Well, this should settle the matter.

The Lizard People are issued one collective vote in Minnesota for local and national elections, a practice which dates back to the landmark 1893 case Lizard People vs Minnesota Board of Education. Reptoids were struck from all educational materials in exchange for one vote, mineral rights and several tons of live crickets.

Well, it’s no more ridiculous than watching this debate.

But The Weekly World News has some other fascinating angles covered.

After their crushing defeat in November the Republican Party was left with no clear leader. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hopes to fill the power vacuum, and has entered talks with Satan to do just that.

And why aren’t there more Southerners in Obama’s cabinet?  (“The disparity isn’t an accident”, says the omniscent Associated Press.)  Well, someone has to be poorly represented to make room for the Aliens.:

Obama has been in talks to hire Xaxal, a well-known alien rights activist in the extraterrestrial community. His expertise alien-human relations makes him an exceptional candidate for one of the Agency Review teams. These teams provide the president-elect with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration.
President George W. Bush has all but ignored even bringing alien rights to the table for the past eight years. Many extraterrestrials living in the United States are now looking to President-Elect Obama to make radical policy changes.
When pressed to explain at a recent press conference, Obama simply stated, “Look, I’ve known Xaxal for a long time. He attended Ykard University, the galactic sister school of Harvard Law, and has defended minority rights on 27 different planets in the last 300 years. If anyone else is more qualified in alien issues than him, I’d like to meet them!”

And of course… the promise of Eliot Spitzer before he was busted for prostitution, lives on with…

Bernard Madoff may be free on bail from fraud charges but Bat Boy has pledged to see him punished!

Bernard Madoff, chairman of an investment fund, was arrested by the FBI last Friday on criminal charges of securities fraud. It is believed that investors lost $50 billion due to his scheme, making it the largest investor fraud ever attributed to a single individual. And yet he is now walking the streets a free man, after posting his $10 million bail.

Bat Boy reportedly flew into a rage when he heard the news on his cave’s short-wave radio. It seems he has now made it his personal mission to bring Madoff to justice.

And here I thought the Weekly World News had ceased its existence.  No.  It just did what The Christian Science Monitor recently did.  Print is Dead — all the major news sources are winding their way online.  The Christian Science Monitor and the Weekly World News — venerable old gray lady news sources like those.

So, the ruling we’ve all been waiting for in the great Franken — Coleman Senate recount, as expressed by Mark Evanier, of, um, Groo fame? Is it okay if I chiefly credit him for his work with Groo as opposed to the rest of his career?…

This morning, the Minnesota Election Board tossed out a ballot with a write-in for “The Lizard People” because, apparently, that was a plural.  The voter had voted for more than one person in an office and it was therefore an “overvote.” On the other hand, there was a voter who wrote in “Flying Spaghetti Monster” for some office. That didn’t void the ballot and since that voter voted for Al Franken for the Senate seat, Franken picked up a vote.  If the individual who voted for “The Lizard People” had voted for “One Lizard Person,” that would have been okay.

This doesn’t make sense to me.  I tend to think “Lizard People” votes should be counted for Franken, though I wouldn’t think it is an affront against Democracy if it were discounted, but “Lizard Person” strikes me as slightly more likely to be a vote than “Lizard People” since we are voting, hypothetically, for single persons here to represent Minnesota in the US Senate.  (Note:  as I explained previously, the reason I would discount the vote to “Lizard People” and count it as a vote for Franken is that the voter did not fill in “lizard people” next to the write-in slot, nor filled in an oval in that spot.  But I have to say that this diversion to single entity and plural entity does seem backward in its logic.)

It seems that Franken is on pace to win this election, Coleman’s frivulous challenges proving to be more frivulous than Franken’s frivulous challenges, which skewed the reported vote tallies.  The great thing about this process, though, is that people keep keeping the world abreast on the specific count and at any given time, we see that Coleman is up by five votes, or — as just linked – two votes, or Franken is up by “high double digits”,  — and not one of these figures means the slightest thing, yet they just keep coming.  If I had a free slab of time and nothing more important or more interesting to do with it, I’d try and compile blogging news on these miniscule vote count announcements.  The process actually strikes me as pretty well insulated from the politicking that’s going on, and thus the miniscule election margin definitive enough to count as final.  And that statement almost leads me to hope Coleman wins by three — even if the seat almost looks like it’ll be vacated in that even in a few months as the FBI is investigating Norm right now.

