I think it was Irving Kristol who commented on the deluge of submissions to his neo conservative or conservative publications of ex-communists testimonials, well nigh not insightful and repeating the same insights of all the other ex-Communist submissions and literature.  Somehow the more merely partisan jumps elide the rule in this day and age.  Witness the over-joyed response to a book by David Mamet — complete with a Weekly Standard cover story (William Kristol’s magazine)– National Review story, etc. — to a matter that’s been met with indifference by, say, The Nation.

But they have a book to push, I guess.

The liberals seem to be a tad self-flaggelating, though, on the score of conversion stories.  The Nation published Christopher Hitchens as he wrote support for George W Bush, before finally parting their ways.  And the kernal for David Mamet’s book comes from a piece he wrote for The Village Voice.

The synopsis for the book suggests that this famous playwright for “Death of a Fucking Salesman” — “Glengarry Glen Ross”? — and “Wag the Dog” found that Beck and Hannity were making more sense than the mainstream media and his Hollywood pals, so he “converted”.  And thus the background for his pieces on our culture.

I leafed through his book, looking for the first thing that struck me as interesting.  Here is something: an item going after Gloria Steinem for a piece she wrote about Marilyn Monroe — commissioned for a book of essays on the famous tragic actress.  He faults Steinem for not understanding the nature of acting, belittling Monroe for how hard she worked at her craft, how much joy she brought to how many people, and in not understanding the lifespan of a career in Hollywood.  Mamet believes that Steinem envisions Monroe as, if she had not died and in a better world of more gender equality, going on to highly didactic works — Medusa-wise.

I didn’t quite pick these from the excerpt of Steinem’s piece.  I will say that in contemplating a career for Monroe that does not shove into tedious polemical work, and with a natural career arc, I imagine something not identical but parallel to — say — Betty White’s career.  Was this option possible or seeable by Marilyn Monroe?  The non-answer you provide gives some credence to Ms. Steinem’s piece.

But the thing about David Mamet — in 1992, sometime before Beck and Hannity had a national radio following — he produced a play called “Oleanna”.  It is political correctness gone amok by way of exaggerated sexual harassment charge at an ivy league school.  Whether the message is correct or not, the point is I imagine Mamet could’ve written this before his supposed “conversion”. Which fits in the banner where culture and politics and policy are not so 1 dimensional.

Lately I’ve seen this conservative editorializing in trying to claim John Lennon, noting his conservative principles.  My basic thought is twofold — 1: Who the hell cares?  2:  You can do so when support for the MIC and defense spending is not part of conservative principles.  The move to claim John Lennon as partisan gadfly strikes me as desperate — but then again, he did end Communism along with Reagan, so maybe they just need to find their way to all of those “Communist – Busters”.

There has been some pretty busy and furious editing on behalf of “Doc Hastings” going on over the past month and a half.   Our trio of editors are an anonymous isp #, Martinstever, and Senor_Island.  They broaden their editing a bit, on over to Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee, though the most interesting item with Jay Inslee remains on the Hastings page — a rather spurious partisan deck-stacking “This time Hastings handily won by six percentage points, capitalizing on anger at Inslee’s campaigning as a centrist while establishing one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. (Inslee later returned to Congress as a representative from the far left leaning 1st District.)“  [I should note that Inslee is now seeking the governorship, so as is the wont of political party headquarters, Washington State Republican headquarters will soon have up on the walls pictures of Jay Inslee with a dart-board with a dart board over them.)

isp # removed “which then determined no action would be taken against former Congressman Foley”, citing it as “negative propaganda which really didn’t flush out what really happened in the least“, and has an axe to grind about the organization “CREW”, which in his vantage point is in that “even the New York Times called ‘liberal'” (hence, “propaganda.”)
There is a line of comedy in adding the phrase “As one would expect” to the sentence “Hastings has received criticism from Democrats for inaction as Chair of the House Ethics Committee,”.  This is clearly the single most desired categories the Doc Hastings editors had need to edit.  In the end, the changing of the word “claims” to “the claim” is quite fair, though we do run into a problem of editorializing with the use of the word and wiki-linking to “urban myth” in “The claim that Hastings fired the entire committee staff to protect Delay has become something of an [[urban myth]].”

The Jay Inslee article sees a changing of the name “Richard (Doc) Hastings” to simply “Doc Hastings.  The trio’s editing attempts of “Jim McDermott” bear some observational interest, and are the partisan policy arguments you would expert, but I am fascinated by the desire to start the Jim McDermott article with “added title as knight” “Sir” — they wish to shorten their guy’s name and expand their partisan/ideological opponent’s?

The editors puts some further clarification on the nature of “hasn’t faced serious opposition since“, which strikes me indifferently, but then tosse in the lob “has become the most popular politician from Central Washington” — which I guess was buttressed somewhat by the inclusion of “and recognizable“.  The most interesting edit in his attempt to toss in good scores from Conservative Republican supporting activist groups is the phrase “one of the most pro-business pro-jobs representatives in the Congress. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives Hastings a score of 94 out of 100 based”, etc… which has seen the “pro-jobs” cut by wise wikipedia editors — the positive spin put on the US Chamber of Commerce in the discussion page falls under the category of “not a general discussion page”.  The hastings editors’ stamp is shown in ordering the interest group ratings from their side and than to the “other side”, and referencing union groups and environmental groups with “some”.

