed the sentence “Following the convictions, the Larouche movement mounted failed attempts at exoneration” to “following the convictions, the Larouche movement mounted several successful attempts at exoneration, showing Larouche to be the victim of overwhelming cconspiracy.”  It’s all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

The discussion between Javen466 and Will Beback over which Plato image best illustrated the “Views” article continued, and may have ended, in its absurd fashion.  Meantime, when Will Beback urged more prominent emphasis on the Queen of England as their “most famous view”, the ISP # (the more larouched one) guarded the house.  He also engaged in a campaign to rid the use of “Columbia Free Press”, a publication he found written by “undergraduates” and full of “flip, jocular, highly biased” citations “designed to ridicule their subjects”.  Bemused, Will Beback asked in relation to “only college graduates” without all that?   Curiously, the ISP # made a great leap on a sentence I would agree with them is dubious and not worthwhile in the article — that the “LPAC appeared to have deliberately copied the look of the website” — the leap being a, perhaps telling, that it “implies unlawful conduct by the editors of LPAC” — which, strictly speaking, no it doesn’t.  Meantime, bits on “Gore’s population reduction” were removed, with the Larochian’s ascension — a sign that Gore is not a person of interest for the moment.  As for the basement team, “We don’t have any third party sources for the basement team.  If we can’t find any mention of this team and the video controversy in Independent sources, maybe we should delete it.”  The Card Table team needs to start referring to the Basement Team in their media interviews.


Y’know, it’s funny.  People are checking this stuff out and finding some amusement.

After having my normal reality tunnel assaulted today during a seemingly innocent trip to the Post Office, I’ve just spent the last several hours immersed in the world of Lyndon LaRouche… now, I’m not endorsing any of this personally, some of it reeks of Mr Rightism and other parts of it seem to make a bit of sense and sombunall is at the very least, entertaining […]

Here’s some enjoyable light reading, its Larouche’s “Lies about Larouche” page.  I guess it was supposed to debunk rumors and build credibility for Larouche but its so full of conspiracy stuff that it does the opposite.  He accuses Kissinger and Wolfowitz of masterminding 9/11 too. […]  That’s who is spreading lies about LaRouche. You hear them repeated, often by people who don’t know their source, but who would rather be
overheard repeating these lies, because they think it will make them popular.

(It left out Albert Pike’s place in the conspiracy.)

It was not so long ago that we relied on the LaRouchians (LaRouchites? LaRouchistanis?) for our R.D.A. of full blown loony arsed gibberish spigots and spouters of conspiracy theories so deranged Mulder and the dudes of The Smoking Gun would perform a brilliant display of synchronized eye rolling disguised as a political party.
Oh, how times have changed.

They. Still. Have. Their. Chops.

Shorter LaRouche PAC Flyer I Found on the Train: We must remove President Obama from office because he took our spaceships so meteorites can kill everyone! Dead!

They take further glee in looking around the larouchian literature, laughing at this:

During a meeting held in “The Basement,” to review the aftermath of the contents of the LPAC Weekly Report for yesterday, we discussed the revolutionary implications of certain astonishing recent developments in the Crab Nebula, developments to which I had alluded in my concluding remarks for that occasion.

Then again:
Lyndon is kind of hard to figure out sometimes , but he’s a well meaning fellow in my opinion. I went to a Schiller Institute gathering with a friend in 2001. Most of their proposals are pretty complicated for a working class stiff like myself, but very interesting to contemplate.

A punchline:  I have no doubt that Bachman will be adopting this verbatim as her platform in the primaries. Similar punchline to:
I heard a rumor that a splinter group of the Larouche crowd has an exploratory comittee
already returning favorable information for this guy as an independent candidate to unseat the obama regim.
As well:
Ron Paul, LaRouche, Buchanan, Duke even. All would have been our greatest and finest Presidents, I think.

Yeah, well, everyone chooses their heroes:

Sounds as though this Mike Norman person is the Lyndon LaRouche of monetary economics.
Actually Lyndon LaRouche has his own brand of economics, and yes, it is pretty bizaare.
Swizzle Tree complemented their drugs with Larouche, or vice versa:
Ah yes, Swizzle Tree. The ones who voted most likely to make DGS famous in the yearbook. First off, I can GUARANTEE you that they were high while they were performing. I’m still friends with most of these guys and, even though some of them have subscribed to  the Lyndon Larouche newsletter, I always thought they had musical chops.

What’s interesting is that there’s a schism in attitude emerging at dailykos.  After this statement

Who cares? No, he’s a craven, caving, wimpy, weasel and that’s all there is to it. Next time I’m voting for LaRouche.
Interestingly enough, for at least one person the give away that it was all a ruse.  But maybe it shouldn’t have been.  You know there’s trouble abrewing because this question could see its place in a free republic forum.

Fun Quiz Time: Daily Kos recommended comment, or Lyndon Larouche?
That’s not an honest question, frankly.

That was obvious after reading only the first few sentences and even that much was a waste of time.

The author clarifies in the comments section one item: Larouche does have that weird science fiction thing going on. That’s one difference I omitted.

Could have gone all over the place here.  There are other omissions which would have told the difference moreso than mentions of Money Elite ruling over the System.  The commenters also describe larouchies who have surfaced at dailykos, some “out” — interesting to note:

I must confess openly that my point of views about currency systems follows the vein of what has been expressed by Bill Still and Lyndon LaRouche.

Is that something you can do in polite society?

Other things not common to daily kos commenters:

But if the NWO doesn’t want Putin in power then we should want the opposite, shouldn’t we?
Perhaps, then, his crime (Gifford’s would be murderer) wasn’t part of a black operation, and the get-Palin response of Obama’s “re-election committee” was just opportunism

As Lyndon LaRouche noted today, the desperate current occupant of the White House seems intent on announcing his wish to be re-elected–before he is thrown out of office.

And is this guy, upset with Pete Olson,  ready for another Kesha Rogers run?