It sounds apocrophyl somehow, but supposedly in the 2004 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton gave John Kerry the advice to come out in favor of the various state ballot measures.  Kerry rejected the idea.  This would show a number of things:  Kerry’s integrity, Clinton’s crassness, also Kerry’s lack of a victory in a presidential contest and Clinton’s two.

It has been observed — by Andrew Sullivan, by Dan Savage, probably by others — that John McCain received 27 percent of the “gay vote” compared to Bush’s … less than 27 percent… I can’t find a straight number on that one.  The increase makes sense for a few reasons:  McCain did not explicitly exploit the issue — perhaps it’s smuggled in with Palin, and Obama is of the sort to be apt to bring Rick Warren in to do the invocation for his inaugural — which was forewarned during the campaign when Obama participated in that tedious faith based forum — which, at best just sort of thrust Warren into a spot-light past your Jerry Falwells and tapped a small handful of right wing evangelical, or right wing evangelical fellow traveler of sorts, voters into his electoral victory.  Obama is acting just as his campaign indicated it would — weren’t you paying attention?  As such, why was the gay vote for McCain merely 27?  Why not 35 percent?

There was this moment in the vice-presidential debate where Biden and Palin were asked about, in succession, Do you support domestic partnership, Do you support gay marriage.  Biden answered to the former with “Yes, (hemming and hawing), and the second with “No, and (a minute of hemming and hawing).”  This leaves Palin with the same answers of “Yes, and (a minute of hemming and hawing)” and “No.”  It struck me that, tonally, Biden ought to have answered “Yes”, and left it at that for the first answer.  This would have provided a difference between the positions of Biden (by extension Obama) and Palin (by extension McCain) — the difference between “Yes” and “Yes (hem and haw).”

For the son of Basil Patterson to  pass over the son of Mario Cuomo in order to pick the daughter of John F. Kennedy seems really lame. — Scott McConnell, at The American Conservative blog.

At least it’s not “George Bush, the son of… GEORGE BUSH.  Al Gore, the son of… AL GORE.  Adlai Stevenson III, the son of ADLAI STEVENSON II, the grandson of ADLAI STEVENSON.  (I point to that one because it’s a weird sort of lineage.  Also there’s a missing Stevenson I have to wonder about.  Was that one intent on running off to a safe job as an accountant or something?)  Harold For, Jr… the son of HAROLD FORD.” 

Bob Casey, Jr… John Sununu…

At least Caroline Kennedy wasn’t named John. 

But Caroline Kennedy’s compelling reason for being Senator, in case you’re wondering, as expressed by why she joined the political fray last January in making an endorsement to Obama:

<i>Q: Why have you stayed out of presidential politics until now? And what kind of a decision was it, given what you represent?

Kennedy: “I really felt like it was a crucial moment and if I had something that I believed in, then I really owed it to myself to express that. I recently turned 50, so I figured, I’d better get going — what am I waiting for?”</i>

Put it on a bumper sticker for her 2010 bid.  <i>”Vote Caroline Kennedy For US Senate: She Turned 50 Awhile Back And Felt Like She Needed To Get Going.”</i>  (lifted from the comments on that nytimes page.)

The horse race aspect is kind of interesting.  In 2010, the Democrats’ gaze on the map is generally better than the Republican, which only means that if it’s a Republican year (as midterms tend to be against the presidential incumbent) it’ll mitigate Democratic losses a tad — for instance, the map was harsh for the Democrats in 2006, and it’s a sign of how disasterous that year was for the Republicans that they lost six seats despite that.  But four senate seats have just been thrown up in the air to semi-incumbency because Obama has gazed the Senate and plucked out Illinois, Delaware, New York, and Colorado.  So, if you’re a Republican strategist trying to win some seats, you start off trying to recruit for those four states, and have a fighting chance where there was less of a fighting chance before-hand.

The plucking of Ken Salazar in Colorado is pretty interesting, because that means the entire Democratic Freshman class of 2004 is now working in the Executive branch — Barack Obama and Ken Salazar.  Incidentally, a good chance of who might run for Ken Salazar’s old seat on the Democratic side?

Why, Representative John Salazar.  And he’s sure to come in with Delaware Senator Beau Biden.

Thank you very much, you’ve all been great.

