Gregor Samsa’s transformation represents the, um, Beastialization of Man on a Larouchian scale.
Mildly amusing joke that I thought was just sitting there.
Beasts of Burden.

I see that Howie G is following the Defeat of the Mighty Wurlitzer, as Lyndon Larouche approaches final victory.  He has some mighty fine and highly original commentary on the global political ramifications.  Seeing that the Inner Alpha Group is now on the verge of being demolished and can no longer stem the tide of a Global Glass Steagal through their usual tools of Dennis King, the only questions become — when can we expect the signing ceremony and press conference full of the World Leaders? — Stephen Harper, Raúl Castro, Angela Merkel, Hu Jintao, Nicolas Sarkozy, Berlesconi, Putin and or Medvedev — I assume that the David Cameron / Nick Clegg and Barack Obama / Rand Paul tandems won’t show up.  Will Larouche be there, or his name be running through the speeches of everyone involved?  Or is Larouche going to declare himself the square root of two again?
It’ll be interesting to see how this all develops.  I, for one, am not all that interested in the prospects of a New Glass Steagal.  I’m looking for an organization that is currently seeking a New Bretton Woods, though, and there don’t appear to be any out there.  But the fight continues.
… At least until Christmas Day, when the world is set to end yet again.

Funny stuff at wikipedia!  The current barely concealed member of the Larouche Wikipedia Team — Delia Peabody, who “wouldn’t say [she’s] familiar.” She just  “spent a few hours searching the web“. – has achieved what edits s/he has sought, and declared VICTORY!

As far as I am concerned, most neutrality issues have been resolved. I would suggest replacing some long quotes by critics with summaries, as Bill has advocated with LaRouche quotes. But if people want to remove the NPOV tag, I have no objection. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Great!  Instantly shufflings commenced, further re-litigation shall follow I assume.  And immediately, a question:

Why did you remove this?
LaRouche-affiliated candidates used AIDS as an issue as late as 1994.^[1][2]  
The LaRouche movement targeted schools where children with AIDS were attending. As early as 1985 NDPC members ran for local school boards on a platform of keeping infected students out of school.^[3] In 1986 LaRouche supporters traveled from Seattle, Washington to Lebanon, Oregon to urge the school board there to reverse a policy that would allow children with AIDS to enroll.^[4] In 1987 followers tried to organize a boycott of an elementary school in the Chicago neighborhood of Pilsen, sending a van with loudspeakers through the district.^[5] They disrupted an informational meeting and according to press accounts told parents, “The blood of your own children will be on your hands if you allow this child with AIDS in your school,” or shouted at opponents, “He has AIDS! He has AIDS!”^[6] BillMasen (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And on:
FWIW, I recently was at a library doing research on another topic, but I also searched a database of academic journals to see what they had on this topic. The bulk of hits concerned either the role of thrird-party/minor candidates in presidential campaigns, or the AIDS initiative. It continues to be the issue of the LaRouche movement that is given the most attention in scholarly works. It is covered in a large number of sources. We are probably giving it too little weight rahter than too much.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 10 December 2010
I don’t know the answer, though I do find the 9/11 Truth tags disproportionate, though not offensively so.
There is some suggestion on why remove that here:

The LaRouche movement wikipedia article is a real hoot: heckling, harassment, fraud, conspiracy, global warming denial, anti-semitism, homophobia (“Kissinger: the politics of faggotry”?! Isolate and ‘cure’ AIDS patients with directed energy beams?!), gold nuttery, Obama hitler/swastika posters, it just goes on and on.

I guess now that the wikipedia articles have been tackled, this problem will no longer fester.

My high school library had a subscription to Fusion magazine for some reason. We quickly figured out it was a LaRouche publication and used to make fun of it in study hall. Good times …

1) This never fails. You and a friend walk past the LaRouchie’s literature table. Friend shows (or pretends) interest in whatever crap they are pushing that day. Grab friend firmly by arm and drag them away saying (loudly): “Pay no attention to those people. They all work for David Rockefeller.” The result has to be seen to be believed.
2) This one only worked because they led into it. Chat them up and show some vague knowledge of what they’re up to. Then slowly disclose that you know who Chip Berlet is. (It was easy for me because the LaRouchie said to me, “That sounds like you know Chip Berlet.”) Once you get them to that point, say something like, “Why, yes. He’s a good friend and we had lunch last month.” This all just happened by chance, but Chip is a friend and it was the best rise I’ve ever had from the LaRouchies. Imagine rabid religious nuts convincing themselves that you just had lunch with Satan himself.

