I pass a couple of teenage boys — maybe 16 or 17 years old.  Relatively typical, they speak in slang I am not terribly familiar with which is derived mostly from hip hop, and are dressed as one might expect that age male to be, uber casually.  I recently heard some musing from Gore Vida, against the culture of our public education system, a sentiment that I can be sympathetic with to a certain degree, “I have never met an uninteresting 6 year old.  I have never met an interesting 16 year old.  What do you suppose happened in between those two ages?”  My answer is to point out that whatever else one can say about the 16 year old, they are not going to live their lives to impress Gore Vidal, nor should they, so the point is largely moot.

That is a digression.  The two teenagers were followed a few yards behind by two white-haired elderly men.  I will say they were in their 80s, perhaps.  Now here is the question I leave you, and I’ll lead a trail down to the bottom of this page that will answer the question.  What did one of the elderly men say in reference to one of the teenage boys, a statement as cliched, as quasi-witty, and as curmudgeony as one will ever get?

Think hard, but it’s best not not to overthink, because my guess is a little underthinking will be more helpful in guessing the answer.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

“That poor boy’s pants are falling down.” 

Here is list of subjects that would make for interesting political reading. There are many well established stories in American politics, but there is also the small hidden anecdotes that may say more about our political history than the we know.

To be honest, I do not believe some of those are terribly important.  The History of the Natural Law Party would… take us into the realm of New Age philosophy, and could well simply conclude with a post-script about What the Bleep Do We Know?  There isn’t much there with the strange joke that ended up being taken seriously by miscallenous troubled individuals with the Libertarian National Socialist Gree Party.  On the other hand, the 1924 Democratic Convention does tell us something about our history — and we can take it in a variety of directions — as a close vote on whether to condemn the Klu Klux Klan foretold a stalement of a never-ending fight between Alfred Smith and William Jennings Bryan’s candidate — whose name has faded into obscurity.

Good news, though, for this sort of thing.  A long-out of print book has just now been reprinted.  For your consideration, the basic story in cartoon form:

 

The Plot to Seize the White House, by Jules Archer.  It’s a flawed book in its redundacy, as it begins with the narrative of what happened as alleged by Smedley Butler, moves into a biography of Smedley Butler, and then goes through excerpted transcripts of the House Committee investigating the matter — which does indeed… tell the story again — with a variety of denials.
Left are a number of resloved, and probably unresolvable, issues, as to who did what for what motivation.  Expunged from the record was testimony that incrimated 1928 Democratic hopeful Alfred Smith and 1924 Democratic hopeful John Davis (then attorney for JP Morgan) of the newly formed “Liberty League” which was to be a backdrop of criticism to soften the blow to allow the appointment of a popular military head following in the footsteps of the French Criox de Feu.  (Because the European study of fascist governments turned out that Germany’s model for military take-over and Italy’s model for military take-over were not workable in America.)

Roosevelt may have just well nixed further investigation into that corridor to keep his party from splintering.  (And to whatever degree he was assuaging big business in punting away the Liberty League and dealing with anyone else.)

I can’t tell how much power the conspirators had in pulling off this plot, and all I can go on is what pull they had in pushing various measures — such as, when Butler refused to deliver speeches to convince the American Legion to demand America stay on the Gold Standard, they managed an effusive telegram campaign and… the American Legion endorsed the Gold Standard.  Butler mused that they didn’t address the Bonus issue.  (This was all the auspices that Roosevelt would prefer to go with the Gold Standard as any upstanding member of his class would — and he just needed the correct pressure to force him to that conclusion.  Another section that was expunged from the Congressional Record.)

So the book is back in print.  And now you know the rest of the story, if you want to.

Doc Hastings’s ‘q’-rating is up! Sam Sedar of Air America Radio referenced him the other day, and seemed to — as well as anyone — put the right posit on who the nation knows Doc Hastings as. I paraphrase but I have the gist down, “that Doc Hastings guy.”

Other ways of putting it that I have heard have been “that Doc Hastings guy, from Washington State.”

Which is that Doc Hastings is referenced just often enough with just enough uncertainty as to who the heck he is that you have to qualify his name with “that guy”. Or perhaps people are embarrassed at referring to a self-given nickname “Doc” for a Congressman?

This all is just as well. He might have been the Speaker of the House under extraordinary circumstances. Dennis Hastert had him tapped in case of emergency in the last Congress. Fortunately, I imagine that if things had come to that point, we all in America would have greater things to worry about than who is running the Lower Chamber of the Legislative Branch — better to just go ahead and dissolve the government than put Doc Hastings in charge.
South Central Washington must be proud. The only way my Congress citter can make the news is by making bad Star Trek references on the House floor. And there he’s referred to as “David Who?” Hastings is a vaguely known commodity… who is popping up in the news.

There is a certain amount of grumbling on the part of Democratic bloggers about the fact that the Nevada Democratic Party contracted with Fox News to hold a primary debate.  The reason is simple, this is Fox News and they’re frames of references are not the same as the Democratic Primary voter.