There is this program produced for Cable Access television by the “Oregon Peace Party”.  You know the genre — it’s this chopped footage of crowds marching against the war — assorted causes smuggled in.  Flash to a speaker at a podium, hair blowing in the slight breeze, and a few sentences from him.  Flash back to crowd marching.  Flash to speaker.  Flash back to crowd.  Flash to speaker.  In this case, two out of the three speakers was Ralph Nader, which makes sense as the “Peace Party” was a party hashed together to get him a ballot line in this last election.

Mind you, this is being aired after the election.  But that’s sort of how Public Access works.  I think this one will work it’s way out of rotation eventually, but who can say?

The program goes through a loop of sorts, as this flourish is interrupted by a photograph of Dick Cheney, or of — I don’t remember — maybe Donald Rumsfeld?, if I had watched further probably of another figure.  Next to their faces, as if produced on power-point, is a quotation from them — all very scary.  And the screen dissolves to a new screen, after which we get back to the boisterous crowd marching (shot taken from the front).  The new screen reads:

“The Oregon Peace Party.  Your Anidote for Dick Cheney.”

Anidote.

Maybe I’m not one to throw stones, as this blog is littered to the gills with various typographical infractions, but there are very few words being shown in this make-shift promotional advance for the “Oregon Peace Party”.  Doesn’t Powerpoint have an automatic spell check?

Hm.  Conspiracy watch time.  Somebody study the video and circle Dana Perino in the Grand Shoe-Throwing Melee.  Where is she and just when is she pushed aside and by what force by Secret Service in apprehending the Shoe Thrower?

Does anyone else around  have black eyes, or did the Secret Service somehow manage to confine their damage to just her?  I demand answers.

I do not know what lead to this — I suspect the first step in that morning came through when the mouse of whoever has the final say in these matters had an accumulation of half a dozen dust mytes which subtley shifted the cursor of the computer in randomly selecting a letter in the middle of the the alphabet from ‘K’ or “M’ to ‘L’ — but yesterday’s featured front page article was the Larouche Criminal Trials.

The other possibility, in tandem with my “accumulation of a half dozen dust mytes” theory, is that the dust, which settled on that mouse, was blown into his house by a Mossad Agent — believing that the brief curiosiety-seeking exposure of a small slice of people breezing their way past wikipedia’s daily features on to, I don’t know — digg? Is that what the kids are into these days, digg? — will cause a negative impression of the lower 90 percent’s opinion of the man — slander, it is called.

Did the Dutch-Anglo Conspiracy against, oh for a quasi-random example, the ravaging of the people of Darfur and a power grab of their raw materials, work?  Anecdotally, I haven’t much.  Well, there’s this blog post.  But what is the connection between the Larouche Criminal Trials of the 1980s and the story of Jeremiah Duggan?  Damned the Oligarchy and its malicious ways!

A workably decent wikipedia article cemented on “Larouche Criminal Trials” is probably more feasible than on Larouche himself — an entry which is permanently a mess–, since the trials played themselves out in public, and were covered by news media that can be cited with comparative ease.

“Weirdly named Schiller Institute”, you say?  As good a name of a German Intellect as any, I suppose, and that’s about the only thing that matters.  But… but… but the Schiller Institute is set up to expound on the works of Friedrich Schiller.  (The since banned but likely reappearing under different aliases argures on the matter of Schiller, with references to Edgar Allen Poe, in wikipedia’s discussion here.  And wikipedia decides to throw out a link to the “Schiller Institute” wikipedia entry at entry Schiller here, due to it being rather unrelated.)

Factnet is still perpetually $500 off from having the “working capital” to operate, but maybe this hyper-flationary return to Weimer Germany economics will get that one back off and running.  I’ve ended up sticking links in the comments section of this blog when I would generally pass it off over there.  Saturday was an interesting case, wherein I posted some item of concern here in the morning, and in the afternoon saw that two items of interest had surfaced onto the Internet.  Such as, for example, this, which sets upon a weird pattern I’ve been seeing — perhaps only because I have a broader net of what Internet ramblings come at me — of someone swearing by the analysis by Larouche, but stating that for some reason he doesn’t make that final connection…:

I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

Well.  An education anew.  Like the LYMers, I suppose… From the roster of historians comes…

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, “England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of …the City of London…

Hm.  Historian Jeffrey Steinberg?  What school of History does he belong to?

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.
Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews.