Suggestion: instead of evoking Chip Berlet, say that you’ll look into them on wikipedia.

Because of his equally bonkers German wife, LaRouche also keeps a political presence in Germany. However, Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s successive parties have somehow always failed to win any electoral support whatsoever, and their membership is estimated to be in the lower three digits (most of them, one suspects, undercover agents from Germany’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which keeps a close eye both on cults and on extremist political movements).
That’s an old joke, used with reference to the kkk.  In the particular case of this org, it’s false.

On the “Big Worldwide, blockaded in US Media” kick:

By the way, km.ru appears to be used quite often as a source in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is used in articles on topics related to Russia.[4] How often is it used in articles on American politicians?   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I like how the first reference with km.ru is to Igor Panarin.

Y’know it’s easy to mock Larouche.
 Not worth many points in the game, is it?
But delve about here , beyond the cult concerns and into the “Political Effect” (the full thrust of which I waver on) —
There is a part of the LaRouche effect that isn’t laughable, though. Some of the messages that the LaRouche groups spreads are passed on by other groups that don’t claim to have any relation to LaRouche.
— Expand on the basic problem of the murkily attached “Splinter” groups — Solon — which we see a page on solon recently updated at laroucheplanet —
In this line, the somewhat laughable recent “AIM” piece about the Larouche — Tarpley — Alex Jones org  is at least “grain of truth” worthy.  With Tarpley, you’re watching around the ways of some other disseminators — Progressive Press.

If that larouche group are against dumbobama, then I am all for them. REGARDLESS of who or what they are.
Sure.  Sure.  But why not just stop at Orly Taitz?  Oh, wait:

I’ll add one thing in hopes that you will not continue to miss my point. As American Dr. Leo Alexander pointed out at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal after the end of the war, the genocide began quietly in the hospitals, and because it was not stopped there, it gathered momentum, until it grew to the dimensions of mass extermination. This time, if you wait until you see mass extermination, it will be too late to stop it. Stop it NOW.Yeah.  The curious thing about this line of reasoning is that any regulatory change in the Health Care Bureacracy, minor or major, can be considered straight from Hitler.

The great thing about this line of reasoning is it’s so adaptable to any minor (or major) shift in any bureacracy.

Still, you try to rationalize the comparison between Obama and Hitler. Clearly you just don’t get it. More to the point, I’m assuming it wouldn’t serve your argument not to. But if you want to search through history to explain Hitler’s raise to power than help yourself. The difference between Hitler and Obama – and history will bear this out – is that Hitler was an insane xenophobe, Obama is not. Comparing Nazi Germany to this nation at this point in time serves nobody. It’s hardly accurate and most important, it’s disrespectful to our President, our country, 6 million Jews and countless homosexuals, Russians, Gypsies and so many more.

No.  Wait.  Hitler was brought in by the British, and… had a Health Care System… and…

I have not been able to read through the head of the Larouche Cryonics Movement and Piano Player’s new favorite — Rolf Witzshe — to see where he differs from Larouche — seems to be saying the same thing:
Rolf Witzshe is challanging the larouche NAWAPA plan with a better plan that is amazing. Witzshe is an amazing writer in the tradition of Classical Humanism…
This is an interesting development for the Larouche Cryonics Movement and Piano Player.  Maybe Rolf Witzshe is advocating for a bigger NAWAPA?

