“Children of Satan”* and its long subtitle “Sexual Congress something something” versus “Stop Obama’s Nazi Health Care Plan”?  This demonstrates a shift of style from prog rock, with its long orchestration complete with two minute musical noodling interludes, to punk rock — quick two minute songs riffing three chords on the guitar.  The Lyndon Larouche movement has moved from Yes to the Ramones.

(Sigh.)  Okay, they are receiving more media attention than they have in twenty years.  That being said, it’s very much an asterisk.  An asterisk that allows for some inner contemplation of “Real Player Intrigue”, but an asterisk nonetheless.  On an “Ed Show” (that’s tedious talk radio host Ed Schultz, here with a panel discussion between… talk radio host Michael Medved and talk radio host Stephanie Miller.  Maybe CNN has a point?)

MEDVED: Let me just say, I honestly believe that the people on the fringe who are saying outrageous things — those posters of Obama as Hitler were done by Lyndon Larouche, who, by the way, is a registered Democrat.

The damnedest  “Reagan Democrat” out there, I suppose.

So, I turned on the radio (am dial) this morning, round about 6 am.  And the “News at the top of the Hour” for CNN had a blip of Barney Frank contesting an “Obama — Hitler” questioner.  The media loves a fracus.  And there we have it.  The Lyndon Larouche organization at one of the long time enemies: Barney Frank.  The answer to Barney Frank’s question — “What planet do you spend most of your time on?” — is that it has a url address.   Why is Barney Frank an enemy of theirs?  An interesting question — supposedly a matter of ethical transgressions, but the Larouche organization has a history of standing up for support of black politicos of far deeper and clear ethics problems than Frank.  I conjecture they narrowed the search of an “enemy” through “high profile”, “Banking Committee” and then landed on “Gay”.

I flipped the dial to the Liberal station, KPOJ — local radio host Carl Wolfson, and his co-host (not Heidi Tauber).  They more or less opened their show with the Barney Frank fracus.  And And they categorized the sign waver as a person pumped with the meelee, parroting the line of Rush Limbaugh.  (Wait a bit and they’d have known the truth — note Washington here.)

I feel like I’m in on some really stupid inside joke.

Flash back to our next talk radio host.  And here I found a response to this factnet posting about a New York Larouchian deployment in a heavily Jewish populated New York City district — “Really, what would are they supposed to think?”

I need to get a quick brief on Mike Malloy’s politics out of the way, which I can do with two bullet points.  #1:  Al Franken, his eyes on a political future, forbid Malloy promos from being run during his program.  #2:  It is believed that Malloy was fired from Air America for having a friendly hour-long interview with Webster Tarpley.

Round about 8:30 last night (I say because that’s when I had the radio on), Malloy read a letter from a listener regarding what sounded like this very spot and this very Larouche deployment.  The upshot was a description of a large number of elderly Jewish people ripping this “obviously expensive printing job” (Okay, now I feel like I’m in on some very sick inside joke with that one) in half.  And a question, “Do you really believe these people, a lot Holocaust Survivors, are being led to a state like Nazi Germany?” was met with a cold defiant answer of “Yes.”

I am somewhat disappointed with Bill Maher with this.  The Maher producers have no excuse in not being able to identify them in their extended sessioning, and no excuse in excluding them from this clip — the cast of the rest of the “Crowds” makes their point well enough.  One other fact, not terribly well known, is lost in this thing, and I return back to the “Is this a dumb inside joke?” question.  No, they don’t have Health Insurance — the Central Org in Leesburg dropped the Baby Boomers’ coverage some months back.

Of course, this whole item is a bit of an inside joke, and why — frankly — I never quite bought Avi Klein’s exectation on the death of the cult, or the former members’ statements like this.  It half-lifed twenty years ago, and has just sort of reached its final level, to three-quarters life away after the cult leader finally passes.  The “in” that the small number off on the margins of the margins of the troubled college-aged receives is an illusion of being in political intrigue nobody else is quite privvy to.

It is worth mentioning a rather bizarre item of “Playing Both Sides“, akin to the “They’re Single Payer Advocates leading a vanguard of conservative ‘Tea Party’ Advocates”.  A concern over the conspicuous gun displaying that is taking place has settled into these procedures.

