Alright.  A proper analysis of the Stock Market yesterday, gotten from a message board I frequent, was “The Market seems to have reacted to the Obama speech by going sideways” — which is to say at any given time yesterday, the Dow was up or down.

Hence, Drudge was playing games yesterday.  The one thing you can say is that it’s a bit more comfortable than seeing a stock market up-tik, and the up-tik being credited to Ben Bernake commenting that he believes the Recession will be over by the end of the year… which, if that’s what it takes to get the Dow Up and if the Dow is the end all be all (really, it’s import to the Front of the Line of Economic Coverage comes from it’s numbers flucuating and thus having hard numbers to follow all day, hence Drudge’s headline), Bernanke could just say every day “Yep!  Recession Over in 300 days!”, every day that same line — then we’ll be right back on track to Dow 36,000.  (Or, good lord, Customers who bought that book also bought Dow 40,000 and Dow 100,000.  I made a mint off of my quickie book Dow 900,000,000,000,000.)

But, it’s interesting to note the luminaries who post to thinkprogress.  Check this out, it’s an effect that you’ll see just about everywhere:

Comment #4 is raynman Comment #5 is fletc3her.  Names picked why, who knows — Commenter #4 may be a Dustin Hoffman fan, Commenter #5 must be a fan of the old Popeye and Superman animated cartoons, and of the number 3. 

Okay.  Now we get to the part that is always a little bit fascinating.  The Big Names.  This Think Progress post was read and commented on by John Kerry, Henry Wallace, Ape-Man, and Eugene Debs.  John Kerry is a conservative — I guess using the nom-de-plome of an unsuccessful presidential candidate? — who sends a shrill siren against the Liberals, which inspires commenters to come out as the former vice president and later Communist Dupe of a Third Party presidential candidate Henry Wallace and the Socialist Agitator and Pacifist Political Prisoner Eugene Debs.  (And, um, Ape-Man, who needs no introduction.)  I am not entirely sure the depths of this political commentary — are Henry Wallace and Eugene Debs seeking to expand John Kerry’s historical purview, or perhaps John Kerry’s more limited ideological spectrum?

Later on we have the slogan names “IgnoranceIsNotBliss” and the always present partisan anony-names “RepublicansHateFacts”.  About the only interesting name after the Kerry–Wallace–Debs trio is the “Dogfather”.  Get it?  It’s Godfather but with the God reversed to Dog?  I don’t regard “Barack Obomber” as interesting, though I will suggest that the name could very easily be picked up “from the left”.

In Bobby Jindal’s defense:

Bobby Jindal’s performance is simply the latest in a long line of poor or lukewarm “Oppostion Responses” to the big Presidential “State of the Union” or “Before Joint Session of Congress” speech.  It’s a long line of speeches that was only broken by Jim Webb’s speech from a couple of years’ ago, and in the Democratic tenure under Bush saw a couple “joint Democratic House and Senate” leader back and forths, and most notably for comparisons’ sake a lackadasical performance by supposed vice presidential and future presidential timber Kathleen Sebelius — who was thus roughly in that equivalent position that Bobby Jindal is now in.

Jim Webb was the exception that proved that these things don’t have to suck so many eggs, though there does not seem to have been any follow through.  The commentary is rough here, my favorite line being that  “when future historians look back to spot where the nadir of Republican politics lay during this era, they will mark it as Bobby Jindal’s Response”.  I also give it up to the Democratic (and currently Democratic leaning Independents) “viral” meme-makers for marking Jindal to “Kenneth from 30 Rock”.  This new immediacy of pairing “to the national stage” politicos with comic portrayals, and two makes it a trend (ie: Sarah Palin — Tina Fey) — looks like a pretty potent weapon.

As for the substance of Bobby Jindal’s speech?  That’s a stupid question — you know what I think.

For whatever reason, some comments I made were showing up in the “Spam” folder.  So I had to wade through the spam to get my comment out, and thus I had the pleasure to read… what, I don’t know.  (Note:  this was filled to the brim with links.)

I over you are not that old to reject sex with your partner. But what is the warranty that you compel require ample and prolonged erection to unabated your reproductive motion if you are pain from helplessness due to erectile dysfunction (ED)?

unfitness to convey out all the propagative functions, solidly, leads a man to impotency.  Erectile Disfunction is one lenient of impotency and accordingly is the induce of downheartedness to the people with ED.