The Hastings editors expand on Hastings’ college attendance, in some usual but skewing of phrases (“attended” to “studied business”), and by putting up Hastings’s post-(ungraduated) awards and honors from CBC — he gave a commencement address and was named “alumni of the year”.

Well, it should be interesting to watch their work, I suppose.

So… Lyndon Larouche, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, John Hagelin, Michael Bloomberg, Ralph Nader… for them, a branch of social therapy weaved …

Fred Newman was a philosophy teacher, but was fired from seven colleges. Later he created something that he called “Social Therapy.” According to Newman, who was not a psychologist, this “therapy” helped people to “overthrow” what he labeled the “bourgeois ego.”
According to Newman his therapy is about “two workers, revolutionary therapist and slave/patient, [and their] struggle together to make a revolution through their practice.” The goal is “helping the slave reach the point of insurrection” and “to make proletarian truth and freedom where there is now bourgeois truth and slavery.”

Somewhere after Al Sharpton, the Newmanites had their own shift in ideological orientation — or, tactical ideological orientation — wherein they moved from a position out on the “Left” over to a dedicated process-reform oriented “Independent” contrivances, ready to bring about change through radically off-beat alliances.  The practical reason is that the Newmanites were useful for various pols — if they gave Sharpton, as they boasted in news accounts at the time, half of his protest marchers in the early 1990s, they now could offer Ross Perot key ballot access gathering know how for the Reform Party, and a ballot line for Michael Bloomberg and Ralph Nader.  Pat Buchanan offered them a splash of media attention — “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Lenora Fulani”, Bloomberg offered public support for their theater charity program, and Ralph Nader? — well, they need votes to maintain the third spot on the ballot, don’t they?

This transformation into the realm of “Independence” gives them a new claim for media attention.  I was not aware of the name Jacqueline Salit I saw in a Newman obituary that she was Newman’s co-host in reviewing Sunday morning political talk shows.  That obituary link takes us to one of their popular-as-curiosity-items Sunday discussions, this on a potential Michael Bloomberg presidential run that was being floated about in 2007.  The two hosts discuss the “Indendent Movement” as though they are the self-appointed spokesperson and king-makers of such a thing, and to them Bloomberg belongs to THEM.  (Since when?  Well  it’s this.)
Their curious “nonideological” ideology provides then with an entre point with this slew of “non party” “centrist” organizations that keep popping up: “Third Way” and “No Labels”.  Understand, throw out the word “Reform” and “Independent” and just about everyone will have an idea of what that means, and be in support of it.  Off of an insane publication, “The Neo-Independent”, Salit gets invited on an occasional Fox News and CNN program as an “expert in Independent Politics” — CNN and Fox News have a lot of time they need to fill —

Okay, this next one runs a bit too far into a game of “Connecto”:
Today’s cast of characters: John Batchelor, his frequent beastly Co-Host John Avalon, the Mayor of NYC, Jesse Ventura, No Labels, David Brooks, Fred Newman, and of course Lenora Fulani.
David Brooks, for instance, is just enamored of a world without Partisan Friction, where the “partisan interests” that “control each party” have been shoved aside.  But I find a couple of items fascinating here.  When I was needling (at this blog) the “Independent Party of Oregon” as a wholly ridiculous entity — (a place-mat on the ballot, to gain endorsements for whatever candidate wins an online primary — a curious contraption.)…
IT BURNS!!!!

Item number two — okay, it’s one thing to pop up on Fox News and CNN as an “Independent Expert”, but… The Al Sharpton Show?  We’ve come full circle here with Newmanitis…

NEWMAN AND DUKE BRING OUT THE LAROUCHE!!! That confluence of two political fringe figures in the news events — Fred Newman’s death and an announced 25 state tour as a way to explore a presidential bid from one David Duke — brought to mind anticipation for … wacky mentions of the name Larouche.  How many allusions did this give Larouche?
Two.
Yeah, well… On Newman’s death, we get this:

Lyndon LaRouche is cackling, having out lived his fellow political cut leader.

After that, we do have something worth looking at as an instructive venture into the future:

It was about time….Fred was a walking tub of dog-shit, sorry it took so long, now I guess his hooker will be looking for another intellectual pimp Ms Folani

May rabid ‘possums gnaw Fred Newman’s corrupt ass to dust!
Lenora (Foolani) Fulani is now doomed to walk the earth with nothing to say and nothing to think, given that everything she did and said was dictated by Newman.
It was POETIC and POLITICAL that Newman, via kidney failure, would literally drown in his own piss…A fitting end to a political con man/pimp/psychotic.
Now the real comedy begins in the Newmanoidal asylum.
You won’t need cable TV anymore, as Newman’s women and wannabe commissars battle over the crumbs he left behind. There will be court drama galore. And poor Foolani will certainly find herself without a job in the end. There will be no more white master to serve.