The historical precedent comes in with a 2004 Fox News Democratic debate (somewhere in 2003), and a litany of offenses that came from them.  I remember that debate well.  Bill Bennett interrupted the ending.  The first shot to a commercial break had Sean Hannity teasing the provactive question “Did the Democratic candidates say things tonight that will hurt them in the General Election?”  And there were constant disruptions during the debate.

The constant disruptions of the debate?  A group of LaRouchites clamoring to know “Where’s LaRouche?”  It lead to a hilarious denuncation from Al Sharpton and some witty back and forth between Sharpton and Lieberman.  I don’t know if Fox News can be held responsible for such a thing.  This year it may be a more respectable and more sympathetic outlet of Code Pink doing the disruption.  Or it may be the LaRouchites again.  LaRouchites just kind of happen.

Then again, that might have been a conspiracy on the part of Fox News.  For the life of me, I don’t know if the shadowing of LaRouchites are a net positive, net negative, or a net neutral on the Democratic Party hopefuls in the publics’ eyes.

The optimism of the partisan blogger expands the pool of opposing candidates and targeted seats to an unrealistic degree beyond what is comfortable to the hacks in charge of the political parties.  The mirror image is the 2004 Democratic blog campaign infusions in a futile attempt to up-end Tom Delay versus the 2006 even more futile attempt by Republican bloggers to up-end Jack Murtha.  Perhaps these are more publicity-minded than anything else, so perhaps it is awash.

I think I stuck the lists of ‘2006 Senate states’ almost immediately upon the 2004 campaign conclusion.  Despite the general consensus of pols, the electoral map did not look that bad for the Democrats to me — it looked about even where 2004 was skewed to the Republicans’ advantage and 2008 is skewed to the Democrats’ advantage.  I had pegged eight states of each of the the two ledgers — Republican pick-up opportunities from the Democrats, Democratic pick-up opportunities from the Republicans, fully understanding it would shorten to about five or six on each side by election day.  The Democratic side remained at eight; the Republicans faded to two.  I imagine a great Republican year would have had the exact opposite effect.

My understanding of the electoral map, as armchair political strategist, saw the states of Ohio, Montana, and Virginia as important bell-weathers to future hopes of success for the Democratic party.  I mention these states because all three states were for a while stuck in a no-man’s land of inaction or misguided action from the Democratic Party, and largely had to be rescued from the Party’s beltway insider strategies.  (Never mind the other states suffised just fine — Pennsylvania pegged with a “pro-life” Democratic candidate, for instance.)

The Democrats needed to win Ohio’s Senate seat beause of what happened in the 2004 presidential race which saw Bush campaigning in critical Ohio with various statewide elected officials and John Kerry campaigning in Ohio with… former Senator and beloved astronaut John Glenn.  I guess Chuck Schumer had difficulty getting Sherrod Brown or anyone else into the race, because for the longest time nobody was running.  Eventually the bloggers’ creation and favorite Paul Hackett had to throw his hat in the ring.  And of course, Sherrod Brown then jumped in to run as the state-mood soured for the Democrats.  Just as well, because from the bloggers’ perspective Brown probably matches their ideology better anyways.

The Democrats reportedly didn’t see any hopes with Virginia until Kaine won the Governorship in the 2005 election, and had a congenial sacrificial lamb primed to lose to the Republican presidential front-runner George Allen.  I had the state figured as a Democratic hopeful earlier — based on the 2004 presidential results of a relatively good John Kerry showing.  Jim Webb was in the race, and upon Kaine’s victory, was tossed the party’s support.

Montana had a DLC candidate picked to push out the corporatist Abraham – infused Conrad Burns.  Fortunately Jon Tester pushed him aside, of the two the one who could defeat Burns, by way of stronger and sharper contrasts.

The Republicans blew the 2006 Senate elections by chasing after Maryland and New Jersey as election day loomed.  Both attempts make sense, in terms of future electoral goals, but it was clear by then that this was a year the Republicans needed to cut their losses and try to retain the two still red states of Virginia and Montana — thus retaining the Senate.  The tactical error was shown to be larger than was obvious on election day when Jim Webb gave the Democratic response to the State of the Union, and was generally believed to have out-shone Bush.  Hence, the Democrats have a better chance in 2008 of capturing Virginia.

Bounding into the 2008 Senate elections, I notice that the major Democratic bloggers are combing through the Senate possibilities and coming up with hopelessly rose-colored scenarios.  Do you really figure Mitch McConnell can be taken down?  The 2004 Democratic challenger in Kentucky lost — and the Republican Incumbent was Senile — the precursor of defeating Minority Leader Tom Daschle happened in a state Republicans carried by practically a 2 to 1 margin.  How good a chance do you really give beating Elizabeth Dole?  Are you really going to poo-poo the Republicans’ chances in New Jersey, based on the fact that the Democrats dodged several bullets in a tight-rope walk through general impressions of corruption?  Who is kos hinting at as an “exciting candidate” he can not name in Texas?  (Um.  Jim Hightower?  That Representative who defeated Tom Delay?  Ross Perot?)

I await for the pool to become larger still, to encompass Oklahoma’s James Inhofe — or maybe someone in either Utah, Wyoming, or Idaho.

