A question:

Looking down this list of Contributions by Employer from Individuals for Mike Gravel …

Who is the Houston Talk Show Hoston who donated $500 to his campaign?

I think Alex Jones heralds from Houston. Is that it?

Circa 1991 maybe, I remember my father and one of my brothers having a conversation — of a type that could exist anywhere between anybody at any time — centered around this question:  Will America elect first a Black President or a Female President?  The answer came out to be “Black president.  Because they gained the right to vote first.”  That logic is a bit strange, come to think of it — because it then follows that there have been more women elected into political office.

Thinking about how this nation conciously and unconciously thinks about racial and gender issues, in a vacuum, sans any particular politicians and circumstances, my answer now would be “Black President”.  (Let alone a Female Black President.)  Simply put, a black candidate has one basic hurdle to clear, and this is to assure white America that he does not fit their stereotype (no afros or dreadlocks).  Joseph Biden gave this away concerning Barack Obama just recently — I, um, hear that Barack Obama is “articulate” and “clean”.  Perhaps Obama is not entirely out of the woods yet (I’d think that Harold Ford, Jr had cleared the racial deck in 2006, but then Corker found the right racial message) — and Barack Obama now has a strange “Swift Boat” type operation going against him which would quite literally place him in a Madrassa.  Couple that with the constant reference to his middle name — “Hussein”.

A female presidental candidate is in this no-win scenario of having to conform somehow to gender stereotypes while showing she is “tough” enough for the job.  In the case of Hillary Clinton’s negativities, I once posted some negative opinions on a message board and received a sort of agreeing response, which casually referred to Hillary Clinton as “bitchy”.  This word is basically non-transferrable to a male politician, who may or may not have the same goddamned characteristics, and is a general article of faith about Hillary Clinton in much of this nation’s mind.  (There are other words, more coded, that have been tossed at Clinton.  Keep in mind: I’m not a fan of her’s, but much of the press on her has been off-putting.)

On the other hand, it’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone refer to Clinton by her maiden name — a dig that many right wingers threw out during the Clinton presidency, an allusion to the fact that she originally did not go by Clinton when married to Bill — marking her, I suppose, as a goddamned Feminist.

The question of answering the question now reflects less about the question in the abstract and more on the skills of the two politicians in navigating these racial and gender currents in American politics.  Or Hillary may win over Obama simply because she has had the opportunity to build a more secure political apparatus — largely passed to her by her husband.  Oh, god, more gender considerations!

Then again, Obama’s greenness and political aspirations may reflect our nation’s desire to have a black president who fits our desired profile of such an event, setting him up for a tumble — perhaps merely to vice-president.  Or he may have caught the right political currents and the right time.  I don’t know.

Jon Stewart’s predictability is showing.  When I heard him proclaim “a veritable Rainbow Coalition is being offered by the Democrats.  America may get their chance to elect the first Woman President.  (shot of Hillary).  Their first African American President.  (shot of Obama).  Their first Hispanic American President.  (Richardson)”  — at the moment he said “African American President” I predicted the punchline “First Elf” — Kucinich.

Via Wonkette, we have as good an illustration, from the National Review “ranking” of the Democratic candidates, the strange plight Mike Gravel has situated himself in:

The old “File Photo Not Available”.  I’d recognize that face anywhere.

The rest of the list is here.  For the Republican side, I will note that Ron Paul is not mentioed, even though if he were to run he would surely beat out their #10 man, Jim Gilmore, and there’s as good a chance as any that their #5 man, Chuck Hagel, and even #6 Newt Gingrich aren’t a’running.

Incidentally, Mike Gravel is being invited to DNC meetings that serve as cattle calls for the presidential candidates.  The Democratic National Committee will hold its annual winter meeting to highlight “Strong Leadership for America’s Future” in Washington, DC from February 1-3, 2007. The meeting will feature presentations from the Democratic Presidential contenders on their visions and ideas for America’s future.  And there’s Gravel.  He has met a line of dermarcation into legitimacy in that front.

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.