As for the “evils” of Capitalism, I am much in the same frame of mind as was Trotsky, as James will remember from a program RFPI carried some while back…I lost my archives of Tape Recordings, but a man was discussing Lyndon LaRouche. He mentioned that his College Professor was a admirer of LaRouche because Lyndon was a Trotskyite.Capitalism is NOT evil. Socialism, which speaks of “SHARED WEALTH” then places the “GOVERNMENT” as the “OVER-SEER” of said wealth IS evil. History teaches BRUTALLY that there is NO GOOD in the
HEART of MAN, and the KINDEST Soul, being granted TOTAL POWER over his
fellows, becomes a

This Vintage Thomas Friedman self-parody is getting some blog mentions across the partisan and ideological spectrum.
More than ever, America today reminds me of a working couple where the husband has just lost his job, they have two kids in junior high school, a mortgage and they’re maxed out on their credit cards. On top of it all, they recently agreed to take in their troubled cousin, Kabul, who just can’t get his act together and keeps bouncing from relative to relative. Meanwhile, their Indian nanny, who traded room and board for baby-sitting, just got accepted to M.I.T. on a full scholarship and will be leaving them in a few months. What to do?
“More than ever” suggests that this very specific metaphor  has been building for some time, that it only looked a bit like this very specific metaphor just a little while ago.  I for one don’t think it’s accurate, as Mr. Friedman forgot to mention the heart-ache of breaking the death of the pet goldfish to young Tommy.

We may get the government we deserve.  The Tax Cut Deal can be seen as the first act of the incoming Republican Congress, and I guess you can say the first act of the second quarter of the Obama Presidency.  It bogs down in the House for the moment, naturally, because after all — the House is still run by the outgoing Democratic Congress.
Incidentally, the vast array of Lame Duck session docket — Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and START, the dead on arrival DREAM Act,  Aid to 9/11 Workers similarly dead — are the last acts for Obama v 1.

The theory of the Deal — for the Obama Administration – runs something along the run of punting the upper class tax cut issue down to Election 2012, in order to free up his final gasp of something stimulative for the economy, because he will get squat through the next two years.  Theoretically, the other issues on the docket for the Lame Duck session will filter through, except for the strange assuredness of McConnell and Graham that there aren’t close to enough votes (under the theory of two votes looming that large, I suppose) — saying they know exactly what’s in Susan Collins’s head.

What I’m waiting for is the final graph for Historical use (leverage, you might say) of the Filibuster.  The under $250,000 tax bracket Bush Era tax extension failed the Senate with 53 yes votes, you understand.  And the whole mass of Republicans took to the floor and declared this a “Dog and Pony” show because… an issue was brought to the floor and failed by will of the minority in one Chamber.  A further Dog and Pony Show is insisting on blowing $800 Billion in the deficit while hawking on the Deficit.
Likewise, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” spiel from the John McCains of the world keep repeating the one about “this was a political promise” from Obama — highlighting the “political”, swirling the word with a menace — as though there can be no policy implications therein.

Grumbles abound on that “Deal”.  The Problem — we kind of get the government we deserve– and won’t accumulate enough pressure points to evade a pressure point and defeat the conventional wisdom of the pressure points of how the line has been framed. 

I note for the record that Jim Webb’s for it — the man who gave the only worthwhile “Democratic Response” to a Bush State of the Union Address.  This is good, because I’ve always wanted to pin the grumbling Webb down to some policy line (as opposed to sometimes slimy rhetorical line).

Interestingly, I can envision a scenario where Obama is re-elected, the Democrats pick up the House, and the Republicans gain control of the Senate.  You only need look at the “Map” to see how that could transpire.  A different dynamic in subtley different ways.  Or maybe not.

I forgot Zell Miller (and really, why would I remember him?)  There’s not much more that needs to be said about him — blah blah blah, roll out a “Duel”, roll out a “Spit Balls???” — except that perhaps he fits this John McCain category even moreso than John McCain.
His cohort in Republican Party Convention speaking, Joseph Lieberman, does not fill the bill — he’s always been what he’s always been — his starting point at tilting gratuitously at his party has seen only a slight up-tik, and in order to qualify it would have to be even more habitual.

Also, somewhat counter-intuitively, Sarah Palin — but she may fit a different category — when going “National” sharpens disengages your parochial governing concerns — in a way like Zell Miller, except perhaps huing closer in line with some of her partisan line.

Forebears of John McCain in terms of post-election late career shifts to sharpened confrontation?

The two answers given to James Fallows are Alfred Smith and, by way of his Atlantic Magazine colleage Te Ta-Nehisi Coates, John Calhoun.  Odd choices, both, so far as I understand American history and these two personalities.