I suspect that there is a strange mix of unpetered optimism and a whiff of desperation in the Republican blog-land, which is a bit more 3-dimensional than Democratic blog-land, but appropriately so considering what the prospects look like for the 2 parties.

I was debating with myself whether or not to post a link to the newest Victor Davis Hansen editorial, Classicist Historian from Stanford.  I think the answer has to be no, because I have already posted links to earlier editorials from Victor Davis Hansen, and if you have read one Victor Davis Hansen editorial, you have read them all.

I understand this guy.  It is not that he has any number of opinions — surely he does because we all do — it is just that he has one opinion that is so strong that it overrides all the others.  It’s a little different from Thomas Friedman, who has two strong opinions he needs to impart the world — one about the democratizing power of free trade and the other about how the next six months are going to determine whether or not we succeed in Iraq.  Victor Hansen has consolidated it all to one — which boils down to the idea that history shows that all the wars that the United States has engaged in have had critics.  The funny thing about his opinion is that the examples he cites do not necessarily correlate to the premise he wants to impart on us about the current war — ride the critics out and the US will emerge victorious — unless you want to believe that it would have benefitted the US in Korea to go ahead and confront China.

The thing is, I have already said as much, for I really have a limited array of responses to the one opinion of Victor Davis Hansen.  I don’t know if that is a good thing on my part, but it is what it is.

I wonder if Victor Davis Hansen will ever give us another strongly held opinion he may have.  And I wonder if the answer is no if he could just let his newspaper syndicate reprint his last editorial and save himself the hassle.

 

Story Highlights

• Jury had “tremendous” sympathy for Libby, juror Collins says
• Collins: “It seemed like [Libby] was the fall guy”
• Jurors said they felt “unpleasant” about passing judgment
• While deliberating, jury craved hot dogs from vendor across street

 

Mmm… Hot dogs.

Mike Gravel Google Watch:  The last time I checked, I was at #10.  Today, I am at #66.  I have no clue what happened — I had sort of imagined my google drop-off to be a bit more gradual than that — barring some deluge of Mike Gravel campaign news, but this ends — ingloriously — any and all mentions of Mike Gravel.  I will now, Soviet-style, pretend like you never existed.  I won’t go so far as the Soviets, sticking potted plants in the place of your names, but I will pretend like I never blogged about you.  If I blog about a presidential debate or forum that you attend, I will pretend like you weren’t there. 

So long, Mike Gravel.  It was fun discussing you.  It was fun researching you.  I trust the end of your presidential campaign will be as insignificant as the rest of your presidential campaign.  To sum up: your tax plan stinks, your national initiative plan isn’t a pancrea to anything, your one world predilications of a bit lofty, your Senate career wasn’t pure, and you campaigned as a hawk in 1968 — which isn’t worth mentioning except that your insistence that anyone who voted for the Iraq War authorization is unqualified for office makes you a hypocrite.

That is all.  Mike Gravel.  Levarg ekim.

 

A few years ago, I thought that Britney Spears was basically doomed.  I pictured her slashing her wrist in half-hearted suicide attempts, demanding attention to stop her, if pressed I would say — only because my frames of references are decidedly minimal — in the corner of a cocaine-flowing party of the stars.
As it turned out, her collapse went more like this:

Britney Spears attempted suicide in rehab last week, according to The News of the World.
The paper claims Britney also wrote devil’s number, 666, on her shaved head and began screaming “I am the Antichrist!” at frightened clinic staff.  […]  The News of the World report claims Britney has also been speaking at length with ex-husband Kevin Federline, telling him she wants to get back together and have another baby.

Which is infinitely more bizarre than I had considered.  (Not that I gave it too much thought.)
All of this is schadenfruede to the public, and I guess I hope everyone is enjoying it.  But the reason her problems were pretty easy to see coming: she was trained to be an under-aged sex symbol — not good for her development — and so enconsed in a type of bubble-gum pop (written by a committee to float sexual innuendoes through the lyrics that amount to “Do Me.”) that she was not likely to be able to make the transition when it is necessary to expand her horizons.

What I am wondering about Britney Spears is this: imagine that she somehow gets into the right light and is semi-reasonable in following career advice and not going off that track.  What advice and trajectory could she be given to have a career of one sort or another?  If it were simply a matter of running through rehab, she would be fine — relatively, but the problem is if she… now has to address her problems in any comeback performance.  Go away for ten years and then try to crack a generation (more or less the ten years younger than I)’s nostalgia?  I once heard someone postulate that a singer or band can continue a successful touring career for the duration of their lives — successful in that they will be booked as large draws at county fairs and medium draws at larger arenas — if they have but two bonafide hits (which the paying public will know and be able to sing along with) — which with some minor songs and with a few covers and perhaps singing one or both twice in their set will allow them the desired time on stage.

I believe Britney Spears has, legitimately, 3 songs that anyone has really hummed to, and under that rubric could pull that off. If she wanted it. And if she could get her head on straight.

Beyond that, her 3 songs (give or take one or two) will be available for commercial use, tv and movie use, and radio play — which means she is set in terms of royalties… as any number of one-hit or popular for a time artists are/were.

… if she wants to screw her head back on.