Ha! Fulani and that In-DEPENDS Party are history. You think da billionayor mayor and the assorted low end outer borough omerta political hoodlums are going to want to sit down with those shrimpheads and negotiate for that line on the ballot? He-yell no, they only wanted to talk to the Big Man–those chowderheads will get eaten alive. Every two-bit political crook’s trippin over each other trying to be the first to snatch that party from Newmans drones.

And it goes on.

Who wouldn’t fall in love with Newman’s cuddly ex-commies described in the CUIP web site? Hell, they’ve gotten beyond that ideology stuff altogether. They are pure structural reformists with not one microgram of an agenda. Right? Right?
Man, that’s so cool and post-modern. It’s like sitting around a campfire with the KKK, toasting marshmellows and grooving on Barry Manilow songs.
Where can I sign up?

Meantime, the quick burst of news flurry regarding David Duke — and his announced 25 state tour “testing the waters” — invited a “Partisan lob match” with larouche as the object tossed about.  Somewhere after asserting Hitler as a Communist, and seemingly that Marx invented anti-semitism… David Duke once was a Democrat, Fred Phelps is a Democrat and… Larouche.  And after the response “Since when?”, it’s…

La Rouche is not a Democrat? In which universe? How on earth can you possibly have come to that conclusion? What distinguishes him from any other Democrat? I think you know very well that he’s a Democrat, and you’re just desperately lying about it.

Stopping for a moment for Occam’s Razor and how many people really spend much time figuring out what party affiliation Larouche has… having called through their presidencies two out of the last three Democratic presidents Hitler and we can toss Al Gore into that mix — “desparately lying about it” is a bit of a stretch.
Further, playing “Occam’s Razor” with David Duke — well, he did win two state-wide nominations with the Republican Party, though was brushed aside by the party in quick course.

This is a bit better in terms of cross-political discussions and “walking across to the other side”:

As a conservative Republican, it was interesting to see how my side is perceived from across No Mans’ Land. The power and unmitigated evil of the forces they are opposing is taken as fact. As far as the activist Democrats are concerned, they are up against something vast and terrible and cunning and well organized and well funded. I have personally seen no evidence that any of this is true, but they clearly believe it. […]
The people at the meeting were generally nice, sincere and concerned about the direction of the country. I say this despite total disagreement with their political views, and more than that, a very basic disagreement about how the world works, what is good for the country, and what the role of government ought to be, among many other things. But their harsh hostility to a largely imaginary evil enemy was the major jarring note. Nonetheless, among themselves they are pleasant and normal and practical. […]
Three good and One bad.  See, there is some elbow room here for political discussion — it would probably take a while to extrapolate for each side of the debate what each side thinks is screwing us over, but we have enough common room for it.

Get ‘im in touch with…

To continue my penchant of defending groups I really dislike

You can easily tell the difference between the Tea Party protesters and the Lyndon Larouche protesters; the latter tend to be young kids (sometimes of color) who look like they’ve stumbled out of a frat party and into a hate rally, whereas the latter tend to be old white folks waving flags and posing for photo-ops with people dressed in tricorns and Colonial garb.
(Or…even simpler: Belmont Street = Lyndon Larouche.  Lincoln Square = Tea Party.)

Back to Chicago, we get to:
After it was over I talked to the LaRouchies outside. As always, they sounded lucid for the first two sentences or so, then fade into La La Land. I liked the map of a global high speed rail network, including a bridge across the Bering Strait. For the trillion bucks, give or take, we spent on the stimulus we could have built a train to Russia. It would have been a better use of the money.
That’s one good and three bad.

Interesting thing here:  Former LaRouchie Wayne Madsen aka ‘Tripoli Wayne’ has been getting a lot of time on RT lately, so no surprise there. Anyway, the Bering Bridge would be the first intercontinental pipeline/railway/highway with its own patron saint: Herman of Alaska. And it would enable the U.S. and Russia to interconnect the world’s two largest gas producers. I think forty of fity year bonds for such a project would be oversubscribed by Korean, Chinese and Japanese bond buyers.

Wait.  Is Wayne Madsen a “former Larouchie”, or is he mixing Wayne Madsen up with Webster Tarpley?
I don’t know if some things make all that difference.  Madsen may as well be thrown in that mix with Tarpley, for all I care.  This Larouchian blogger once  specifically praised Tarpley for not selling out to the Oligarchy — unlike, we see here his reference to former member and “Biofuels sellout propagandist and quandom Rickover  biographer: Robert Zubrin“.

But, Tarpley… Madsen:  Many,many people realized the 9/11 movement is a cult that is rotten with Jew haters,former Urantia Cult leaders,Scientologists,LaRouchies (just get a load of Alex today!) liars,opportunists and egomaniacs and have rethought their position.You illustrate expertly the paranoid style that dominates.Just get a load of Alex today, indeed.