I believe the gubernatorial career of Alfred Smith gets tagged a bit too tightly as a precursor to Roosevelt’s gubernatorial and presidential careers.  This is something of a propaganda coup from members of the Roosevelt Administration’s who wanted to make the case that the “New Deal” had its origins with the now frothing Smith.  Smith’s career contains more continuities than disruptions — the curious ideological straightway took the core of Alfred Smith’s support network from the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment straight into the Liberty League.  The 1932 Party Platform that had a Roosevelt speech writer remark on how to reconcile with his record with a “Don’t” was Smith and company’s creation. 

Looking at John Calhoun, I don’t know that he was ever moderated in temperament or views.  He prepared to go to war for the Southland with President Andrew Jackson over Nullification, and ended his career in 1850 throwing to the North an ultimatium to extend Slavery to the territories or… Secession.  It seems a rather consistent career.  If he had Nationalist predictions that let him into the John Quincy Adams and first Andre Jackson administrations, it rather ended early in his career.

The answer to Fallows’s question may lie with a large number of segregationists who sharpened their attacks as the issue came into the foreground.  Then there are some populists — the final act of William Jennings Bryan on behalf of Prohibition and Creationism — or the career arc of Tom Watson from attempting to form a bi-racial populist coalition in the late 1800s to using race as a wedge.

Just so you know… Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Hoard Dean, and Hillary Clinton have denied any intentions on challenging Barack Obama for the 2012 Presidential elections.  Hillary Clinton appears to have to deny future presidential ambitions in every country she speaks in — though, I guess the suggestion tends to run to 2016.

Russ Feingold had to deny any intention on running after this comment from Lindsey Graham.:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested Thursday that Feingold might fit the profile of such a candidate, telling conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham that “I like Russ, and he may run against Obama in 2012.”

Such speculation apparently began with Russ Feingold’s concession speech, see here.

It’s been a week since Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin lost his bid for a fourth term and concluded his concession speech with a ripsnorting call to action: “It’s on to the next fight. It’s on to the next battle. It’s on to 2012!”

Was Senator Feingold hinting that he may run for president, presumably in a Democratic primary challenge against President Obama? Or perhaps he was thinking the other senator from Wisconsin, Herb Kohl (D), may retire in 2012, and Feingold might compete for that seat? Or maybe he wasn’t thinking all that specifically, and just having a Howard Dean moment. Hard to believe it’s been almost seven years since the onetime Democratic presidential candidate delivered his famously over-exuberant concession speech in Iowa that ended with a screaming “Yeah!”

Or maybe the political chattering class is full of it, parsing and pilfering.  There is, I have seen bandled about, rumors of Feingold taking over for a rumored retiring Kohl — but to speculate on it is to contribute to the same “Feingold for President” talk.

Naturally.  Stick it next to your “Ron Paul 2016” materials.

Dennis Kucinich for President has a facebook page, which garners this attention:
Normally, I wouldn’t pay a simple Facebook group any such heed, but Dennis Kucinich’s official profile is an admin on the group.
Surely new cafe press style merchandise will be plopping out soon.

Howard Dean will not be running for President, even though John Fund at the Wall Street Journal speculated about the possibility.

Vermont’s former governor Howard Dean dispeled rumors on Thursday that he would challenge President Obama in the 2012 Democratic Primary.
The controversy started after a Wall Street Journal columnist wrote a think piece speculating what it may mean for the Obama team if the republicans win control of one or both chambers of Congress. From there things spiraled out of control in a world of viral media.
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote an op-ed piece on election day. The piece questioned if republicans took control of Congress, would Obama compromise with them and would that further dissatisfy progressive democrats enough to have someone from the left run against the president in the primary?
Eric Davis is a political analyst. He said Fund goes on to hypothesize a few likely candidates for the job.

Crooks and Liars:

That does it. Obama needs to face a strong primary challenger. And no, I don’t care if it costs the Democrats the White House in 2012. Obama had a golden opportunity to have an actual victory — the first he’s had since he killed that fly back in 2009 — and he’s flushing it down the crapper. We cannot have this guy representing us anymore. He is too weak to lead.

Expect to see that pop up from time to time.
At the moment, Alvin Greene is the most credible Democratic opponent who has made definite moves to run.
But we can always go the 3rd Party and Independent route.  Rutherford Hayes is running.