As expressed by the Larouche organization with this.

Hence, the NEXT BIG THING for the Larouche organization, after I suppose they might declare victory of one sort or another with Health Care — or let it pass over when the annual Economic Armageddon comes in October — appears to be concern over Great Britain’s Planned Assassination of President Barack Obama.  It is worth noting, that this had been a previous “BIG THING” last December, when they — for instanced — tied it in with the support of the corrupt black Boston city council-member Chuck Turner (seen here with in exchange of blurred green).  Meaning, the summary of their tropes for Obama for 2008 and 2009 is, roughly:

Obama = Hitler.  (or, privately, monkey.)
Stop the British’s Obama Assassination.
Obama = Hitler.
The British planning to assassinate Obama.

And it appears this bit of cognitive dissonance can be played out for the duration of Obama’s four or eight years (or… eep… some other number?)

There are important side notes always available to drop.  A supposed internal battle between the Clintons and Obama is a key one.  This, of course, makes no ideological sense, except that the Larouchies have it firly in their story arc an “in” with the Clintons.  A show of how little sense this makes, and how inorganic it is, can be shown with Bill Clinton’s speech before the “Netroots Nation” convention (which, I think, is where this deployment item comes from).  Clinton defened Obama’s Health Care policies, the most quotable line being “I`m telling you, I don`t care how low they drive support for this, with misinformation, the minute the president signs a health care reform bill, approval will go up, because Americans are inherently optimistic.  Secondly, within a year — within a year, when all those bad bad things they say are going to happen don`t happen, and the good things do begin to happen, approval will explode.” — tending to negate the “Death Panels” concern.  And he said to be prepared to take “less than a full loaf“, which would tend to be a plea of support that runs counter to the supposed Larouchian “single payer” position.

None of this demonstrates anything anyone doesn’t really already know, but if partisans insist on lobbing the “stink bomb”, a bit of context seems important.  I am guessing that in this moment of footnote triumph, Larouche is receiving a smidgeon of relatively mainstream media interview requests.  From what I understand, this would basically be brushed aside — the better to avoid the fiasco of his appearance on  — and he’ll fall back to that Salt Lake radio outfit, and he’s probably due for a Jeff Rense appearance, don’t you think?

Meanwhile, out in the broader world of politicing — Limbaugh and company will try to  innoculate themselves by pointing to the Larouchies (Dick Armey too!)– (small update: apparently Limbaugh won’t — yet, opting to tell a Barney Frank joke that a Larouchie might tell — see my explanation on why they chose Barney Frank as Enemy), and the liberals will branshish the Larocuhies with their brush  — better off somewhere with this woman (:36), a bad example for their cause.

* It is a show of time passing that when I searched the phrase “Children of Satan” in a database, what popped up sort of academics explaining its hate-group use (for some context to the Holocaust Museum shooter, for instance) and not the series of L-PAC pamphlets put out during the Bush Administration.

Funny quote found at Alex Jones site, regarding the old chest-nut (which predates Jones’s birth) that detention/internment camps are being built around the US desert landscape, for designated use in the not unforseeable future:
The interment camps are strictly for 9/11 truthers. All the self proclaimed engineering experts should be able to figure a way to build a ladder to climb out………right?

A recent bloggers’ quotation (for the blog of the American Prospect) I’ve stashed away, placed in this blog a couple of times:
“Fringe movements often follow a sort of pattern, where the initial genuine energy of fringe devotees is exploited for the financial gain of their leaders, who then collapse into infighting over reaping the benefits.”