Was this translated from Japanese?  It reads like it.  Something like this: 

It’s always interesting to hear the “rant snippet” commentary of talk radio hosts placed for the station’s promotional advertisements.  What is interesting is how they have a way of telling us that the talk show host has, roughly, nothing to say.  Here is the man I previously referred to as “Conservative Pundit talk-radio type guy to watch for” in this “Obama Era”, and which Talker’s Magazine has ranked at #5, distilled down to what the station producers deemed the attention – getting appetitizing sound-byte:

“Tell Me What Europe has done for the World in the last 150 Years!”

With that I am supposed to go “Wooah!”, and program my radio to catch more of the wisdom of Glen Beck.  The answer to Glen Beck’s demand on what Europe has done in the last 150 years:  It has stationed itself over 2% of the Earth’s surface and about comprised about 6.8% of its land area.  Take that, Mr. Beck!

Looking down that “Talker’s Magazine” list, we see the first “liberal” as “Thom Hartmann” at #10, situated right there behind, um er and huh, “Mancow”.  It’s relatively arbitrary to rank them, and I suspect that it’s deemed best to slot “Liberal Talk Format” (which, regardless of relative failure, has secured some presence on the radio-waves) host close to the Top 10 — better Thom Hartmann than Ed Schultz.  Randi Rhodes, at #48, surely will fall to that “101 – 250” list, based on the news of what happened to her, and the fall of that make-shift up-start network.  But does this mean that Randi Rhodes become a supplicant at the station she fled from to sign up with Air America?

The news of the death of Socks the Cat has lead me to look at the wikipedia entry for “Socks“, largely interesting only to read through the “Cultural References” section.  But this hic-up stands out:

Socks found Buddy’s intrusion intolerable; according to Hillary Clinton, Socks “despised Buddy from first sight, instantly and forever.” Bill Clinton said, “I did better with … the Palestinians and the Israelis than I’ve done with Socks and Buddy.”

Keeping that Socks — Buddy relation in mind, take a look at the “White House” website portrayal of Socks and Buddy.

The Clintons.  Why must they turn this house into a house of lies?  Is there no end to their conniving?  We will never know just how much damage this did to the nation, and will never be able to measure the impact of the betrayal the youth of America had when reality dashed up against the false image of Socks’s and Buddy’s relationship.

There seems to be a push-back afloat against Obama’s embrace of Lincoln.  Picture me looking over a book store’s selection of political and current events magazines and seeing these two magazine covers a couple magazines apart:

I’m not sure the background of the author who wrote the National Review one, but I instructively trust the author to have a more interesting take on “Lincoln the Conservative” than Newsmax’s author by the name of “Gingrich”.

The political battlelines were, of course, drawn a bit differently and the context of the times calls for no neat categorization here — there are certainly tenants and tendencies from the birth of the Republican Party that you can trace straight to today in what Republican Party politics preach.  But as a rule the Reconstruction Era Parties in the South had the “Conservatives” as your anti-Lincoln contigency and “Radicals” as those perceiving themselves as holding up the Lincoln legacy.   The annual “Conservative Political Action Committee” always (reportedly) attracts some booths from Southern Lincoln-haters, wanting to set the record straight on Lincoln’s Federal Usurption of powers… though I imagine they attract a sort of niche following as the grouping trends toward thrilling to the words of Ann Coulter.

Three weeks ago I say I’ll be back to covering Larouche in a week.  It then took two weeks for me to assemble enough worthy to pass on, hence I ended the next post by saying I’ll be back in two weeks.  I assumed a set pattern where I’d assemble a pile of largely meaningless links of “Larouche” in its modern usage of slur, and here and there a “local color” flickr photograph of a cardtable shrine against the British Empire.  But we have a weirdly notable development, hence I return to the subject of the Lyndon Larouche Organization one week after that last post.   A development that I do not know precisely what to make of this, but it is something that should only be explained with a kind of Kremlinogy analysis.

So, sometime after giving up on his quest to find a cheap copy of Kamandi The Last Boy on Earth #29, my resident Larouchie suggested, as a guage of the awesome political potency of Larouche and an indication of the mass following he has amongst the people, to watch as city councils and state legislators everywhere pass the HBPA Resolution.  I could spot one local news copy which would make the troupe in the boilerroom in Leesburg smile — thank the good folks of Hazelton, Pennsylvania– , and one other item of reaction to being lobbied at a council meeting by Larouchies pressing for the resoultion’s passage.  In terms of the (quote-in-quote) “citizen journalism” of blogging spit out another person noting the LPAC news release of a passage, and a look through in the council record revealed for them a giant “Meh.  Whatever.”