On the Elephant side of the ledger, Everyone and their brother is said to be considering a Republican challenge.  That should be some massively crowded debate.  The “actual”ities break down in rather odd alignments.  The front-runner is either Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, depending on how you guage the electorate — which may mean that you can bracket the race (as David Frum has) as “Politicans” versus “Media Stars” — with Romney leading the Politicians and Palin leading the Media Star bracket.  John Thune, meantime, leads the anonymity bracket.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) did a little less dancing. “I just think, if [Obama] caves on this, then I think that he’s gonna have a lot of swimming upstream [to do],” said the Iowa Democrat, a unabashed progressive who has been less reticent than most in criticizing the White House. “He campaigned on [allowing the rates for the rich to expire], was very strong on that, and sometimes there are things that are just worth fighting for.”

And if he decided to compromise away from that, a reporter asked the senator.

“He would then just be hoping and praying that Sarah Palin gets the nomination,” Harkin replied, insinuating that there would be few other Republicans that Obama could assuredly beat in 2012.
To be sure, a Sarah Palin nomination increases the chances of a Sarah Palin presidency.

The standings for the NFC West of the National Football League show something I had been anticipating, and rooting for, since the League realigned to four team divisions near the start of the last decade may be coming to fruition.  It struck me that divisions of 5 teams were able to stem this from happening (though the configurations always resulted in a funky situation where the 4-5 matchup had better teams than the 3-6 match-up), but slashing down a team begged this outcome as an inevitibility.  The dream of a 7 and 9 Division Champion is coming right down the pike!

Here are the current standings.

St Lousi Rams  5 wins, 6 losses
Seattle Seahawks  5 wins, 6 losses
San Francisco 49ers 4 wins, 7 losses
Arizona Cardinals 3 wins, 8 losses

Here’s your excited sports blogger take on the remainder of the season.
The playoff race in the NFC West is really heating up with only five games remaining
Oh yes!  How about the Seahawks’s chances?
I think it’s more realistic that they go 2-2 heading into the final week, and that final game of the season might just decide who goes to the playoffs.
Yes.  Let’s circle that final game of the season, sure to be a game for the Ages.  St Louis has the tie-breaker, so I guess what might be great, and as plausible as anything looking at the schedule, is if Seattle comes into that game at 7-8 and St Louis at 6-9.   Unfortunately the Seahawks have the Panthers coming up this weekend, so they’re going to probably even up their record.  After that, a road game against San Francisco — could go either way  — a frightening possibility for a victory before the teams’ two losses against Atlanta and in Tampa Bay (Tampa Bay struggling to get into the playoffs and likely will miss it, with a record right now of 7 wins and 4 losses).  Saint Louis may have three straight losses coming up.  Or they may go 2-1.
San Francisco’s chances?
Assuming they lose to the Pack and Chargers, they would have to sweep the division games and hope no one finishes higher than 7-9.

“Oh, man, there’s some ugly football in the NFC West, that’s first and foremost,” Warner told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.   “I know we’ve been bad for a while, but at least there always were a couple teams that were pretty competitive. Right now its pretty hard to watch, most of the teams have been pretty uncompetitive when it comes to playing against good teams in the league. “OR back to “ramblin fan”:  Regardless, it should be a fun ride for the next five weeks, so just hang on and enjoy the trip. I know I will.

 

Because it’ll bring rollicking sports commentary like this:
Former NFL coach and current ESPN analyst coaching candidate) Jon Gruden suggested during Monday night’s San Francisco-Arizona snoozer that the NFC West winner forfeit its automatic playoff berth.

It’ll be entertaining to watch (if you follow sports in the most curious and cynical of lights), though not so much the actual games.

Technocracy, Inc ran an ad for a week on KPOJ the week before the Thanksgiving, which cut out one line of the the previous — the somewhat creepy suggestion that not only might Technocracy help mankind discover new heights of accomplishment, but it might be needed to “simply survive”.  I surmise it fell out with their focus group.

Anyway, they invited KPOJ listeners to attend a meet and greet and discussion at the BiPartisan Cafe.  Googling, this is the only item I can find of someone catching it.  Besides me.
So the nagging question that isn’t exactly keeping me up at night:  Did this ad buy give them exponential growth in discussion group numbers?  Good showing at the BiPartisan Cafe the Saturday before Thanksgiving?