AND

If the above “progressive” movemenst and “alternative” media knowingly allows or permits anything less than full accountability will be de facto mass group suicide and the death of the movement; This is now unfortunatly happening; The party is over!; The “progressive” movement is now giving uncritical air time, including giving or lending demogogic leadership roles and on and off air support to La Rouche & Co., (Re: Webster Tarpley) the Church of Scientology cult, (A Scientologist is on Pacifica’s national board) or racist, anti-imigrant, anti-national healthcare, anti-public education, pro-Tea Party, pro-Republican Party, pro-total prvietization, pro-deregulation, pro-military, Pro-Libertarian Party/ closet Republicans, global warming deniers and right-wingers lke Alex Jones & Co.) will be opening the door and invitation for a hostile takeover of the “progressive” movements; This takeover now shows signs of an ugly scenario of galloping ultra-rightist (Including hordes of John Birch Society types like Alex Jones) and fascist infiltration, government, corporate media and corporate contracted hijackings; A hostle take over and control of the left and the anti-war movements has been and still is in progress since the signing of the National Security Act of 1947 and since the start of PROJECT PAPERCLIP, MKULTRA and Project Mocking Bird (CIA media fronts); The facts and circumstancial evidence show this to be happening by the same war makers, empire builders; All with the help of their secretive contractors that these above “progressive”movements constantly claim and preach that they are against. Much of the left is in a state of MASS DENIAL (dissociative disorder) […]

THE FOURTH REICH is suceeding in duping the masses into thinking like Alex Jones-thinking like the John Birch Society, constantly using psy-ops seemingly sincere anti-war lingo as a recruitment ploy (Obama and the entire Washington establishment do the same Orwellian linguistic trick) as a gateway into thinking more and more like the ultra-right and fascists-This is the the Intelligence establishment’s psychological process of taking over the population’s minds and overall political and social consciousness; And convincing them that nothing has psychologically or politically altered their world and thinking; But in fact it has without their knowledge or permission via government sponsored orchestration of mass deception and illusion..

PO TOUR:

Dateline Detroit, Milky Way, Universe. The Bill Robert Campaign for Congress.

I read over the information. The National Statement is from LaRouche Democrats. I ask a question about a sentence on the literature: “Human civilization is now entering the northern region of our Milky Way’s galactic disc.” Having focused my campaign writing on conciseness, precision, and lofty rhetoric, this strikes me as a sentence I would never include in a lit piece. The man proceeds to draw a picture of the Milky Way with its arms and talks about a sixty-two million year cycle that coincides with mass extinctions.
The LaRouche statement, which is “Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate’s Committee,” features a photo of a man standing at an adjacent LaRouche table. He is passing out the same literature and attempting to engage college students in the conversation I find myself in.
I ask him, in my Michigan Political Junkie sort of way, which district he is running in.
“The universe,” he replies.
I try to play along with his joke and ask again. He repeats, “The universe,” and adds, “so it’s pretty hard ta get out ta constituents.”
My organizer tells me they have an office about twenty minutes away.

Yes.  We have a contributor to LPAC there.  Not here, though:

No’, I said, ‘from Ireland.  Which British occupation are you protesting against?’
‘The British occupation of the United States through the power of the City of London – it is the centre of world power.  It is like the days of the East India Company and the opium wars.  Do you understand how strong private interests can be?’
‘I have a degree in politics and history from the London School of Economics – I do know my history. If you are objecting to the power of financial institutions, then why don’t you say so?’
‘Because the power is centred in Britain and because Obama is collaborating with them’.
‘If your objection is to the power of the IMF and the World Bank and the other bodies, then name them’.
‘But people understand when we name the British’.

Dateline Smith Street: The Larouche PAC protesters, complete with images of President Obama wearing a Hitler moustache, were back on Smith Street near the post office and, according to the log at 2:04 p.m. Their appearance inspired “numerous” complaints to the police. At least one protest, however, has come from the protesters. “Received a call from Myles Robinson of the Larouche PAC complaining there are three boys who are harassing him and he feels intimidated,” according to the police report. “He also related that every time someone approaches the table that the boys yell at them.” Police responded by pointing out the boys had a right to be at the post office. Meanwhile, a woman complained to police that she told the PAC that she disagreed with them and they told her to “grow a brain.”

Dateline Jesus!
On July 5th, I stopped by the Whitestone post office to check the church’s mail, and as I rounded the corner onto 150th Street, I saw one of the great freedoms of our nation being lived out. Two women had a table set up in front of the post office representing the Lyndon LaRouche movement. Their posters were troubling if not offensive, calling for the impeachment of President Obama, among various and sundry other strange political moves. As I entered and exited the post office, they called out to me in hopes that I might sign their petition for impeachment, but I walked on after offering a firm and angry “no,” deeply frustrated that anyone could feel so abused by the politics of these days as to suggest such a move. As angry and frustrated as I was, I reminded myself as I walked on that their unpleasant and frankly weird politics and even their frustrating tactics stand at the core of who we are as a nation – we don’t just shut down speech because we don’t like it but rather insist that all perspectives have a right to be heard. So the core principles of our nation are at their best in moments like these, in moments when they get lived out in unexpected and even slightly unpleasant ways. And so it is also with our life of faith.

Dateline France:

Showing Paul Volker the Love!!!!

Hm.

LaRouche is the one that is leading the drive to reinstate FDR’s Glass-Steagall to protect the American people over the Wall St crooks. I am sure that King’s increased efforts to slander LaRouche are tied in to the fact that the support for Glass-Steagall is building rapidly across the country & even in Congress itself.