But I think we may now have a first.  I think.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but usually LPAC is anything if not Triumphantal.  LPAC has published a report to the effect that a Resolution has failed to pass.  Now, this I presume happens all the time (Did that LA Council, greeted by masked Schwarzenegger and Rohatyn impersonators, pass anything?) , but here for some reason they just HADCHA report this: 

The Crime of Marielle (Molly) Kronberg Defeats LaRouche’s HBPA in South Dakota LegislatureFebruary 20, 2009 (LPAC)–On February 18th, South Dakota Democratic State Rep. Richard Engels cited Lyndon LaRouche’s fraudulent criminal conviction in 1988 as the reason South Dakota legislators should send House Concurrent Resolution 1009 endorsing LaRouche’s Homeowner’s and Bank Protection Act (HBPA) to defeat. Engels, a Democratic lawyer from Sioux Falls, did not even discuss the content of the bill, which is the only approach that could save […]

Here I refer to an example of an early 2004 Democratic Primary Debate (the one that Democrats were upset enough to petition the 2008 candidates not to participate in a debate sponsored by Fox News, one reason for “outrage” which was cited was that they weren’t able to clamp down disturbant audience members represented in this exchange:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (OFF-MIKE) “Where’s Larouche?”
DEAN: I suspect he’s in jail.

AND, later, at another heckling moment, an exchange between Sharpton and Lieberman which lacks the direct punch but is a bit longer than I’m willing to post.  The South Dakota state representative is simply following in the foot-steps of a long line of such references, which I think starts with a response to Larouchies by George Herbert Walker Bush (the original enemy in the frame-up, the enemy having been replaced by Kronberg), timeline being during the trial so the Larouche Organization probably decided Bush’s comment was a case of “letting the cat out of the bag”.

I do not fully know to what this “press release” is responding.  It strikes me as an excuse to lay down the Larouche line of defense, for his troops, on the Larouche Court Trials, which suggests a number of possibilities.  #1:  There has been an up-surge of Larouchies “on the ground” being entreated by the public noting Larouche’s criminal history.  #2:  As relatively small bore as this is, the “wikipedia Entry of the Day” feature on “Larouche Criminal Trials” proved a source of dread and foreboding — I suppose stacked next to 20 pages of “Secrets of the Elites” posted at factnet.  #3:  Larouche is anticipating (for good reason and bad) something in the way of court trials here and/or abroad, and needs to gird the org’s members with its history.  #4:  The small bore flutterings, reporting of which is kind of my stock and trade here, of insults needs to be rebuffed by the storyline of a proud Organization, arrows shot from bows with the arrows falling to pieces upon hitting the target.

Of course the antipathy toward Molly Kronberg is long established, as demonstrated in the comments section here, and I believe this to be the current “line”.  I too am a fan of grade school playground insults, so I may as well add:  Margaret is a poopy-head.  There.  Even stevens!  Richard Engels’s career, I assume, will survive this assault — hasn’t even made his wikipedia entry (though, nothing has).  (We’ll see how monetary contributions to Larouche affect New Jersey pols careers.)

In other news, we have this following item of surreality, wherein we see that Larouche has commented on the NY Post  “shot monkey” political cartoon.

Lyndon LaRouche denounced the cartoon as a threat of assassination to the President, who has championed the stimulus program which just recently passed the Congress. LaRouche said it was obvious to him that the President has not yet gotten his feet on the ground, and has to deal with problems which he is still in the process of sorting out. In the meantime, the risks of delay are costly.

I’m told that linking to the comments from this summer is too obvious, becoming a bit too cliche.  There’s this former Larouche member who has packaged that quote into his habit of blog commenting (nom de plomes “Lyn Marcus” — seen in that earlier link which featured Margaret’s coarse insults toward Molly Kronberg — and “xlcer”).  It has immediate relevancy of a sort — as we currently see that the Larouche Youth Movement is trying to take advantage of the platform offered by what I’ll loosely and sarcastically refer to as the “Barack Obama Youth Cult”.  Witness another one of these.