 Here’s a “9/11 Truther” at a message board I travel to, and most of this disinterests me except for the one sentence I have boldened

First of all I never said a DAMN THING about any conspiracy. That is the problem with you people that concentrate on who did what instead of what actually happened.
We are talking about an inanimate object hitting another inanimate object. In this case an airliner hitting a skyscraper. The problem is figuring out what could occur as a result of that action. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. The WTC towers were 110 stories above ground and 6 below ground. So the 100th level had to be strong enough to support 10. The 90th level had to support 20. The 80th had to support 30, etc., etc., etc.
So what is the difficulty about knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level? Do you know how much the south tower moved when the plane hit it? Has that been discussed on TV? According to the NCSTAR1 report it moved 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact point. The building stopped the plane in 0.6 seconds even though it was 150 tons doing 550 mph and my extrapolations says the tower moved 14 inches at the impact level.
So don’t throw any conspiracy crap in my face because actually at this point I don’t give a damn who did it or why. So since the building weighed over 400,000 tons and was designed to sway 3 feet in a 150 mph wind people that want to dismiss this with some shallow “conspiracy crap” reasoning but haven’t put any RATIONAL THOUGHT into the physics are TOTALLY UNAMERICAN in the nation that put men on the MOON.
July 20th was the 40th anniversary. And most of the so called TRUTH MOVEMENT talks idiotic drivel. Whether video has been altered or not doesn’t affect physics.

That at least gave me enough “common ground” to post the list of assorted 9/11 Truth miscreants found here.

ROFL

– The would-be politician who was dropped from her party of choice for declaring that Israeli-owned businesses in the World Trade Center were tipped off in advance of 9/11, but blames Jewish interest groups for her own stupidity.

Sounds like Kevin Barret but the wrong sex? I don’t know if he was dropped.
I have exchanged emails with him and get regular emails from his Truth Jihad but pay little attention.
I went to Chicago to listen to Richard Gage last year and met some somewhat fruit loops people but I am not involved with the MOVEMENT in any way. I just put up and read what I want on the net.

AND

– The peacenik who won’t work with any other Truthers because everybody in the Pacific Northwest is an FBI agent.

Must mean Howie. Were you issued a badge and a gun?

– The chiropracter who smoked a big fatty before giving a “lecture”, then sent me a rambling and emotional 5-page screed when I said I didn’t understand what he was trying to say. He’s now a UFOlogist who believes he’s part of ancient Native prophecies. When the 2012 chaos hits, he’s going to head for a fenced-off area reserved for the world’s elite.

Paging Zenman…

That’s all.
I’m wondering if “9/11 Truth” is fading into the fabric of our conspiratorial imaginings, somewhat away from political activism and into a sedate always-at-the-ready market.  There is no “Kennedy Assassination Truth Movement”, for instance.

          “In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him,” said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney’s reply. “He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney’s advice. He’d showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.”

[…]  Some old associates see Cheney’s newfound openness as a breach of principle. For decades, he expressed contempt for departing officials who wrote insider accounts, arguing that candid internal debate was impossible if the president and his advisers could not count on secrecy. As far back as 1979, one of the heroes in Lynne Cheney’s novel “Executive Privilege” resolved never to write a memoir because “a president deserved at least one person around him whose silence he could depend on.” Cheney lived that vow for the next 30 years.

Okay.  He’s out of these meetings.  All Right, then.  What say you, W?

 ” … ”
Okay.  He’s mum.  But then again, we don’t really have direct quotes from Cheney either.  Maybe we can find out what he has to say about this “slam” from someone they mutually speak to.  Hm?  George H W Bush, perhaps?

Can’t reach him.  He’s too engrossed in his hobbies.

  For good or ill, good ol’ Doc Hastings will be forgoing the honor of hosting a Town Hall Meetings — full of raucousness those things are — opting instead to discuss in speeches before Chamber of Commerce units — where he will be speaking out against that “single payer” plan that is, I would say, probably backed by the majority of Obama voters — and is not in the offing. 

This is too bad.  The volitile Town Hall environment could use a sedative, and those that are on edge viewing this debate in Existential Terms need a setting to doze off.

Actually I had been wondering something about Doc Hastings.  Has he wandered anywhere from the pedestrian “Bureaucratic Maze” suggestion  (’tis why Socialism and Libertarianism are always easier, I suppose) to the more lively “Death Panel” parcel, now en vouge?  The answer seems to be no.  On the other hand, this is something that inflicted better souls.