Or… Although it is certain that the royal servants at The Economist are keeping a close watch on LaRouche and the Basement team at LaRouchePAC, they certainly don‘t wish to mention it in this effort to declare victory over the American System.

Wow, I’m fuckin not surprised, I guess……thanks for the background on that.
The LaRoucheBorgs I witnessed may have been an elite team of thusly musically-reprogrammed cult members.
The effect was highbrow xmas-carrols with something disturbingly way off.
And I am not being sarcastic or whatever...

COMMENTPALOOZA!!!

You know, the last time Steinberg appeared on Alex Jones, and then Larouche a week later, I listened to most and much of it (something I will not be doing in the future) and I could not help but think that next time, Steinberg should have followed Larouche.  Granted, Steinberg is an attraction to nobody, but somebody needs to bring the thing together.  This time out, he did follow Larouche.
But now I am thinking… you know, actually if the Larouchies really believed their rhetoric over the past decade, they would jettison Steinberg and bring on Rachel Brown.  I think I should into that petition drive to get Alex Jones to dump the Steinberg interviews and replace him with Rachel Brown — who, as the org said, became a National Political Figure after her historic 20 point performance in that primary election against Barney Frank.

Odd question.  2012 Patriot, my ass.  Let’s go.  AND.  AND.

This Video needs to go Viral
This again?  Because there’s nothing that is going to grab the Public’s attention more than seeing Jeffrey Steinberg.
Actually, something did go viral.  A youtube clip of a viewer watching this.  Watch it here!

Well Howie G’s got it. Alex Jones let out the LaRouche stuff, Harlem dudes and it was a big explosion. Apparently he’s written a new song parody, to the Baja Men’s one hit wonder from 2000.  “Who let Larouchies out?”  “Jones, Jones, Jones!”

The vast majority of Americans have never heard of the Glass Stiegel Act, let alone know what it is. What this guy is saying sounds great. It would really be great if people knew what it was about. Glass Stiegel isn’t as important as say, The Cake Boss, or Monday Night football.

Football season’s a ways off.  I have no clue what the “Cake Boss” is — apparently the Larouchies are more up on current pop trash culture than I am?

Glass-Steagall Act….those three words will bring the off-shore bank cartels to their knees

we lost the revolution and the illuminatti control usa. see my blog make it viral we have a monark problem
monarkworldorder dot blogspot dot com

HEY JEFF, you sound like a brainwashed mook. You are speaking as if law still exist as if a court in the land will hear one word of anyone complaining. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE A BUSINESS. YOU ARE A FUCKIN SLAVE. SHUT UP AND GET BACK TO WORK. THESE GUYS ARE FUCKIN CRIMINALS AND ANYONE WHO STANDS IN THEIR WAY GETS THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM. These fuckers kill millions like they’re germs. You’re 200 years too late. Maybe in 200 years it will change.

Yesm the oligarchs know that the reproduction rates level out. What they want to so is completely reverse the population picture. Did you see where scientist now believe that the first 150 year old humans already have their lives well under way? It is the age of the super humans and we are in their way

Alex Jones – You are a brain washing idiot.You think that America is plotting against you, you think everyone is ‘out to get you’ no they are not.You just use scare tactics to make brainless people follow you.
You talk about countries including the United Kingdom,you make up stories about the UK and try to brainwash us.
I feel sorry everyone who believes your childish stories.
I know you will block me now because you don’t actually like people talking about you and questioning your thoughts

OR>>>  YOU HAVE MEDDLED WITH THE PRIMARY FORCES OF NATURE!!!
OR... 1 ) William and Kate, aka the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (the English one, not the American one) visit North America, causing LaRouchies across the country to quake in fear.

Your quite wrong and your obviously not a follower of the show and what it covers. I used to think Alex Jones was a bit wild but no longer. Let me give you a book its 98 pages long its called ‘none dare call it conspiracy ‘ by Gary Allen.
This book generally outlines the conspiracy and the agenda thats continuing to this day. If you still feel hes a kook after reading it fair enough but the book will show you where hes coming from nonetheless.

you mean communist murderers. this is marxist genocide of older Whites, because they vote GOP and teach youths not to race mix.

Mr. LaRouche, we can indeed turn this boat around. My friends and I are growing food right now as I type this, lots of food. We intend on feeding more than half of our community here in Southern Indiana. We hope this will spread like wild fire. If it does, we’ll once again be unstoppable. We won’t need their GMO foods, their money, their social engineering….we’ll take it back with food!

a new low for AJ, everything said here a lie. “well I know you don’t like to talk about yourself(Larouche). Total BS.  Research the guy yourself, LL is a self centered nut. Like Hitler/Jim Jones, LL has predicted doomsday events over and over while being wrong and has a “youth movement” named after him. Also he was never an economist(was a B2B shoe salesman) but did write an econ book. He did not come out of Calcutta an economist, there actually he joined the socialist party . . .

Oh? And, what’s so hot about osambo? He’s only, what, WREAKED the U.S. economy? Don’t hand me “Dubya” did it, your precious yard ape has had nearly three years, yet all he’s done is give monies to the banksters and favors to the unions. Moreover, osambo is a typical nigger – so dumb he needs special privileges to get by. It’s how he got into college, and its how the nigger gets by now.