This is interesting, because the last time I saw using this “myobama” platform, the Los Angeles organizer used their names in “organizing the masses” to watch a Larouche webcast, to answer questions from non-existent Canadian girlfriends.  This doesn’t refer to any names.  The second reason is because this “myobama” platform was used by a man warning about Costas Axios with a heavily conspiratorial perspective on Jeremiah Duggan.

Also, Barack Obama was supposed to be a British Agent.  Now the British are out to assassinate him.  Has Obama gone rogue?  I guess it depends on whether he follows the Fascist Synarchists or… um… follows this guy’s advice.  (Yessirre, the leader of the Larouche Cryonics Movement has set up a new weblog!)
We need to get off coal and get to Nuclear Energy, and advance on to Dilithium Crystals!

 EROI is about using the most efficient fuels–bang for the buck. Jevons paradox is that increasing efficiency, increases consumption. The reverse of that is that decreasing efficiency(EROI) will reduce consumption hopefully to the point of sustainability.Instead of seeking to maximize EROI, you need to minimize it. And this proves that the entire fraud is INTENDED as a “power down” hoax– which can lead only to planetary depopulation– consistent with genocide. […]
The starship Enterprise was powerred by dilithium crystals– not oil or coal. A coal powered star ship isn’t possible due to it’s not having a high enough energy density whereas a coal powered train is possible. Similarly, a nuclear powered population on a planet of 7 billion is possible whereas a wood-powered or pedal-powered population of 7 billion is not. All the ERoEI arguments IGNORE power density. The perveyors of the ERoEI hoax should watch more star trek and think about dilithium crystals.

There is something odd about the Star Trek reference.  Its supposed to be all bestializing our culture — like the Star Wars characters who, as commented in 1999 While you might be watching any small portion of the Star Wars series, the most crucial epistemological issue stands out clearly at first glance. At that moment, you have merely to ask yourself: “Do these creatures look human to you?” How could anyone excuse himself from overlooking the significance of that question?
How indeed.  Maybe Robert Beltran’s presence in the org has changed all that.  Maybe their stance on some rock music can change too by tapping Billy Corrigan — I will note that uncovering such sentiments was how Beltran entered the org, so my advice to the org is get while the getting is good. 

One final note, from the LPAC release of LPAC releases:

 … as opposed to Sudanese President Bashir?

That’s all.  One week or two, I’ll come back to this topic.

First, a moment of silence for:

Who would you trust more as President: Socks, or the guy we had for the last eight years?

Okay.  I draw anyone’s attention to a letter in the Oregonian, written by someone younger than Socks:

As the stimulus bill moved through Congress, Republicans added their tax cuts and then didn’t vote for the bill.  If the Republicans weren’t going to vote for it anyway, why couldn’t they have left the tax cuts out?

Ketl Rodakowski
7th Grader, Metropolitian Learning Center
Northeast Portland

Question: Precocious 7th Grader, or aping opinions of the parents? 

Although, to be fair to the seventh grader, opposition is getting a little nutty and in the official talking points of one party versus the talking points of the other party (as opposed to some pretty decent mixed commentary I see), I’ll stick with the Donkeys.  As a result, I  really would like to see the letter from the child of a couple of Republicans under the influence of  these three exhbits.   Exhibit #1:

“Suppose you spent $1 million every single day starting from the day Jesus was born — and kept spending through today,” an announcer says. “A million dollars a day for more than 2,000 years. You would still have spent less money than Congress just did.”
The ad, sponsored by the American Issues Project, walks viewers through a timeline of history, starting with the three wise men on their way to the manger and ending with a view of Washington in 2009.
That’s followed by a clip of Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, defending the stimulus — somewhat awkwardly — on the floor of the Senate:  “Let me say this, to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, porky amendments,” Mr. Schumer says in the ad. “The American people really don’t care.”

I think there should be a reverse Godwin’s Law.  Godwin’s Law is that in a debate, when the name Hitler comes up, it means you lost the argument.  Here, I’d say that if you bring up the name Jesus Christ, you lost the argument.  I recognize this as an arbitrary setting of dates, though the name Jesus Christ is evocative and loaed enough that it ceases to be so arbitrary.

Exhibit #2 — NY Post cartoon.  I don’t have to link to it.  You know what it is.  And you know that its defense is that it references a current event.  A current event involving a monkey attack.

Exhibit #3, and this needs to be unpacked by itself.  Simply stated, if this is the face of the Republican Party in 2012, Obama will be able to weather a prolonged mini-Depression into a landslide vitory of FDR 36 dimensions.  I’ll get back to this one.