This morning, on a morning news broadcast best left unmentioned.:

“And the TARP Funds are going to cost less than expected.  $200 Million have been paid back out of the package, and will be back on the government books, from the original $700 Billion price tag.  Obama is considering putting the money into Job Creation Stimulus, which would need to move through a legislative process.”

“And I would like to correct that number.  He meant $200 Billion.”

“No.  $200 Million is the correct amount.”

“Oh.  Okay.  Moving on to the next story…”
…………………………………..

The good news is the amount is $200 Billion.  $200 Million out of $700 Billion would not be worthy of a news item — .028571428571% of total returned — which although helpful isn’t much of a drop in the bucket — versus $200 Billion out of $700 Billion — 28.571428571429% returned, and throw around $200 Billion here, $200 Billion there and pretty soon you are talking some real money.

Woe to anyone who was left with their impression that the number is $200 Million.

For a bit of clarification on Hal Turner, and his court proceedings, continuing from my last post, I turn to wikipedia — not a particularly reliable source for things only a handful of people take any concern to care about, but that takes us to the discussions.

Now that more details are coming out about Hal it is wrong to claim he is a White Nationalist and right wing extremeist. In fact he was a paid FBI informant and agent provacateur who played these roles. Just as Jack Nicholson is not “The Joker”, Hal Turner is not what he pretended to be. This article, which is locked, still presents his opinions as if they were legitimately his, and not part of a government false flag operation.

This is quite remarkable really, as Hal Turner was among the most outspoken of the racist right in his prime. It would be as if it turned out that Farrakhan was in fact working for the Mossad or something.

The fact that these issues are only raised later in the article is misleading, and gives more credence to his cover persona than his real persona. In the case of many moles these issues are hard to tease out. Kim Philby, perhaps the most famous mole in history really *was* a British intelligence agent, but few would rate that more important than his deeper role as a Russian mole.

Here is the wiki writeup for Philby. It is much more balanced and perhaps should serve as a model for a re-write of the Hal Turner entry in light of new information.

Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby or H.A.R. Philby (OBE: 1946-1965), (1 January 1912 – 11 May 1988) was a high-ranking member of British intelligence. A communist, he served as an NKVD and KGB operative.

In 1963, Philby was revealed as a member of the spy ring now known as the Cambridge Five, along with Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross. Of the five, Philby is believed to have been most successful in providing classified information to the Soviet Union. His activities were moderated only by Stalin’s paranoia that Philby was a triple agent.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.191.160 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comments show no understanding of logic, facts, or WP policy. It is not at all wrong to claim that Turner is a White Nationalist and right wing extremist, as those are well-documented facts. That Turner was at times an informant for the FBI doesn’t change those facts; many police informants are criminals. Unlike Kim Philby, Hal Turner was not a mole, a spy, or a “high-ranking member” of any intelligence agency. — 98.108.196.223 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 There are two possibilities with Hal Turner, and they are not mutually exclusive.  The FBI is understating Hal Turner’s utility; Hal Turner is overstating his FBI connections.  I gather that is the issue that “Truthful” tried to reference here, but his/her point remained too obscure for me to divine.  The latter is paramont to his defense, which, after all, is the most compelling argument for a Deadlock:

He pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer said the defense will use “Turner’s background as an FBI informant” and argue he was “trained by the FBI” as “an agent provocateur” to incite people.”^[47][48] Subsequently, in late October Turner was freed on $500,000 bond, and was ordered not to use a computer or any device that can access the Internet.^[49] His trial started on November 30, 2009 and ended December 4, 2009, with the defense opting not to call any witnesses.^[50] After two hours of dicussion, the jury announced it was deadlocked.^[51]

And bleh de bleh bleh.

I going to remove this until it can be better saourced. The ADL article has him saying that the wants to kill some k*ke and some other garbage, but this seems like it should be better sourced. I am no suporter of this person or his hate speech for what its worth. Thank you. —72.209.10.176 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual quote is “Instead of fighting Muslims, we Christians should be rounding up jews [sic] and killing them here in America.” That seems to be correctly summarized. The ADL is a sufficiently reliable source for a direct quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Get your character witnesses in a row, I suppose.  The other possible contention being laid out there by my commenter might be in regards to classifying him as “neo-nazi”, which I suppose it is true that he did not advocate for Germany to annex Poland.

