It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” subject only to the Constitution. What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect free freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now- the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a re-argument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?
We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance-and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly matte the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different l pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece. too many or too few,-not omitting even scaffolding-or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in-in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.
— Abraham Lincoln, 1858, found here.

I thought about this, and the “all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting”, in regards to the somewhat bizarre but strangely predictable ordeal that has lead to the non-benchmark Iraq War resolution. Seriously, the Democrats could have saved the trouble and come out looking better if they had followed Bush’s post-veto line of “They will send me this bill to make their political point. I will veto it. Then they will send me the money for the troops, and I will sign it.” That is how weak it all comes across.

Today Congress’s approval rating stands roughly where Bush’s approval rating is. Mitch McConnell crowed about it the other day and used it as evidence of why the Democrats should call off the hearings on Alberto Gonzalez, smarmy man that he be. But the approval rating is a symptom of an inability to pass the bull-headed Bush, or to more properly align the party into a role of still powerless opposition party..

Don Phau. A Larouchian. He spoke before a panel organized by Virginia governor Kaine to look into causes for the Virginia Tech shootings, and came out swinging against violent video games. Par for the course for the Larouchian contingency, his attacks were of a more hysterical focus than his fellow compatriots for his position.

Violent Video Games. You know. The type of video games in which the Virginia Tech shooter was not known for playing — at least not during his college years.  Or any other type of video game, for that matter.
I am breaking an unofficial rule of venturing into the politics of Larouche’s political crusades. It’s not as though there isn’t some reason for a person to believe video games are having some harmful affects on our children. My basic problem is that even by Larouche’s standards, his political opposition to video games rings hollow and false. I do not believe Lyndon Larouche gives a flying rip about violence in video games, or at least not directly.
But this whole arena leads him — and his immediate subserviants and employment– into some curious fits of ignorance. Larouche has Senator Joseph Lieberman as “Protector Of Hollywood’s Nintendo Brainwashers”. This is an interesting concept, as Lieberman is second to none in his criticism — or nagging if you prefer– of video game violence. But it is also curious in terms of company named — Nintendo, which is something akin to yelping about that heavy metal music in this year of 2007(*1). Nintendo is doing just fine, thank you very much, and I think the wii system has been a moderate bust, but the thing is… there was a moment in the mid-90s (I think, I’m only really vaguely aware of the video game industry) where Nintendo and Sony released the different versions of a new Mortal Kombat game, I believe. Sony’s was bloody, Nintendo’s wasn’t. Nintendo opted for a somewhat less “hardcore” and more family-friendly niche. Which may in fact mean that Lieberman is in the pockets of Nintendo lobbyists, what with his flailing about on video game violence, two wrongs making a right. But why would Larouche select Lieberman?
In other Larouche news, Lyndon Larouche trekked over to Russia in a historic trip and… do you care?

Okay. I have stood accused of … um… not balancing out anti-Larouche material with pro-Larouche material? This was back when I posted a series of posts on the history, from the mainstream media — filtering a bit with some odd Larouche pamphlets, and… I had not read anything from Dennis King, though the Larouchians assumed that I was just cribbing from him. (I’d be happy to do so now.) Other than that, I had posted a number of ex-Larouchites’ bitter experiences, and have posted any number of links to snide comments from … um… civilians who trekked into the Larouche realm (to a cadre shool, or just a greeting such as this encounter.) I suppose I can remedy that situation with this… positive experience shared on FACTNet:

Yes, I was a member of the west coast region. I was in Los Angeles. Yes, it was disturbing on what I saw of what was done to the older members. The tough part though is that a lot of Lyn’s theories are very sound ideas. In particular I love the possibility of freeing the third world from their dire situation. Are you sure Larouche knows about whats being done to the older members?(*2)

The reason why I left was not because of Larouche’s Ideas per say but because of the living standards. For example I had to wake up at 5:00 in the morning 3 mornings in a row for a cadre deployment and ended up vomiting during the deployment. After that Day I just felt very fatigued. I just couldn’t handle getting up really early and staying up real late. Not sure if it was because I was lazy or what it was. It seemed that everyone else was very energetic and not tired at all. I also had a stomach problem as well. I can say one thing for sure. Those 7 months were the most interesting 7 months of my life. Over all I think it was a positive experience. I still collaborate with them and they understood completely on why I felt it was best for me to leave and they are still very friendly with me. Some of the kindest people I’ve ever met in my entire life are in the movement. They’re very intelligent as well. Now of course I don’t agree with everything larouche says at all, and I hope the other members feel the same way as well.

