It has become somewhat pointless to follow the discussions of conservative talk show hosts.  I have this general sense that we have sort of moved past them for the moment.

But, they’re out there.  And what do we find?  Bill O’Reilly said something interesting last week.  Sylvia’s?  Why, they eat food and have fun there!  Who knew?  After that we run into the whole self-parody thing that O’Reilly has going for him, where the whole story becomes about the unfairness of “liberal secular non-Traditionalist outlets” attacking him — taking him out context (um.  no.) and poisoning racial relations by making it impossible for people to speak openly.  (I… guess?)

I don’t know.  It may be worthwhile to run back and stare and dissect this O’Reilly comment for awhile.

And Rush Limbaugh said something interesting.  Something about “Phony Soldiers”.  We have a slightly better counter-example for the “moveon.org” fracas than the example that was brought up throughout the controversy — Max Cleland.  So, to make a point, some Congressional Democrats have issued a resolution to condemn Limbaugh, ala that stupid fracas over the moveon.org “Betray Us” advertisement — because you cannot attack a 2012 Republican presidential candidate for some reason.  A pointless procedure, methinks, even for the point made.  Um.  “Move on”?

But.  Phony Soldiers.  Phony Soldiers.  Phony Soldiers?

Thank you very much; you’ve been great!

Newt Gingrich is not running for president.  I repeat: Newt Gingrich is not running for president.

But Alan Keyes is.

Looking down to the wikipedia article segment on how the Chinese government treats the Tiananmen Square Protests, I can’t help but thinking that in two decades we’ll see much the same for the current protests in Burma.

Every so often I witness a police altercation of one sort or another.  I think anyone who spends any amount of time in the downtown of any city will witness it every once in a while — and the same with any — um — “red light” or “exclusionary” zoned area of any city.

I watched something shake down the other day.  My view was largely obstructed, so I was not able to see what was the deal was — it boiled down to one man who had to be restrained — perhaps some mixture of drugs and petty thievery — with one irritant witness who may have been the victim and after helping run him down jabbed with the police that came on the scene and provided his witnessed report.  But this is all conjecture.

Something bothers me with this, and it is the case with just about any “police ride in on the scene” case I have seen, and something that can be witnessed in this photograph of the James Chasse tragedy of a year ago (link picked arbitrarily off of the top page in a google search)…

Maybe I am a little bit naive, but why are there so many police officers on the scene?

In the scene I watched the other day, I saw two people of interest that the police were dealing with.  And I watched two police cars come in, each with two officers.  Then I watched two more cars come in, each with two more officers.  Then there was the ubiquitous fire department truck, apparently customary for anything and everything whether they are needed or not.  And then, just for kicks, one more police patrol happened by.  The result was 11 officers standing there, maybe five of them useful for most likely contingencies I can think of, with the “Too many cooks spoiling the brew” effect in full effect.

I assume everything played out well yesterday.

At first I thought I saw an advertisement for the upcoming return of Jesus Christ and the Good Times He is sure to Bring — in The Washington Monthly magazine, but looking into it it’s an advertisement for the upcoming return of the Buddha — or some derivation thereof — seems to be a newly minted creation…

… with seemingly the same consequences.  Jesus is coming with him.  As is everybody else.  With their attendant End of World purview, even if they contradict each other and themselves.

I don’t quite get it.  Why is there an advertisement for the Apocalypse in this political magazine?  Is this the equivalent of the occasional sighting of Reverend Moon conferences I see in newspapers (The Oregonian, for example) from time to time?

Whatever pays the bills.  I hope this isn’t the “Political Left” I occasionally hear about trying to gets its voting clout together.

………………………………….

(By the way, be sure to pick up the next issue of The Washington Monthly.  I’m not in it, but I’m closer to being in it than in any other issue of any other publication.)

There are no gay people in Iran.  And there are no gay Senators from Idaho.  These two concepts defy the laws of science — to contemplate it is akin to dividing a number by zero, and your mind will approach absolute mush.  To posit either is an absurdity, which crumbles ipsofactoly.

If you heard otherwise, you have been misled.

“I have always thought that the nine scariest words in the English language were ‘My God!  My skin is melting away my bones!!”  — Ronald Reagan, I think.

“First they ignore you, than they ridicule you, than they ignore you again.”  — Mahatma Ghandi, I think.

Any others?

Fills me with an urge to Defecate.  Or, you know, vote for Nader.

Solving the Problem de la Democratic Party is a tough one.  I understand that in technical jargon it takes 41 votes to end the war in Iraq, at the end of Bush’s Administration — you vote no on the next military appropriations bill, if more than 50 votes materializes it, you filibuster it.  And I recognize this as never going to happen.  They are cutting money off to the troops, you understand, and why do these 41 Senators hate the troops and America?  (Also, it’s a two party duopoly.)

I am thinking the Congress should be pounding the Webb bill — military deployment equal to military home-stays.  This the Democratic leadership seemed to simply allow to flitter away into dust — obstructed by Mitch McConnell, and that’s the way of the world.  But now you just force an actual filibuster.  Which is to say, force an actual defense against this act.  The argument against it, you understand, is that this is simply a back-handed way of lowering our involvement in Iraq.  The argument is wrong, but in the interest of keeping up their side of the two party duopoly and winning political points, at this point in the political zietgist, that strikes me as an argument that would work in favor of the Democrats — isn’t that the point of their last election?  Mind you, even if it’s not true that the party hierarchy gives a whiff.

