Watching this trailer for the Alex Jones fun-pack “The Obama Deception”, it occurs to me that these folks have set it up to track any time a politico says the words “World Order.”  I had always assumed that it was pegged at “New World Order”, but apparently the word “New” isn’t necessary.  A couple possibilities.  #1:  Obama has not used the words “New World Order” often enough, such that they have to settle for a “World Order”.  #2:  The NWO Oligarchs know just how big a taint the words “New World Order” have, and as such in conversing about such and such an international agreement are content to just use the words “World Order.”

More illuminating material from Jones: Just go ahead and skip the nazi documentary footage to :57 — it’s just your basic runof the mill Nazi Stormtroopers that is standard for this type of thing.  Jone’s performance here brings to my mind a Possibility #3:  World Wrestling Entertainment (formerly the WWF until the Panda-lovers sued for the acronym) has usurped the phrase “NWO”, and thus have to drop the “New”.

Over much of previous progressivism had hung an air of patronizing the unfortunate, of helping the group that reformers often called “the little people.”  The attitude of the new liberalism was spoken with classic tartness when Joseph Mitchell presented his stories “McSorley’s Wonderful Saloon.”  The phrase “little people,” Mitchell declared, was “repulsive. . . .  There are no little people in this book.  They are as big as you are, whoever you are.”  The point was carried to its further significance by a discerning, upper-income liberal, who added: “For quite a while I have lived in a commuter community that is rabidly anti-Roosevelt and I am convinced that the heart of their hatred of Roosevelt is not economic.  The real source of the venom is that Rooseveltism challenged their feeling that they were superior people, occupying by right a privileged position in the world.  I am convinced that a lot of them would even have backed many of his economic measures if they had been permitted to believe the laws represented the fulfillment of their responsibility as ‘superior people.’  They were not permitted that belief.  Instead, as the New Deal went on, it chipped away more and more at their sense of superiority.  By the second term, it was pressing hard on a vital spot and the conservatives were screaming.”

 — — — (Anonymous person quoted in Joseph Mitchell’s book quoted in Eric Goldman’s Rendezvous With Destiny)

Alright.  A proper analysis of the Stock Market yesterday, gotten from a message board I frequent, was “The Market seems to have reacted to the Obama speech by going sideways” — which is to say at any given time yesterday, the Dow was up or down.

Hence, Drudge was playing games yesterday.  The one thing you can say is that it’s a bit more comfortable than seeing a stock market up-tik, and the up-tik being credited to Ben Bernake commenting that he believes the Recession will be over by the end of the year… which, if that’s what it takes to get the Dow Up and if the Dow is the end all be all (really, it’s import to the Front of the Line of Economic Coverage comes from it’s numbers flucuating and thus having hard numbers to follow all day, hence Drudge’s headline), Bernanke could just say every day “Yep!  Recession Over in 300 days!”, every day that same line — then we’ll be right back on track to Dow 36,000.  (Or, good lord, Customers who bought that book also bought Dow 40,000 and Dow 100,000.  I made a mint off of my quickie book Dow 900,000,000,000,000.)

But, it’s interesting to note the luminaries who post to thinkprogress.  Check this out, it’s an effect that you’ll see just about everywhere:

Comment #4 is raynman Comment #5 is fletc3her.  Names picked why, who knows — Commenter #4 may be a Dustin Hoffman fan, Commenter #5 must be a fan of the old Popeye and Superman animated cartoons, and of the number 3. 

Okay.  Now we get to the part that is always a little bit fascinating.  The Big Names.  This Think Progress post was read and commented on by John Kerry, Henry Wallace, Ape-Man, and Eugene Debs.  John Kerry is a conservative — I guess using the nom-de-plome of an unsuccessful presidential candidate? — who sends a shrill siren against the Liberals, which inspires commenters to come out as the former vice president and later Communist Dupe of a Third Party presidential candidate Henry Wallace and the Socialist Agitator and Pacifist Political Prisoner Eugene Debs.  (And, um, Ape-Man, who needs no introduction.)  I am not entirely sure the depths of this political commentary — are Henry Wallace and Eugene Debs seeking to expand John Kerry’s historical purview, or perhaps John Kerry’s more limited ideological spectrum?

Later on we have the slogan names “IgnoranceIsNotBliss” and the always present partisan anony-names “RepublicansHateFacts”.  About the only interesting name after the Kerry–Wallace–Debs trio is the “Dogfather”.  Get it?  It’s Godfather but with the God reversed to Dog?  I don’t regard “Barack Obomber” as interesting, though I will suggest that the name could very easily be picked up “from the left”.

In Bobby Jindal’s defense:

Bobby Jindal’s performance is simply the latest in a long line of poor or lukewarm “Oppostion Responses” to the big Presidential “State of the Union” or “Before Joint Session of Congress” speech.  It’s a long line of speeches that was only broken by Jim Webb’s speech from a couple of years’ ago, and in the Democratic tenure under Bush saw a couple “joint Democratic House and Senate” leader back and forths, and most notably for comparisons’ sake a lackadasical performance by supposed vice presidential and future presidential timber Kathleen Sebelius — who was thus roughly in that equivalent position that Bobby Jindal is now in.