  Johnny Isakson — Republican Senator of Georgia, for instance.  A real yahoo I had not thought of as a yahoo before this last week.   To be fair, the only real reason I’ve pegged him as “reasonable conservative” is that his 2004 Republican primary race (to replace Zell Miller, and with a Democrat who was then occupying the district most famous for Cynthia McKinney, tountamount to a general election), pitted him against a couple of loons.  So, Isakson chimed in on the “End of Life Counselling”, and his role in the past in championing it.  And then, when that became inconvenient in arguring the reasonableness and generally bipartisan nature of that particular policy, he had to pull it back in.  I guess with him we’re just in a state where he cannot allow a part of his portfolio to provide Obama with with bi-partisan cover for an item suddenly politicized.

  Then there is Chuck Grassley.  He represents a sadder example, frankly, sucking himself into the Demagougic Whirl.  It is not enough that he fits the generically understood obstructionist role in Max Baucus’s committee in that arena of wheel-dealing.  (Can we just blow that one up?)  Perhaps the fact is that the space in the role of “Obstruction” has just shifted places.

Enter Arlen Specter, the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat who has a bit of a “trust” issue with his Pennsylvania primary voters (and, for that matter, general election voters).
  He is the one who hosted what I think can now be thought of as the sort Example number One of the Disrupted Town Hall meeting.  I do not know how that one played politically for him — he didn’t really come out looking well in handling it (unlike, for instance, Claire McCaskill of Missouri).  Polls show him now losing to his 2004 Republican primary opponent, the otherwise basically unelectable man of CATO, Pat Toomey — we’ll see how much he can twitter back some trust to someone somewhere.

The history of “Signing Statements” goes like this: sparingly used and clinging pretty well to the  narrow purpose of administrative functions from President Monroe up to President Reagan.  President Reagan than upped the ante, issued an unprecedented 250 of them, using them for challenges of the law being signed.  The new standard set, Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton followed suit — 228 signing statements for Bush, 381 statements for Clinton.

President George W Bush increased the purview once more, who [used] statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio.

Things to follow with Obama on Administration: how far will his use receed from Bush’s — back to the post Reagan era level, back to the post-Monroe era level, or will he go right along with the expanded powers spotted by Bush?  Check in time.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letterto Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.

The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions. And in their July 21 letter, Mr. Frank and Mr. Obey — the chairmen of the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee — asked Mr. Obama to stop issuing such signing statements, warning that Congress might not approve more money for the banking organizations unless he agreed.

Gut check, when all is said and done:  Somewhere between Clinton and Bush.

For the past few days, I’ve been weighing what to do with Lyndon Larouche’s current place in the news, on the edges of the Town Hall meeting disruptions, with the most media attention grabbing of the signs (Obama with a Hitler mustache), and swirling on the outside as one conduit for the “Death Panel” and “Euthanasia” memes.

The effect in looking at how this swirls about in the blogosphere is wearying.  It is a lot of half-witted “gotchas” and less than stellar intellectually dishonest partisan gamesmanship.  The effect is that I don’t think it’s worth wading into this cavern today — let it die down, and if someone so desires to see a mass of links, go to the comments section of my last entry or read around  the last few factnet posts of one “xlcer“.  The upshoot for the cult, though, is the Toxicity — Lyndon Larouche fills the role as a grenade that everyone thinks can be lobbed at partisan opponents.  [Incidentally, when dissing the nature of the Health Care Town Hall Disrutpors, I’m more inclined toward this guy, and everyone can admit that the Larouchies are but an amusing side-show.]

But the general effect of the Larouchies, in terms of “local color” for the scenes, is probably ultimately this, and I can ignore some things here as beside the point.:

Finally, a rather skeevy-looking older man wearing a “DEFEAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE” sign and stumping for Lyndon LaRouche. Much like Nancy Pelosi and the left improperly characterized the Nazi Party as being on the political right, some of the liberals in line were overheard to mistakenly claim that LaRouche was “just another nut-job conservative”; in reality, LaRouche ran several times for the Democratic Party nomination, and is said to be a student of FDR’s economic policies. Some of the liberals around me knew this already, and a light-hearted moment came when many of us in the line engaged in a bit of bipartisan laughter, each of us taking turns acknowledging that folks on both sides of the political spectrum really don’t care much for LaRouche or his flunkies.

