I would say that this is how it ends — not with a bang, but with a whimper.  But it appears that the size of Bush’s “Troop Surge” is larger than what he is publically stating — de rigeur for this presidency, and our newly emboldened opposition party in the throes Congress are passing out “We don’t like what the president is doing” NON BINDING Resolutions to mull over, with a quick debate on the “Constitutitionality” of any action that might impede the Commander in Chief — so perhaps we’re not lucky enough to just let it whimper off quietly into the night.
On Tuesday, President Bush popped in for a surprise visit to the Sterling Family Restaurant, a homey diner in Peoria, Ill. It’s a scene that has been played out many times before by this White House and others: a president mingling among regular Americans, who, no matter what they might think of his policies, are usually humbled and shocked to see the leader of the free world standing 10 feet in front of them.

“Sorry to interrupt you,” Bush said to a group of women, who were sitting in a booth with their young kids. “How’s the service?” As Bush signed a few autographs and shook hands, a man sitting at the counter lit a cigarette and asked for more coffee. Another woman, eyeing Bush and his entourage, sighed heavily and went back to her paper. She was reading the obituaries. “Sorry to interrupt your breakfast,” a White House aide told her. “No problem,” she huffed, in a not-so-friendly way. “Life goes on, I guess.”

Editorial decision on my part: the next post about Lyndon LaRouche that I will have on this blog will be in March.

Steve: Do you know the difference between man and beast?

Are you sure you want me to answer that question?

Biologically, a small slice of DNA. In most religions, the presence of the soul. I grunt and say “opposable thumbs”, thinking that if some other animal developed those they would develop culture and self-conciousness — which the presence of culture is pretty much the antrhopological answer. Adolf Hitler’s answer to that question involves bloodlines.

The LaRouchian answer to that question ends up coming out pretty badly for the man.

Bestializing is thrown around quite casually in LaRouche’s literature in terms of what various plotters are doing to the masses of people. The Gay Movement, the CIA, and the Dick Cheney Administration are, therefore, Beast-Men.

In terms of culture, Beethoven is a Man, The Beatles are Beasts. The French Revolution was Beastial (and very Aristotlean, I might add), the American Revolution… ARE WE NOT MEN???

Cue Ruth Williams in Younger Than That Now, page 229.

The political philosophy feeding LaRouche’s party in 1974 was deemed “Beyond Marxism.” Mastery of it was a requisite of membership. Among other things, we were told the black community was a CIA target and blacks were being manipulated within their CIA-controlled ghetto culture. Jazz was defined as brainwashing. The final logic of this scenario was that black inner city youth — who had obviously succumbed to their CIA masters — could be addressed as “nigger”.

“What are you people, fascists?” Bill interjected when we were told this at a briefing. Others in our group quickly backed him up. There was nervous laughter. “Why don’t we just call ourselves the Ku Klux Klan?” I asked. More laughter.

The speaker merely smiled and switched to a discussion of
Beethoven.

Softly deterministic, I suppose. In a different context I can just say that we’re products of our environments, and marketing firms are busy selling us junk and have crafted our personality for us, and in the thematic category most people would look around and agree with that. Issac Asimov said that there are only seven plots going on all around us.

In practical reality, dealing with Absolutes fails us — unless you can calibrate absolutes to a degree I can’t.

I will continue to dwell on mocking the infatuation with doubling the square. It is at once a beatnik hipster poetry line — ironic because the beats surely fall into the realm of Beasts. I am reminded of an Onion parody in “Our Dumb Century” of the “Race for the Moon” between NASA and Hippies.

Incidentally, to Double a Square…

The answer to the question of why the cult leader LaRouche puts this at a premium is that it encourages, quote-in-quote, “non-linear thinking”.

Further: this smacks of the “It’s the beginning of eternity, the end of time and space, etc” and “connect the lines so they do not cross and there’s 5 of them” on a 3 dot by 3 dot grid whose answer is to “think outside the box” — both puzzles kept being tossed at my classes in middle school as some sort of ritualistic cleverness.

And so Joseph Biden is off and running, I guess on the “Inside the Beltway Ticket” because that’s about the only place he impresses anyone. (That includes this US News and World Report fellow, who is looking at the New York Observer piece and picks up on what Biden said about Hillary Clinton, when the buzz all over everywhere is what he said about Barack Obama, which was:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

To which all of America winces.