I am attending Humboldt State University and right now am taking summer classes in Los Angeles. Not sure what I want to major in. I still love politics and absolutely want to make a positive difference in this world. I’m being dead honest when I say this. I didn’t experience what you guys are talking about with these horror stories in the movement. It was in a weird way a very relaxing environment. There would be a lot of excitement when something big was happening: such as when Alito was getting elected, but for the most part I felt at ease.

The food was crap, I didn’t get too great of a sleep too often, etc, but the people were friendly and wanted me to question things. There were a couple of members who were grumpy or cultish but i would say 95% of the members were fun to be around with.

[…] One reason why I left was because I wanted to learn more about the movement but it was hard to do so because I was constantly deploying. So ever since I left, I’ve been reading, reading, and reaing. That’s pretty much it. Reading Larouche, Reading the thinkers larouche mentions a lot, Reading the thinkers Larouche considers scumbags, etc.

Sounds like a very productive way to spend one’s time, don’t you think? He goes on to entreat you to double cubes. I myself have not doubled any cubes. Squares are another matter. I invite everyone to go a Larouche card-table with a piece of toilet paper and beg them to “Double This Square, Damneditall!”… um… you know, to help out Rosie O’Donnell.

(*1) Speaking of which, Don Phau wrote anti-heavy metal music articles for Larouche in the 1980s. It’s all starting to fit a pattern. (*2) Har de Har Har. Sigh.

Having gotten himself noticed and made a name for himself as somebody other than a man to be listed quickly in a long list of “also – runs”, I notice a bit of frettering by parts of the Ron Paul congregation (and you may use every term you desire from “supporters” to “cult members”) about some of his more… esoteric choices of media and associations.

An example:

And not to be outdone, Ron Paul’s media coordinator was on the infamous Alex Jones show the other night. Seriously, I understand that radio shows from all viewpoints are frothing at the Ron Paul candidacy, but this is just another example – in my opinion – of ammunition the opposition can – and will – use. That’s like Ron Paul appearing on the David Duke show or something.

I am pretty sure I’ve covered the burgeoning little controversy over here, sometime before Ron Paul’s q-rating rose after that last debate, and the gradual dawn of the mainstream media that Ron Paul is kicking ass on the Internet. The chief point I came in in posting that blog entry still stands, which is that Ron Paul’s greetings on Alex goddamned Jones is in many ways no less odious than the conventional candidates frequent forays onto Tim goddamned Russert and the Establishment Think politics that predominate on shows such as.

But my general thought with Ron Paul and the Alex Joneses of the world — or the 9/11 Truthers of the world — or the Gold Standard advocate — or whoever — is that even if Ron Paul wanted to disassociate himself from any of this, the genie is out of the bottom and there is no sense in doing anything but steam-rolling straight ahead. Somebody has to create a coalition of Fringe Unity.

I am terminably confused by the suggestion from the new boss-man at Air America, implanted in their hosts (or at least the two that I heard yesterday — a handful of minutes of Thom Hartmann and an hour of Rachel Maddow) — that they have “relaunched” as “Air America 2.0”.

This is a joke, right?  For some reason they inserted an interview between Mark Green, he of — who the hell knows what fame, but he bought Air America for the pittance that it cost to get it out of bankruptcy — and Eliot Spitzer.  An indelibly pointless and not terribly interesting interview.  For her part, Rachel Maddow interviewed Barak Obama.  This seems to be a forced influx of “big names” to be interviewed for the “relaunch”– in the most pointless meandering manner possible, selling the candidates for what is, I guess, Democratic Party Radio.

In reality this will fade away and it will be status quo.  Pointless and bland interviews with the Democratic presidential front-runners are nothing new, and if it weren’t pointed out that this is something somehow altogether different, I would not have noticed.  Except for that weird Mark Green interview tih Eliot Spitzer.  I scratch my head at that one.  Is that the new innovation that Mark Green has cooked up for this network — interpersing himself into the line-up in bursts and spurts?  Is that what makes a “relaunch”?  Otherwise, I don’t quite get it.  They’ve altered their schedule a little, but they’ve done that a few times before, and probably will have to do so again sometime sooner or later.
In terms of the business decisions with the alterations to the schedule:   Not only has Lionel not gained many fresh affiliates, he lost roughly a half dozen that carried Seder on delay. The only station he seems to have been added to is WINZ in Miami, on delay from 6-9P ET. Lots of stations still list him on their website schedules for his former show, but it is unknown if they are still running his new Air America show in those time slots.  Actually, I have come to think that this was a bad decision by both Air America and Lionel, but it appears to — at the moment — be worse for Lionel than I thought, who I had at least seen a slight upshot for in terms of some added exposure.  It always struck me as simple desperation on the part of Air America’s new management.