I suspect that in the coming days, Lydnon Larouche will be making hay of the Nancy Pelosi psuedo-controversy, extrapulating it into a grander area of intrigue, with him being part of that great Elite Power-struggle  — you won’t hear about that in the mainstream news because, you see, Larouche is the square root of two.  The only vaguely interesting chestnut from the Larocuhies circling around the “Tea-Parties” was a report of a conservative activist taking their Nancy Pelosi Bad flyer, and tearing out the “LPAC” ingsinia for their own waving use.

Regarding the “Death Panels”: First, the Lyndon Larouche organization has been evading “Death Panels” in Great Britain and Germany for six years now, the “death panels” that would investigate the death of Jeremiah Duggan.

Secondly, it’s worth looking at their “fracus”.    The concern he has with his quasi-common cause with the “right” (“quasi” is a key qualifier), where he has set in next to Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin, is that the government  will be placed in a position where it is making value judgements of  lives to society on perceived productivity and worth to society.   The further item for Larouche’s allegations of Obama’s “Nazism”, which ties in here, comes from their interpretation of the Obama Administration’s Behavioral Economics , which — in this case — would have at those , a nudge toward death.

Larouche’s “interpretation” of Health Care policies — the government ridding itself of what they decide are the “Useless Eaters” within a world of scarcity of resources, reminds me of this memo — and his “policy ” toward Kenneth Kronberg.

Of course, there’s also the matter that the org has dropped their employee’s Health Care Insurance, summarize:
While LYM morons are running around the country doodling mustaches on Obama’s pictures, while Lyn is beating the drums on Obama’s Nazi health care plan, we have the following real-life health insurance story from LaRoucheland.
What would you think of a group that cut off a longtime member’s health insurance when that person had a dependent family member in the hospital in critical condition?
What would you think of an organization that stopped paying that member altogether, and, when that member (who for various reasons might have a hard time getting a job) asked what he should do, just shrugged its collective shoulders and said, “I dunno”? (Actually, it was an individual NEC member who said this, one of the most Stalinist of the bunch.)
How does LaRoucheland have the effrontery to babble about Nazi health care plans when it has condemned so many of LaRouche’s loyal followers to death, disease, misery, and penury?

Hard to say..
I first listened to LaRouche about 10 years ago – he may be correct – certainly he is a hyper intelligent guy and appears genuine – but indeed his ideas are RADICAL like no one else ive ever seen, even Noam Chomsky, the anarcho-syndacalist). That doesnt make him wrong though – maybe idealistic more than pragmatic but his predictions of disaster are emphatic and its panning out how he has long foretold.
…
the Zionist banksters at the Fed and Wall Street are propping up the financial markets, disguising the true bankrupt situation with their complicit media empire, to give just enough time to fool the masses with propaganda and lies. just like they did for Iraq, so Israel and their US puppet terror machine can attack Iran Russia has warned this would mean WW3, which seems to be the Zionist objective for their Zionist controlled one world government
………
la rouche actually has a lot of altruistic policys – listen to the very last question on that webcast, and his answer – i mean – the guy has some serious serious points that needs addressing.
the fact that their youth movement is cultish in appeal means very little to my image cause its not unlike most youth political movements…
……….
Yes, good points. But the members act like its the end of the world and only him and them can fix all the problems. People like that can ruin your image so again, your choice.

It is worth mentioning that the next day of their annual Economic Armeggedon is slated for October 12.  Interesting to note:

“Apocalyptic dissapointment” is the scholarly term given to the failure of predicted events of an apocalyptic nature to come about on the date specified by the guru or inspired leader of a doomsday cult, or rather, the after-effects on the mind and body of the cult. The fallout is usually the loss of several, but not all the members of the said cult. In some cases, “apocalyptic dissapointment,” can be the trigger that spells the beginning-of-the-end for the cult, in other instances, it has a minor impact.

History tells us the cult members have enough delusionary power to continue to chant “Larouche was Right”, as they continue their studies.