It’s easy for me to picture a man who internally exaggerated his FBI informant status, but at any rate I have the luxury of idle speculation.

It’s often been noted that the one thing that President Obama, and by extension his Democratic Party, has going for it as a shock absorber is the current state of the Republican Party.  This is mutual: the one thing going for the Republican Party that serves as a lifeboart is the Democratic Party.  “Indespensable Enemies”, as Walter Karp described it.

There are two damaging and disconcerting polls that have to be vexxing th Donkey Party.  First, the one that guages a whopping 40 percent of Democrats who say they are either definitely or probably not be voting in the 2010 elections, compared to a tiny portion of Republicans stating the same.  It’s partially a product of rallying against the politically possible (anemic) against rallying against the Cause of Opposition..  I won’t pretend to forecast the 2010 elections here, but the pivot point for turning those numbers around on the Democratic side is almost certainly the completion of legislative agenda — Health Care — matched against the broader economic and military situation.

The other poll number fascinates me.  Harvard has found that the under 30 set approves of Obama, and disapproves of much of his handling of policy agenda.  Before someone shouts out claims of Obama and the “Cult of Personality”, I have to state that this is not a new feature/bug of American politics — similar discreprencies surfaced about with Reagan, for instance.  Beyond that, there is a feature of the 2 Party Duopoly at work here.  Disapprove of Obama’s Afghanistan Surge?  Well, la de da… would you prefer the policy strategy of an open-ended Afghanistan Surge promoted by Republican Stalwart John McCain?  Regarding health care, the phrasing here is key — “handling of policy” — we’re watching the sausage get made, and all the compromises to industry that comes with it — like approving or disapproving of Used Car Salesmen – how can anyone like this?  (A simple policy is easier to sell than a complicated policy process).  And, again: would you prefer the Republican approach to “reform”ing Health Care — which, so far as I can tell, seems to be selling us on the idea that  there’s a bazooka of savings to be had by going after the Democratic interest group of Trial Lawyers.  On Gay marriage… well, even the conservative set in the under 30 set hasn’t any problem with the concept, and to be against it is to be against Obama’s position (as the ballot measurers take glee in promoting their case by quoting).

Image you are transported back to the concluding days of the year 1999.  You blend in well enough, but are trying to convince someone in, say, a Starbucks that you are from the future.

“Oh yeah.  Who’s president in 2009?”
You nearly spit out “Barack Obama”, before stuffing it back in.  “Um.  Someone you never heard of.  If you went back to 1989 and spoke the name Bill Clinton… well, our president is more obscure and a bit unbelievable to you than the name Clinton was to 89…”

“How about this next election, 2000?  How does it end up?”
“Er.  Never mind that one.”

He fades away from you, and you desperately try to get him back by reaching to the only thing you’ve travelled with that marks the year 2009.  “Look!  I have this Time Magazine from 2009!”

 

“Hm.  Should I just pop myself full of prozac now, or…?”

It is good to know that the tradition of Free and Open Debate and Expression is taking hold in Iraq.

The last time we saw Muntadhar al-Zaidi he was alleging torture by his captors after serving time in an Iraqi prison for throwing a shoe at President Bush during a press conference. But al-Zaidi got a taste of his own medicine this week as a press event he was hosting was interrupted by an angry Iraqi who tossed a shoe at the shoe-tosser.

To clarify some cultural confusions, the media taught us a year ago that in Arabic and Muslim culture, throwing a shoe at a person is an expression of disrespect… unlike in Christian Western and Secular cultures? But What was the grievance and point of view of the Shoe Thrower who dared throw a shoe at the Shoe Thrower?  Is he a charter member in the regional chapter of the International Association of W Lovers?  By now somebody out there has gotten word from him and figured out his motivation.  I choose not to look into it, thinking the idea that he just meant to commemorate the One Year Anniversary of the Historic and Legendary Shoe Throw, by throwing at the Master, as a more poetic concept.