II.

III.  In recent weeks — and for that matter from the very rise of Barack Obama in 2004 — and before that Harold Ford, Jr… and before that Colin Powell– American news magazines have been peppered with articles about how and why Americans would vote for Barack Obama as the first black President, saying he cuts the mold from the Jesse Jacksons of the world who came out of Protest Culture. Which is to say Barack Obama has a Harvard Diploma, and further — in the words of various yahoos — Barack Obama is a “Halfrican American”. (Why… he’s practically WHITE!)

So Joseph Biden has just clumsily added his quips to what is being couched in politically correct wordings in other outlets. Not to say there is no degree of truth in the news articles on who is and is not electable in this country — I guess Obama has to be considered more “mainstream” than the stable of former presidential candidates I have images of right above this, though Braun was basically an average politician — and not to say Biden made a racist comment that is incredibly patronizing to African Americans (I believe all of those candidates have to be considered “articulate”, whatever one thinks of their politics).

“Clean” comes across as particularly ugly. I will go ahead and figure he meant “scandal free”, as I believe all of these candidates showered regularly. Jackson had some dalliances here and there, I think most noxiously with Farrakhan. Braun was kicked out of office by the voters due to an ethical scandal — the details I don’t know, but it’s no different than what meets White politicians. Sharpton is a dispicable creature. So far as I know, Shirly Chisholm (an admirable person if there ever was one) had nothing on her. Alan Keyes is nuts enough that he’s ethically clean, and he’s the best one can do for Biden to brush aside as not being in the “mainstream”, though I suspect Biden maintains the same for Jackson and Sharpton in a matter of speaking.

The “storybook” is that you have a black man who might be elected president.  That has never happened before.  And if I’m going to give Joseph Biden any measure of support, that is what I will just have to accept.

Our Long National Nightmare is almost over.  Al Franken is retiring from radio.

Actually my thought on Al Franken’s radio show is that if you were to hand me one of his programs, I would edit out about an hour and hand it back as a find and exemplorary and stellar program.  It drags on a bit at times, that’s all.  Al Franken did as fine a job at it as a person who is clearly not a radio professional could, and, with an hour’s grace period, developed a style — perhaps anti-style? — which worked well.

There were a few, perhaps too few as it seemed like it was meant to be a bigger part of the program when originally conceived but the effort involved made it prohibitive enough — legitimately hilarious bits, sometimes with the help of Hollywood elites such as the voice of TV’s Brain of Pinky and the Brain fame and/or Meg Ryan.  I refer to “Senator Wolfman”, an Abstinence Education parody, and — well, The Brain.

It was generally a panoply of earnest expert guests having written earnest books, and a stable of regular liberal guests.

Understand, Al Franken was an accidental Liberal Hero anyway.  Bill O’Reilly successfully inflated him to the logical poster boy for the fledgling (and bankrupt) Air America Network, to the degree that I once talked to this person who can best be described as a Kennedy fetishist of sorts who referred to the local Air America as the “Al Franken Channel”.  This also meant that in the ongoing Republican talk shows’ desire to bury the network as means of political statement, Al Franken has been the chief figure of what has largely been projection: to refer to the most centrist and obnoxiously Establishmentarian Democrat on a liberal radio line-up as “angry and “extremist” is to suggest over-reach.

This was always clearly a temporary endevor for Franken, and the purchasing of Thom Hartmann struck me as preparation for Franken moving out of this.  He will now pursue his Senate race against Norm Coleman, which I guess is a go unless the Minnesota Democratic Party Apparatus has a good say in the matter with the obvious question coming to mind: “Really?  Senator Franken?  Do the people want that?”

Where does Lyndon LaRouche get off claiming that his Trotskyite name “Lyn Marcus” was a riff of of the nickname “Marco Polo”?

It’s such questions that animate my mind in shuffling through old LaRouche debris.  I need to compartmentalize these things a bit better.  I was preparing to take a long gander at Mike Gravel, and I was sucked back into de-constructing Lyndon goddamned Larouche.