I am of a mind regarding Jimmy Carter to believe they weren’t wise, best an ex-president avoid the political and, as much as I mock it, act in the George HW Bush — Bill Clinton affair of International Goodwill.  But I can spot the attack on him for saying that Bush’s administration of “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history” from a mile away, which is that it was only a decade and a half ago when a Republican might say the same and the Democrat wouldn’t much respond.

I am of a greater mind, though, to say of White House spokesman Tony Fratto (who?)‘s response of “I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments”, how interesting it is that at the last Republican Presidential debate the ratio of references to Ronald Reagan to references to George W Bush by the candidates is something to the effect of 20:1.  Reagan’s Ghost, of course, being the front-runner for Republican nomination and George W Bush being… well, the Republican candidates wish he were irrelevant.

MOSCOW, Ida. Police stormed an Idaho church where a shooter hid after killing a police officer in a courthouse ambush, finding the body of the likely gunman and another man Sunday.

The shooting began late Saturday and also wounded a second officer and a civilian, said David Duke, Moscow’s assistant police chief.

David Duke?

That’s an unfortunate name.

I have two thoughts here.  One: there aren’t a lot of people named Adolf these days, or for the last handful of generations.  Two: Probably the nadir of Dukes who were named by the parents David are in high school right about now.  I think he may have been in the public conciousness well enough that it’s not terribly common for David Dukes to exist about ten years hence-forth — any Dukes readying to name their child David might do a bit of research, happen to see David Duke on Donahue or something, and decide against it.  But before that… the skys the limit: nothing wrong with naming your child David Duke.  Like naming your child Edward Duke, or whatever.

The first non-Nazi named Adolf which google picks up is Adolf Frederick Johann Butenandt.  On this list of famed Adolfs, the last one passed away in 1996.  Hitler and Eichmann predominate, though not as completely as one would assume.
For some reason all the David Dukes that I pick up through google news are cops.  Go figure!  But, I guess, how else would you be reported into the news — which is at times simply a crime blotter?  In 30 years, no police chief will be commenting on a tragedy with the name “David Duke”.

Y’know…

The man who created that there “Girls Gone Wild” franchise, recently shuttled through the Judicial process for, I don’t know, unwittingly including 16 and 17 year olds in his exhibition tapes…

Or something like that…

Ugh.

Okay. Imagine you have a 13 year old son. You have two choices. Either he has a stash of pornography or a stash of Girls Gone Wild videos. Which would you prefer, which is to ask, which sends the worst message to your 13 year old son? It’s a tricky question in that you have to think for a moment and realize that the ladies in the porn were likely paid, and at any rate are engaged in — you’d suppose– satisfying sex (at least the script says so), and the “Girls Gone Wild” were given… a t-shirt, maybe, to flash their breasts, because… the message for the lad is… girls are exhibitionists and by all rights, are societally obligated to act accordingly.

Never mind.

Something popped into my mind sometime ago when looking at some comic strips at The Comics Curmudgeon. It might have been somewhere else, as a search for “Gone Wild” on this site brings up slim pickings. It is the ubiquity of a punchline of “[Blank] Gone Wild”. Hardy har. Blank… Gone Wild.

Thinking about it I have a simple request. Can we put that one that line to rest? I think we can more or less reach a consensus on the sleaziness and bad faith of the “Girls Gone Wild” series — a guilty pleasure at best (not that there’s anything wrong with guilty pleasures, but run with that accordingly), and pegging it into a gag simply solidifies it into a sort of pop culture iconography which it doesn’t really deserve.

For the sake of my duties of “echo chamber”, I have to say that the most important news item of this week was James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judicary Committee.

You know what I’m talking about.

You know what I’m talking about.

There is a troubling sense I have always had when dealing with politics, and that comes through how easily it is to dismiss something out of hand by partisan prediliction.  I have heard the whole Justice Department scandal dismissed as “a tempest in a teapot” so often, and if I am to pass it off as such charitably I can still slug on ahead to…

Comey’s testimony.

Which I have heard described as “straight out of the Sopranos”.

Actually in the end the Bush Administration got around the refusal of John Ashcroft and the Justice Department to sign off on warrantless wiretapping by simply plunging ahead anyway.  It is the Bush Administration style.  Too bad they couldn’t get a camatose Ashcroft to do so, which was, I guess, the Plan A to the Plan B.