But… but… this is puzzling.  As Alan Osler pointed out, Steinberg is Jewish!  Doesn’t this “Henry Makow, phD” know that?  It’s a grand point pointed out by Alan Osler, which seeing as I’ve already linked to his post a few times and see that the comments section now drivels over to some oddly amusing stuntery, I’ll link to his comments page, and suggest to jump all the way down to Ashley Mcgee.  Another pointer-outer of the vast number of Jews who surround Larouche is the esteemable “revenire”.  Well, anyways, forward to the product of a Larouchian education, and some source materials…

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke’s Peerage , Jews “have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.” (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.) […]

According to Barry Chamish, “there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine…Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews.”

But this is all far more anti-semitic drivel than I’m terribly interested in posting, so I’ll go ahead and stop.  To get back to the Criminal Trials, there’s some general agreement that Larouche poked his head out and amassed the fed’s attention starting with his suit against NBC — in the Larouchian view it all becomes a persecution from the Power Elites, as discussed and dissiminated by that grand layman historian and blogger “Henry McKow, phD”– hitting some kind of wall especially with a particularly stunning speech Christmas 1988? 1987? — heavy dose of Christian imagery on the trials and tribulations of Jesus Christ, and … we’re off.  Whether they  ponder the case of Roy Frankhouser or not.

Anyway, I see a posting emitting from LPAC “The Triumphant Return of the Weekly Report” — which at one time was the Jeff Steinberg Report, but I think they siphoned someone else next to him as a means of dampening his post-Lyndon succession hopes.  This is Triumphant in a sense that I doubt anyone noticed it was missing — I know I wasn’t paying enough attention to notice its disappearance.

Desparately trying to find some key quotations from Bush regarding the two shoes, I bump into an excerpt from RushLimbaugh.com, which goes:

What people don’t know is Bush told the secret service, get away, you saw what happened, some loco weed threw a shoe. It was Bush who kept that room under …

Good Lard.  Some matters of logistics are found hereabouts.  But roll down in the comments and you’ll find a commenter being outraged that the man had the time to throw that second shoe, and the effect of sedate reacting wears out.

Anyway, your home for Bush-Shoe Throw News is Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent.  He has you covered.  Eventually he is going to have to tag these pages under a category of “Shoe”, though.

Actually it’s not your place for Bush Shoe Throwing Action.  My mistake… it’s not supplying me with my needed sources of known information.  Such as:

Bush, who was unhurt when the Iraqi TV journalist Muntader al-Zaidi hurled two shoes at him during a joint press conference with Premier Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on Sunday, downplayed the significance of the incident saying he did not think “you can take one guy throwing shoes and say this represents a broad movement in Iraq. You can try to do that if you want but I don’t think that would be accurate.”

This is some sort of myopia.  A different version for the phrase “broad movement” is found about here, and more poetically surveyed in a succient manner here.  For the sake of argument I won’t even tackle the matter of level of “breadth” or “broad”ness, and all that. 

But this is still not quite what I’m looking for.  The quote from Bush I am looking for is this:

“I’m not insulted. I don’t hold it against the government. The guy wanted to get on TV and he did.  I don’t know what his beef is, but whatever it is, I’m sure someone will hear it.”

Good lard again.  I know the man doesn’t speak or understand Arabic, or the flailing of a man in the crowd at a time when he’s more concerned by a flying object, but the man did express his beef.  Which is expressed in this:

“This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.”

Again, feel free to extrapulate to any ideology beyond that, or to hem and haw surging and replacing some more democratic or republican government into Iraq as against it, but I gather that’s a fair expression of his opinion.

Seriously, anytime I feel like edging some manner of qualification to a generally negative opinion on Bush he opens his mouth and plummets right back down.

Okay.  One question:

That Christmas song, “I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus”?

Would somebody maybe parse through the lyrics and find the answer to the question, “Who is Mommy kissing?”

Is she kissing Daddy?  OR a man she is cheating on with daddy?

Hearing Christmas songs, and the sort of unrelenting melancholy and depression and dysfunction that are the twentieth century standards (“I’ll be home for Christmas, and etc…. If only in my Dreams“), I automatically suspect the worst.  Mommy is having an affair, and has a thing for red stockings.  Mommy and Daddy are planning a divorce.  They will break the news to the singer of this song as he’s distracted by all the toys he’s opened.