I realized that the only two politicians I have, unless I still have George Bush and John Kerry categorized (the Skull and the Bones of the actual namesake for my blog) keyed up, are that aforementioned political cult leader and the rather generic Republican congressman with the nickname “Doc” and the actual name of Richard Hastings.  Which is why I can’t just create a “Mike Gravel” category whole-slotted without at the same time finesing it by creating a category for the presidential candidate I’ve tentatively endorsed — Bill Richardson.  I may as well make the creation of a category something other than suggestive of a Hall of Shame.

What fascinates me about Mike Gravel is that his political place screws up the boundary line that the mainstream media (and the Democratic National Committee, for that matter) places on these things.  Nobody is going to actually going to cover the Mike Gravel campaign, but is he mentioned or is he not mentioned when you list the candidates?  The answer varies.  (Actually it seems Ron Paul is in much the same position, which I find a bit amusing as — he is a current Republican Congressman.)

I do believe and I will state again and again from the mountaintop that I do not believe Mike Gravel’s campaign is about anything other than promoting his two pet issues, which at least strikes me as a better use of a presidential campaign that whatever Carol Mosley Braun and her phantom 2004 campaign appartus was trying to accomplish (refurnishing a tattered image of a politician that was booted out of office in an ethical cloud, I suppose).

I was basically dared by a Mike Gravel supporter to interview him.  Upon reflection, I don’t know that that’s not a bad idea — on my part, at least, if not his.  He, so far as I can tell, gains nothing from any interaction with this blog — which has about as small an audience as a blog that is kept regularly updated can have.  If Mike Gravel ever gets an opportunity to be interviewed by dailykos, he should jump at the chance.

Within a week, I will psot “Ten Questions for Mike Gravel”.  It will then float in cyberspace, either answered or unanswered.  Should they be answered, I will then have a most peculiar choice.  5 Follow Up Questions for Mike Gravel?  Move on to other candidates and have “10 Questions for Ron Paul” or “10 Questions for Dennis Kucinich” and march on to the point where I demand Hillary Clinton answer my questions, lest she show herself to be scared, I say, SCARED of the awesome might of the hard hitting Skull / Bones blog?

Okay.  Coming soon: “10 Questions for Mike Gravel”.  If anyone has any questions they’ve always itched to ask Mike Gravel, feel free to either post them in the comments, or post on your own blog so that Mike Gravel may have the opportunity to make this an innovative part of his presidential campaign routine.

#1: The Complete History of the Natural Law Party.  Which would either end up overlapping some with

#2: The 2000 Reform Party Nomination Battle.  A case study in how a third party dies due to its usefulness as a vessel for other-interested.

#3:  A look at ALL of the Presidential Races of Eugene McCarthy, emphasis of the 1992 race equal to the 1968 race.  Skew the Historical perspective a bit, why dontcha?

#4:  The Search for the last Whig Party Candidate to appear on any ballot, the last Federalist Party Candidate to appear on any ballot, and the last actually elected Whig and Federalist.

#5:  The 1986 Illinois Democratic Primary Race.  You know the ones.  Heck, the Executive Intelligence Review or Benjamin Franklin Books could publish it.  No, then he’d have to acknowledge he peaked in 1986 and didn’t get anywhere electorally with his peak.

#6:  The Disjointed history of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party.  Granted, this would have to end up being an essay, but it’s amusing and darkly funny anyways.

#7: The 1924 Democratic National Convention, which was what inspired the oft quoted Will Rogers saying “I’m not a member of an organized political party.  I am a Democrat.”

#8:  The History of the Dies Committee.  Actually I’ve seen this book, so never mind.  Published in the early 1940s, it posited the late twentieth century Red Scare as a precursor to the Dies Committee.  Which is odd, because today, the Dies Committee would be a footnote, a brief mention as the actual physical entity of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities, and a precursor to McCarthy in the 1950s.

So, those are several books I want to read.  I don’t think there’s a market for any of them, but why don’t you write them anyway?

“Although the Labor Party has developed a new configuration of tactical alliances since January 1974, “it is nonsense to argue that the party’s outlook or method have changed over the period of its existence. Developed to greater richness, yes; changed in any essential feature, no.” unsigned article in the Oct. 1, 1979, edition of New Solidarity

Larouchite commented thusly here: People who oppose LaRouche rarely (never?) do so from an opposition tohis philosophy. They usually either ridicule his philosophicalstatements because they sound strange or unorthodox, or, like Chip Berlet, they seem to believe that LaRouche has no real philosophy, just positions of the moment designed to appeal to a proto-fascist constituency.