As I eagerly await the semi-annual candidacy hobby announcement of Gordon Allen Pross (and a special missile note to Gordon Allen Pross: you do know that there are elections of some kind every odd year as well, don’t you?), I have to take stock in other peculiar candidacies.

Look over to the tabloid papers as you purchase your sack of groceries, and you will have seen the story in one of the sub-Enquirer papers.  Obama’s Gay Lover.  Also former coke friend.  The scandal is just about to EXPLODE!

Obama’s Gay Lover, Larry Sinclair, darling of a handful of conspiracy minded conservative websites who would believe you if you told them that Obama splits up puppies and kittens in his spare time, (and are upset by the “Respectable Republicans” running away from the story) and face of a bunch of lazy Tabloid papers…

Is running for Congress.

I’ll have you know that the fracus over Obama’s gay lover is bi-partisan!

… Though I can’t quite pin down who Larry Sinclair’s constituency might be.  Who will he be siphoning votes from?

We’ll see who else pops in for a run at this or that.  The people are angry and chopping at the bit.  The problem is shown in the latest “Obama Asks Moms to Return to School” pop up ad, which shows this man vaguely resembling Charles Manson who states “You’re probably wondering how a guy like me ended up with a job that pays more than yours.”   Sure to force some resentment on the part of well scrubbed Middle America, ready for a populist uprising to get THEM into seats of authority to make sure such a thing won’t happen.  Gad those ads are weird.

I can’t say, and this is probably to my credit, that I’ve been hanging onto every new and scintillating detail of the news regarding Hal Turner all that closely.  I’ve seen the headlines, but haven’t read (Incidentally, that “I’ve seen the headlines” can be seen as a demonstration of what the Internet has over a batch of newspapers — though the presence of the “Hal Turner” headlines is not what accounts for the Print News’s downfall, except maybe in a narrow niche casting sense.)

Hal Turner is a neo nazi White Nationalist Short Wave and Internet Radio Host.  He was a frequent and favorite guest of Sean Hannity when he was broadcasting locally in New York, dumped and washed away from his memory when Hannity neared a national syndication deal.  I gather Turner served as the right flank for Hannity, and then subsequently moved further out of the mainstream in hatching his own platform, into the Neo-Nazi fringe, spouting off incidenary spiels bordering on Death Threats.  Well, except for the fact that he was widely suspected in those corners of being an FBI Plant — which, you don’t have to look too far into the fringes to see is a pretty standard paranoid stance.  (And not without its reasons — any “Direct Action” person will tell you to always beware the new recruit who’s a bit more eager and earnest for blurring the law of the land.)

Hal Turner finally did cross that line, and the Feds finally dumped charges on him for recent comments about wanting to see some Federal Officials dead.  At which point, it has come out — he is an FBI Informant indeed.  He’s been sending the FBI information picked up from his followerers, while all the while the FBI has been suggesting that he’s been going a little bit too far with his rhetoric, which Turner has responded to by not changing a thing.  And finally he did go too far, and currently is in Court, with a Gag Rule on him.

I’m having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around this story.  In an interview just before his Gag Rule, he said that his radio performance is not him.  And considering that he’s basically had a job to do for the FBI, that does strike me as a pretty compelling defense he’s prepping before his Grand Jury.  To a degree, that is: it a bit hard to imagine how anyone can sustain such bile for a decade’s stretch, which makes me think the FBI has essentially given Hal Turner an allowance to stroke his hateful ID in a bit of a contradictorily mind of fulfilling DUTY to country while blasting away the N-loving Homo Jewish Commie New Worlders underming the country.

But I don’t really understand what use the government has in sponsoring Turner.  I would think whatever asset Turner makes in passing off information is more than offset by the inciting to violent causes to his warrior audience —Hal Turner was never dangerous per se; his audience on the other hand… It looks all very counter-productive.