Lyndon LaRouche is nothing more than a power hungry nut who runs a political cult.

“We have a problem with the British”. I had laugh. LaRouche always has a problem with the British no matter what.

Ex CIA ? = still CIA !

I think this is termed, in “blog lingo”, “Dan Savage Bait” — a reference to a news item that almost seems designed specifically to attract the notice of whoever is baited…

After Gay Marriage Vote, Archbishop Dolan Warns of a Dan Savage Future.

It deserves a punchline.  I don’t know, I’ll reach back a decade (in large part because I’m not all that interested in Dan Savage to have a stock-pile of references at my disposal) and say… Watch out for door-knobs?

I saw a reference to Marcus Bachmann, the husband to now Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.  It was in regards to rumors, stemming from his work with a gay reparative therapy clinic, and out of some very stereotypical homosexual tics he shows in his personality, and out of his rather harsh rhetoric about homosexuality.  The thing that struck me was the claim that these rumors had been bubbling from the “far right”.  Which doesn’t strike me as the case, unless we’re moving further to the right than any right concerned with elections.  The most recent mentions I’ve seen of “rumors” started with a Dan Savage allusion and link — that “Hey!  Looks like Michele Bachmann has been gay married!”  line… apparently Cher broke into something with a twitter.  And we run into the current hubbub.

The Christian Right would just as soon back up the idea of “gays being cured”, and not take the activity of curing gays as a latent simmering self-loathing.

Maybe we want to go that route of suggesting that the “gay rights movement” has taken inherently conservative focuses, with marriage and military servBice, but that’d run slam up against Leviticus and the promise of Marcus Bachmann knocking homosexuality out of the youth — brainwashed by their Glee and their diet sodas.

I was looking through this book by one Ben Shapiro, about the big Liberal Television Machine.  — Primetime Propaganda, I guess it’s called.   He runs through the list of television shows which have served as liberal propaganda, with producers who have consciously worked to reshape America in a leftist image.

Here’s some of the shows which he explores in his book.

Your Show of Shows
The Mod Squad
The Twilight Zone
Star Trek
The Simpsons
The Family Guy
The Cosby Show
Friends
Seinfeld
Sex in the City
MASH
St. Elsewhere
Family Ties
Soap
Three’s Company
MacGyver
Charlie’s Angels
Seasame Street
Happy Days
Cops
That 70s Show
All in the Family
The Dick Van Dyke Show
Get Smart
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Ellen
Laugh-In
The Honeymooners
Roseanne
Family Ties

The list is endless.  Some of the reasons cited are curious and maybe telling.  We have too many bad-guy-busting-shows that steer clear of using big ammo — MacGyver, for instance, with its “make due by knowing how to fissure sticks of gum and battery acid into high explosives”.
Cops’s sin is in not showing enough black criminals.
There’s a certain amount of “breaking new ground against conservative moores” here.  So there’s Mary Tyler Moore — working woman.  There’s Ellen — gay.  And there’s Cosby.  And “Your Show of Shows“:
I also don’t buy Shapiro’s argument that showbiz liberals have used TV to promote causes because they are outsiders determined to “forcibly enlighten the society that rejected them.” He calls Sid Caesar’s “Your Show of Shows” a “socialist paradise.” I think Sid was, ahem, just trying to be funny.

The Twilight Zone had too many cold war parables against nuclear destruction — the Fallout Shelter episode, right?

What’s interesting about All in the Family is that, perhaps they were skewring that bigot in the family, though maybe they were actually showing a sympathetic portrayal of a bigot, but really — Archie Bunker was, at the time, picked up as a cultural icon in Spiro Agnew’s America.   But it seems that the Leftist plotters can’t win in their portrayal of the struggling lower-middle class.  Shapiro lombasts them for Archie Bunker, and then lombasts them for Roseanne Barr.  For the record, when hearing an identified liberal, a host on KBOO, discuss television — she identified Roseanne as closer to reality and All in the Family as a “out of step elite liberal’s view” — but shows the liberal part of the Liberal Plot: they realized they had lost these Reagan Democrats with their earlier elitist contempt, and now had to get them to vote for Clinton.

Meantime, liberal talk show host Thom Hartmann has held that our entertainment options on television have gone from having a healthy number of, for instance, sewage workers on The Honeymooners, to tilting too heavily to the affluent — from Dallas on through our reality programs about the Kardashians.  A bit lost to Shapiro, and maybe Hartmann: Married With Children pretty well charts its seeds back through The Honeymooners.

The problem with Family Ties:  the liberals are making Michael J Fox look bad!

Wondering what Ben Shapiro would offer up for alternative fare — where Hollywood would gear us if not for it being a liberal propaganda machine, luckily for us, Ben Shapiro has written up for National Review a compiled list of twelve counterpoints, fighting the good fight…

1. 24
2. The Cosby Show
3. Magnum, P.I.
4. Leave It to Beaver
5. Dragnet
6. Gunsmoke
7. The Waltons
8. King of the Hill
9. Everybody Loves Raymond
10. South Park
11. Walker, Texas Ranger
12. Lost

We see the “other options besides blowing things apart with big ammo” lay aside in favor of Magnum PI and 24.  And  Dragnet — need I say more?