Actually I’ve found that LaRouche’s critics, not necessarily in popular culture where I will join in the general chorus of smirkers but in anyone who decides to take it up to look into — including Dennis King– have indeed pierced and analyzed LaRouche’s philosophy. It is never an analysis that Scott or any LaRouche likes or approves of, but it is legitimate. And it is the only way one can tie the seemingly disparate political incarnations of Larouche, who has touched down all over the political spectrum. I, in a real sense, would have to disagree with Chip Bertlet.
Recognize, for instance, that LaRouche has consistently from the very beginning been very puritanical and rejecting of any and all things approaching the “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” ethos, and this includes Jazz — which was, after all, a CIA funded plot to destroy the blacks.

As a Marxist, he could project this out as a battle against the bourgeoise forces who wish to divert the working class (and more clearly the educated class who are to guide the working class) from the Revolution. The anti-drug and sex message held a certain appeal to would be Marxist revolutionaries looking ascance at the excesses of their generation, and conveniently sitting themselves up as the Vanguard. As he slid into the alliances with the Right wing and on to the ascension of the Reagan Revolution and the “Moral Majority”, this was easily transferable to Satanic and Secular forces kicking apart our Judeo-Christian values, as per that EIR Education Special I’ve brought up already which essentially shadows the concerns of the Heritage Foundation (before kicking the Heritage Foundation off as part of the conspiracy). This anti-60s backlash continues on today, where “Baby-boomers” is a LaRouchian slur, the better to allow the “LYM”ers to rebel against their parents.

The matter of infrastuture building and industrial development, without any heeding to environmental consequences which he has from the very beginning mocked and at has his “Technology Organs” spewing forth in favor of Industry against any environmental regulation to a degree that would make the Competitive Enterprise Institute blush — oh so very entropic! oh so very entropic!– folllowed through the same surface-level ideological shift. We go from a particular explanation of Marxism which demands the unlimited growth of the human imagination to battling Carter’s “Austerity Measures” and organizing the “Whig Coalition” to the justification for Regan’s SDI program under the rubric of a Nationalistic Vision of American Greatness and on to the “FDR Democrat” model he is at today which apes the Tommy Franks “Populist Democrat” model.
Undergirding this is some lessons from Philosophy 101: Plato verus Aristotle. Order versus Chaos (which gets to why he rejects empericism). Choral Singing versus Rock and Roll.

Never trust a Revolution that makes no allowances for diversions.

Choral Singing. The Importance of Choral Singing, as said by someone completely unassociated with Lyndon LaRouche:

The fact that choral singing is a communal activity is especially significant today when we increasingly rely on Internet-based communications, rather than face-to-face interaction. Several recent studies have shown a significant decline in civic engagement in our communities. Robert Putnam, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government scholar (best known for his book, Bowling Alone) asserts that the significance of choral singing goes beyond music making, and even beyond the arts. He sees group performing as contributing directly to the social trust and reciprocity that is the basis of civic engagement. His work shows that the mere existence of choral groups helps foster America’s democratic culture (see his website, www.BowlingAlone.com).

Chorus America’s study found that choral singers are far more likely to be involved in charity work, as volunteers and as donors (76 percent), than the average person (44 percent according to a 2001 report by Independent Sector). Choral singers are also more than twice as likely as non-participants to be aware of current events and involved in the political process. They are also twice as likely as the general public to be major consumers of other arts – and not just music.

The study explored the depth of feeling that participants had about their choral experience, with many reporting that the requirements of choral singing – discipline, attention to detail, teamwork, and the social value of the experience – combine to improve their daily lives, in both their work and in family relationships. Many choristers testified to the degree to which their choral singing made them more aware of other people’s life experiences, helping them to bridge social gaps. “That connection with people exposes me to ideas…that aren’t otherwise available,” one respondent said. Another chorister said of fellow singers, “These people, whom I love dearly, are politically or religiously very different from me.” Seventy-four percent said they “agreed strongly” that choral participation had helped them develop new friendships.

You do realize you don’t need to work for Lyndon LaRouche to join a chorus, don’t you?