I’ve been listening to LaRouche for about a year now. He’s the only one with a viable solution that I know of. He’s a little out there sometimes but well worth hearing. More should start talking about solutions in my opinion

@Phil: Lyndon Larouche has been running for US President since 1976…….he is a self described “physical economist”…and his wife Helga is campaigning in Germany for the presidency there…and yes he calls for Obama’s impeachment….His economic historical perspective recalls the Venetian city states that came to power after the great plague in the 1400’s ( I think)…and the many centers of power since then…and the Rise and fall of the British/American/Dutch empire that we are suffering under today…and the rise of the Shanghai Cooperative nations …..and on and on…
I watched the first 30 minutes of his presentation ( the rest later ). So far , the guy speaks much truth, but spoils his delivery at the very beginning with comparing Obama and Schwarzenegger with Hitler . Shame really, because he didn’t need to do that , the (historic) facts he mentioned were quite correct wrt Empires etc. OTOH, he seems to think that the US should “police” the world to rid it of Empires … by replacing them with one (US) Empire didn’t seem to bother him much ?
…………………..

One last note: I see in this latest burst of interest some linking to wikipedia articles.  Which is, as always, naturally why the wikipedia edit attempts continue… with Herschel Krustofsky Sock Puppets number gazillion, gazillion-two, and gazillion-three.

Also, in honor of Lyndon Larouche being a fan of Stephen Colbert, well… click the Colbert Hitler Mustache appearance of a few months’ back for the Colbert bit about Sarah Palin and “Death Panels”:

Also see.

Hm.

The partisan tussle has even infiltrated a meeting that was to be held today in Longview to discuss Mt. St. Helens Monument. The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners hastily canceled the event — which was to feature Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and Rep. Baird — Wednesday afternoon after learning that advocacy groups from both sides were urging followers to show up and turn it into an impromptu health-care forum.

I suppose every meeting everywhere is going to become a chance for Health Care advocacy eruptions and disruptions.  NFL Pre-season practices, for instance.

I feel like running to something apolitical.  John Hughes, maybe?

He defined the genre of teenage comedy movies for the decade of the 1980s.  And for the life of me, I only really know — from that batch of his ouvre — The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller.  I think I have seen Pretty in Pink and I know I have seen Sixteen Candles, but I barely remember either of those two (kind of girly, those two, aren’t they?), and click past furiously the Psychedelic Furs’ song whenever it pops up on pandora.  I don’t see anything interesting about the premise to Weird Science, and would only watch it if someone paid me to.

Hughes means more for others in my age-group, and the age group that proceeds me, than he does for me.  Ferris Bueller has the feeling of a classic rock song that I assume is good, don’t quite remember not having seen, and has been so overplayed that I don’t think I’d have much of a reaction to it if played in front of me.  Yes, Ferrari totaled — whoopee!  Yes — Ben Stein… funny.  Yes, it’s a fairly smart fantasy and everyone would like to get away with what Bueller does, and yes also the time sequence of Mr. Rooney catching the school bus in the evening doesn’t make sense. 

The Breakfast Club goes straight to the teenage audience’s biases in certain ways– the Prinipal a so very vindictive foil.  It has one great thing going for it — understanding the classic dramatic tradition of a set of characters stuck in a single room for an extended time, for emotional claustrophobic effect.  But, unlike — say – 12 Angry Men, this narrative is diverted for a sequence of stoned dancing.  Oh, and also that oddly schizophrenic message that comes with the “Princess” (Molly Ringwald, Claire) ‘s make-over of the “basket case” to conform to societal standards of beauty – a complete 180 from the general message that goes something like “We’re all the same under the skin”.

I see from his list that he did in fact direct Home Alone 3.  Interesting movie experience for me: Out in Russia’s Krasnoyarsk, entreated by a group of Turkish students asking me vague questions.  Strange times –and better that the movie be dubbed in Russia as, I already saw it in the form of Home Alone 1 and Home Alone 2… which was why it was chosen to be shown, I suppose — no point in paying strictest attention — lest I not be able to answer Turks’ vague questions, and eat my endless supply of rice pudding.  The one thing that can be said about the Home Alone Series is that in filming the same movie three times in three different settings, Home Alone 2 becomes a sort of unthought of classic overview for New York City.  I assume Fuerris Bueller is sort of the same for Chicago, but again: how would I be able to tell anymore?