The political wise-guys who rate these things report that Mitch McConnell, our uber – obstructionist minority leader (yes, more obstructionist than the Daschle – Reid team, who tended toward stopping a handful of judges before giving up that ghost in a stupdifying political deal), the Weekly Standard has taken to calling a tactical genius for simply playing the 60 Seat game, has had his seat up in 2008 down-graded from “Safe Republican” to “Republican Favored”.  My only suggestion to any Democrat looking to run but deeming the 2010 cycle with either the senile Jim Bunning as the opponent or an open Senate seat a lot easier a nut to crack is that a good showing against McConnell is as good a spring-board as any, if one falls short.  Tactical Geniuses of his sort may as well be floated away.

I. This clearly traveled from this which was picked from here. Though, so far as I can tell, it doesn’t go on beyond there. Always interesting to see how things like this travel. Anyway, of note — comments:

Anyone else remember the LaRouche science mag? Is that still published? I kind of hate the fact that I know the answer to that question.

Now that is a real leader! Someone who has the guts to speak the truth. If Felix Rohatan told Nancy Peloci to lick his Nazi boots I sincerely believe she would. Nope. This guy is serious. And he manages to plug through the formula in a way I might do so, mockingly. Does he have any self-awareness. Anyways, Josh Gorenfeld provides a response, and that will have to stand. Other than that, former KGB Agent Putin is beloved by Larouche, and if he told Larouche to lick the floor…

IA. Um. James. Yes. “Al Gore is a Nazi” sang to “Dona Nobis Pacem”. Imbecilic. There is nothing to get there. Again, I defer to Josh Gorenfeld for a suggestion.

II. Because the world demands to know about the controversies surrounding Webster Tarpley within the “9/11 Truth” movement and its hodgy podgy intersection with the Peace movement. (50 long minutes…) Life is too short, and even if I did not have anything better do do, I would be more productive in spending 50 minutes staring at a white wall.

Anyway, Chip Berlet is a Stooge of the Ford Foundation, ye say? Okay. Webster Tarpley. Outside the orbit of Lyndon Larouche by now. Still thinking like him. “The Ford Foundation” is at war with the 9/11 Truthers because Cindy Sheehan has asked for her name to be dropped from a signed letter written by Webster Tarpley. Is that about the size of it?

III. I don’t think Lyndon or anyone did anything to Factnet,etc. Your friends are just demoralized because LaRouche is right, the housing bubble is bringing down the whole financial system.

Yes… Yes… Yes. Larouchies of 2007, go in a time machine and meet your cohorts of October of 1987 marching around Wall Street saying “Larouche is right” and Black Monday is bringing down the whole financial system. Whatever happened to the BAE Scandal? Oddly enough, I did see a Guardian piece about it last week — not of World Histrionics. Anyway, I think that wore thin and this story was the next opportunity to have the Larouchies on the move. Hence, the drum-beat goes on with this.

IV. From Factnet: “With the advent of this September 2007, a recent century has died, and a new millennium is born. What an ironically wonderful 85th Birthday has been delivered to me, thus.”
Now we have the briefing lead from a day or two ago, with its hebephrenic opener:
WE ARE WINNING!
GET CONGRESS TO PASS HBPA THIS MONTH!
A very, very happy Lyndon LaRouche conveyed the following message to the international organization on Tuesday: With the just-concluded Kiedrich conference of the Schiller Institute, we have resurrected the full force of our international association. The international organization is back on its feet, so let us continue to put our best foot forward.

b~~~~In concrete terms, we are turning the U.S.A. upside down with the LYM-led mobilization for the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007….
b~~~~We are, in addition to the escalating mobilization all over the United States to get Congress to pass the HBPA by a veto-proof majority, working on pinning down a date for a LaRouche webcast in Washington, D.C. for mid-October.

So proud of that first sentence, larouche moved it from this internal (internal/external) briefing to his public (external/internal) publishings. What I want to know is… did he ever acknowledge that his international — out there in Europe — organization was off of its feet and down?

Takes a bit of time to load to the correct location, but this is amusing. Also, A Tour of Loudon, and the various Housing bubbles that have popped, the most pertinent being Larouche’s.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that there is a thematic connection between the following incident and the tased college student.

An English man has admitted to urinating on a disabled woman as she lay dying in a doorway.
The man shouted “this is YouTube material” as he urinated on 50-year-old Christine Lakinski in late July, BBC News reported.
Lakinski, who had a number of medical conditions, later died of natural causes.
Anthony Anderson, 27, had smoked a joint and was drinking when he and two friends saw Lakinski fall ill and stumble into a doorway.
Anderson tried to wake Laskinski by dousing a bucket of water over her, before urinating on the stricken woman and covering her in shaving foam.
The incident was reportedly filmed on a camera phone.
Lakinski was later declared dead at the scene from pancreatic failure, an inquest found.

We are the stars of our own movies; we are all interacting into Reality Televsion shows and off of insta-celebrity of that there youtubes and such.  See, I float past the tased student — “an unfortunate combination of police over-reaction and student douche-baggery” as Jon Stewart put it — and asking the question “Must I defend him?” with the answer “yes.  Yes I must.” — that is who you tend to end up defending in that area of civil liberties — and how, rolling into more serious first amendment cases, one tends to do hoops and loops in defining “Art”.  So, the only thing I can say for him — other than not particularly being bugged by his three questions or his overstaying his welcome –  is that it worked well into his script — understand, the police make good foils in these scripts — so, um, this is working out well for the lad.

The urinating on the corpse man, I have to resist the urge to see if “this is youtube material” correlates to… actual youtube material.  By now somebody will have staged a fake version of the happenstance, which means the guy is wrong — he was not creating youtube material — True Youtube material is the deriviatives and parodies of that thing.