Jim Webb was the exception that proved that these things don’t have to suck so many eggs, though there does not seem to have been any follow through.  The commentary is rough here, my favorite line being that  “when future historians look back to spot where the nadir of Republican politics lay during this era, they will mark it as Bobby Jindal’s Response”.  I also give it up to the Democratic (and currently Democratic leaning Independents) “viral” meme-makers for marking Jindal to “Kenneth from 30 Rock”.  This new immediacy of pairing “to the national stage” politicos with comic portrayals, and two makes it a trend (ie: Sarah Palin — Tina Fey) — looks like a pretty potent weapon.

As for the substance of Bobby Jindal’s speech?  That’s a stupid question — you know what I think.

For whatever reason, some comments I made were showing up in the “Spam” folder.  So I had to wade through the spam to get my comment out, and thus I had the pleasure to read… what, I don’t know.  (Note:  this was filled to the brim with links.)

I over you are not that old to reject sex with your partner. But what is the warranty that you compel require ample and prolonged erection to unabated your reproductive motion if you are pain from helplessness due to erectile dysfunction (ED)?

unfitness to convey out all the propagative functions, solidly, leads a man to impotency.  Erectile Disfunction is one lenient of impotency and accordingly is the induce of downheartedness to the people with ED.

Was this translated from Japanese?  It reads like it.  Something like this: 

New York Times, September 14
President Gets Greatest Ovation on Reaching Coast
Tumultuous Seattle Crowd Almost Overpower Police in their Demonstration
Tribute to Him as Leader
Sullen I.W.W.’s Conpicuous in Throng with Hatbands Urging Deb’s Release
Two Speeches During the Day
Sets Forth America’s Duty in Tacoma Address — Climax in Arena at Seattle

Reaching the Pacific Coast today at this city, President Wilson received a tumultuous ovation which found a climax in a great meeting tonight at the Arena.
The immense demonstration during his visit here when he revviewed the new Pacific fleet off the waterfront followed a splendid reception in Tacoma in the forenoon, where 30,000 persons greeted him in the Stadium and he later spoke to a large audience at the armory.
It is doubtful if in the history even of recent political campaigns a more remarkable demonstration has been witnessed than that of which the President was the centre in Seattle.  The spirit of the crowd at times seemed to be akin to fanaticism.  The throngw which jammed the principal streets and overflowed into the side streets that run off the main arteries of the city at a considerable grade joined in a continuous and riotous uproar.
At times it appeared as if the crowd would overcome the polic, soldiers, and large force of Secret Service men in their efforts to reach the President’s automobile during the afternoon parade and the shorter trip to the Arena in the evening.
The police at times were forced to use harsh methods to check the spirit, and they fought the throng with shoulders squared, feet firmly planted, and clubs drawn.  Men who sought to get by the guards were often thrown back by force and on the threat of being club.  A score of Secret Service men, each a giant in strength and determination, surrounded the President’s automobile or stood on the running boards, their eyes ever watchful, their bodies a force of protection.  More than once the Secret Service men were forced to leap into the throng which had passed the police lines, and hurled back men who had approached within a short distance of the President.
At the height of the demonstration in the afternoon parade, when the shouts of the crowd could be heard many blocks, a spectacular touch was lent to the scene when a huge shower of confetti was loosed from the roofs of buildings along Second Avenue.  For minutes it appeared that the parade was passing through a heavy snowstorm.

The demonstration had at some points a sinister note, for there were present in the crowd thousands of members of the Industrial Workers of the World, which is tsrong (sic) in Seattle.  As a hatband of each member of this organization wore a ribbon bearing the words “Release Political Prisoners.”  They have been agitating for the release of Eugene Debs and other radicals convicted of seditious utterances.
Not a few of the men who wore these hatbands had themselves defied the law and served sentences.  They were found in greatest number in the Woodly district, a section of the city through which the President first passed soon after leaving his train.  They were for the most part men of foreign extraction, sullen of face, and undemonstrative.  For several blocks along Second Avenue they held positions on the curb.  Some had literature which they distributed among the crowd.  As a rule these men and the women with them did not join the throngs that attempted to storm the President’s automobile.
There were no fewer than 5,000 IWWs living in Seattle, and more than that number in addition flocked in from the lumber camps and mines.  Many were dressed roughly and had no coats or neckties.  They did not attempt any anti-Wilson demonstration.  It would probably be incorrect to picture them as bitterly antagonistic to the President, but they wished him to know their strength in this section.  Not a few of their leaders boasted that such was their purpose.
During the entire demonstration the President stood in his automobile waving his silk hat.  Mrs. Wilson, who sat beside him was partly hidden by the great bouquets of flowers, presented to her when the train arrived.  The President’s tall figure stood out in bold relief.  He seemed not to pay the least attention to the radicals on every side, but only heeded the enthusiastic throng cheering him.

The article is actually available here, if you desire to read about the carnage that followed after Wilson passed the peaceful radicals of the IWW.

I do believe, if memory serves right, Howard Zinn in his book (and by “his book”, I’m referring to the book that is conjured up when one refers to a singular Howard Zinn book) alludes to this incident.  A bit better than the scraping he had to do to find World War 2 dissent.  I’ll have to look it up.