See, Cosby pulled a fast one.  They thought they were doing a show of liberalism — er, normalizing blacks by portraying an upper-middle-class professional black family full of conservative family values (?), but those conservative family values got in the way of the message, and…

Everybody Loves Raymond?

Maybe it’s generational with South Park, as Chris Wallace seemed confused by why anyone could be considered “smart”.

I am stuck on “King of the Hill”, which I suppose could be said to give a polite kidding on a rural Texas milieu and thus can be considered conservative, or it could be said to give a polite kidding on a rural Texas milieu and thus be considered liberal.

Back to the other side of the political culture wars, we get this for David Sirota’s “80s Culture Attack” book :
Most telling, “All in the Family’s” formula of using sixties-motivated youth and progressivism to ridicule fifties-rooted parents and their traditionalism had been replaced atop the television charts by its antithesis: a “Family Ties” whose fifties-inspired youth ridicules his parents’ sixties spirit.

The liberals are making fun of themselves — just as, I suppose, they were with the fairly obnoxious character of “Meathead” on All in the Family.  Hm.  It’s kind of swerving in all directions.  Say — why can’t these two shows (three if we toss in King of the Hill) make both the “conservative” and “liberal” lists, sitting right there alongside Cosby?

David Duke has given indication that he is contemplating a campaign for President.  Or, he is embarking on “a tour of 25 states to explore how much support he can garner for a potential presidential bid.”  Which means that strictly speaking, his Presidential bid compares to that of Newt Gingrich’s moreso 2008 but 2012 is an extension of the thing– there is no run there, but there is a use for Presidential Speculation.

It’s a long line of “moderating” history that the KKK is drawing about in its current “moderating” crusade — shown most visibly in actively protesting the Westboro Baptist Church / Fred Phelps family.  There was a Saturday Night Live skit from the early 1990s, after one of David Duke’s two Republican nominating victories, where David Spade played David Duke at a victory rally proclaiming he would unite both the radical and moderate wings of the KKK.

I do not know “Republican Presidential Candidate” gets him a further entry point to one of David Duke’s current places — a commentary in various media outlets in the Middle East — but I guess it’s a useful title to throw about.  His first presidential bid in 1988, in the Democratic Party, was designed mostly to heckle Jesse Jackson — his second bid in the 1992 Republican Party was the sputtering off out of his brief period of electoral success, said to have been choked off completely by the Presidential bid of Pat Buchanan.  The only thing I can say about 2012 is that it does not represent any nascent racist political undertoe, or even repudiate the claim of nascent racist undertoe.  It just kind of is.

Don’t worry, these crackpots will all lose: Running is one thing, says David Weigel at Slate, but “these idiots aren’t winning.” Only one of these “racist (or, fine, neoconfederate) candidates” has actually won a race in the last year — “Loy Mauch, a batty neoconfederate in Arkansas” who once protested a statue of Abraham Lincoln. Even “near the peak of his fame” in 1988, David Duke got a quarter as many votes for president as “the decidedly black, female, and odd Lenora Fulani.” He’d be even more of a “fringe” candidate now.

I can’t read that David Weigel quote without suspecting that David Weigel had just recently read the news about the death of Lenora Fulani’s mentor and partner in political electioneering, Fred Newman.  I stop and throw up my hands, figuring I know everything I really need to know, when I read that he advocated something called “friendosexuality”.

The founder of the controversial New York City Independence Party has died.
A friend of Fred Newman says he died late Sunday night of renal failure that led to cardiac failure.
Newman first entered politics and psychotherapy in the 1970s, branding his philosophy “Friendosexuality.”
His Independence Party began in the 1980s as the New Alliance Party.
It went on to help provide the margin of victory for Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2001.

Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani struck an alliance with a rather motley crew of politicians.  They wound their way in and out of the La Roachers.  They, reportedly, provided half of the marchers for Al Sharpton’s various protests in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  They, reportedly, gave Ross Perot the necessary signature drive for ballot access in all 50 states.  And then there was Patrick Joseph Buchanan…

… together, being interviewed on Fox News Sunday, on November 14, 1999 — an excerpt:

…………………………………………

SNOW: You have, in the past, been associated with Fred Newman   who has been accused of…
FULANI: I am also associated with him in the present and I plan to be associated with him in the future.
SNOW: Do you agree with his comments that Jews have been the storm troopers for industrial capitalism?
FULANI: And participated in oppressing groupings of people of color. I actually — one of the things I’ve been waiting to ask is what is anti-Semetic about that. In fact, there is an Algerian psychiatrist whose name is Frantz Fanon, who talks about victims of oppression, taking on the roles, if you will, of people who oppress them. He talks about
that among people of color, amongst Jews.
So, yes, he said that and almost everything that he, I have said, Pat, Minister Farrakhan and others have been taken out of context. But what is wrong with saying that? Why won’t people speak to the issues of these things rather than doing the politics of remarks? I find that ridiculous.
SNOW: Do you agree?
BUCHANAN: Well, Frantz Fanon was that “Le Damne de la Terre,” I think was the book.
SNOW: “The Wretched of the Earth.”
FULANI: Yes.
BUCHANAN: “The Wretched of the Earth.” I’ll be honest.
FULANI: Oh, I’m impressed.
BUCHANAN: Well, I can see. I wrote some blistering editorials against that book in the 1960s or ’60s and ’70s.
FULANI: My favorite book when I was in college.
BUCHANAN: I have to say it’s not my favorite book. Look, no I don’t believe it is fair. I do not believe it’s fair to say that Jewish Americans have oppressed people. I do believe they’ve made enormous contributions to this country in every profession and every calling. And there are bad people of all groups. And there are good people of all groups. And I would not associate myself with that statement, certainly.
SNOW: So she’s going to introduce you to Sharpton, to whom will you introduce her?
BUCHANAN: I’ve introduced her to Bay Buchanan which is about as far right as you can go.
SNOW: OK.
FULANI: May I say something quickly? I would love actually for there to be a dialogue with Dr. Newman. He’s Jewish by the way and he has been very strongly involved and passionate about the Jewish community and he has some shots about it as a Jew, relative to what’s happened to his people.
But again I think that what we’re creating in this new coalition is going to be responded to by a whole host of people across the political spectrum. You should definitely keep an eye on it.
………………………………………

… Of course, none of those alliances ended well.  For the last one, the Newmanite New Alliance wing of the Reform Party ended up in the forces running against Pat Buchanan’s takeover of the Reform Party with the John Hagelin Natural Law Party Transcendental Meditation take-over attempt.

But, Fred Newman…

“All who knew him will remember him as a fierce champion for giving the best, most sophisticated, most far-reaching tools of postmodern philosophy to ordinary people,” supporters wrote in a paid obit that appeared in the New York Times today.

Or maybe…

The state party chairman, Frank MacKay, was constantly at war with Newman’s faction, and at one point, kicked Fulani off their executive board. Today, MacKay said Newman would be missed.
“I’ve disagreed adamantly with Fred on the handling of issues…and have not spoken to him in the last six years,” said MacKay. ” But I would be remiss not to acknowledge the body of work that Dr. Newman has amassed in the field of independent politics. When the ultimate book is written on independence politics, there would have to be a whole section devoted to Fred Newman.”

Or maybe…

He also maintained a regular email blast about his ruminations and reactions to the Sunday political talk shows that I found quite addictive.

I think that last one is the best bet on what use I’d have for him in the final parts of his career.

I’ve been seeing this thrown up against the wall a few times, as though it means anything:  Obama referring to having campaigned in “57 states”.  There are a number of categories of gaffes — some telling and others not telling — and on Obama’s “57 states” I want to state baldly and boldly: anyone who makes hay out of this item is guilty of an intellectual dishonesty in service of partisan hackery.  This gaffe falls into a category of “knew what he was saying as soon as he said it.”  The Obama — Clinton contest, in case you forgot, wound its way not only through 50 individual state contests, but also several election contests in geographic locales that are not states — the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and Guam and American Somoa are four of the seven locales Obama had briefly jumbled into the category of “states”.  This is not to say anything one way or the other about Obama — he could still occupy whatever pejorative you have him slotted — Communist, Fascist, or Anti-Christ — it is just that his reference to “57 states” should not be used in service to the pejorative.

I will go one further in striking up for categories of gaffes.  As funny as it was, Michele Bachmann’s reference to John Wayne as a local hero, when John Wayne Gacy was the local celebrity of note, is of a similar ilk.  In the end, Bachmann’s reference to John Wayne is meaningless in understanding Bachmann.  It is mostly an example of the absurdity of the process — something like Spinal Tap looking down on their hands to give a shout out to Springfield — though, calling out John Wayne Gacy is more appropriate for your Heavy Metal Band than for your political candidate for high office.

The Historical Anachronism category of gaffes can go any direction.  Sarah Palin eliminates any doubt for how much leniency you should give her statement on Paul Revere — when given a chance to correct herself, she refused to admit any mistake.  Ergo: fling away at her, and add this to her collection of political debris.  I don’t know quite what to make of Michele Bachmann bringing John Quincy Adams into the fore as a Founding Father.  I happen to be a fan of John Quincy Adams — a fine public servant who contributed greatly to this country as Secretary of State, Congressman, and to a lesser extent as President.  His background was a privileged one, and while it is useful to note his formative years having him surrounded by Founders from his perch the son of one of the Founders–  he was not advising anyone at the age of eight.  I guess what Bachmann is doing is expanding the circle of Founders in order to get more blunt and more direct statements against slavery (though not all that direct, and not all that early in his career) into the mix — from out of David Barton’s work.  In that sense, this is probably worse than Joseph Biden’s goofy “Roosevelt rallied a nation against the Depression on tv” (He first kicked Hoover to the curb, and then broke right into the top-rated “Felix the Cat Doll Show”, I suppose) due to the systematic nature of her historical purview — but not quite up to the level of Palin’s Revere comments.  But the problem with Bachmann is that she carries enough baggage besides her holding onto the youthful zeal of John Quincy Adams that I’d just as soon let other matters overshadow this one.