Jewish Republican Eric Cantor sings for his meals

This smarmy fascist asshole was on the CBS investigative program 60 Minutes last night denying before God and everybody that Ronald Reagan never raised taxes when it's well established that he did. Is Cantor hanging out with Holocaust denier David Irving as well? Is he totally insane or just a bad liar? I'll tell you what he and most politicians are: simulacra of human beings, parodies of people. Politicians having sex with prostitutes is one more indicator that these people aren't human, acting out perverse, parallel versions of the lives of normal, well-balanced, ordinary people. The fact is that they're pathological, totally insane, and should be detained and evaluated as to whether they're criminal psychotics by legal and clinical definition.

Republican Eric Cantor needs to reform the Sonderkommando (Jews in the death camps who assisted in the disposal of other inmates for a little more time) so he can join it. Will he shoot himself in the back of the head, then dump his own body into a mass grave? Could be. His Walther P-38 is loaded with a full clip, he's ready for action, ready to lick the hand that overfeeds him with inflated capital. What scum. What an animal. Dirt. Typical behavior of Republicans in every sense. Next week they're going to tell us that the laws of gravity have been rescinded.

The 7 CIA KIAs in Afghanistan: When revenge really means reprisal

Occupied Afghanistan--Remember all those WWII movies where the Nazis are being attacked by partisans and members of the resistance? This is what's happening in Afghanistan.
This doesn't mean the Afghans are "good guys," they're just reacting naturally, and they have their own issues. We're worse in our behavior at this historical moment.

The CIA are calling for "revenge" in an illegal war and remembering that this is an illegal occupation is the key (wars of aggression are illegal under international law): they're already kidnapping, torturing, and even slaughtering Afghan nationals, and now, someone they thought was going to be their "snitch" (informant) got into a military facility knowing seven of them were going to be there and blew himself and them up with a bomb strapped to his torso. That's desperation under a bloody occupation, not some arbitrary act for the hell of it, and it's not even necessarily extreme. It's what happens under bloody occupations.

What the CIA should have used was the term "reprisal," the one that the Nazis and their victims frequently used when they retaliated for deaths within their own ranks. The problem in their logic at Langley--and our own if we accept such arguments--is obvious. We're the wrong side, and we're the aggressors, not the Afghans. This kind of wrong-headed thinking is only going to keep us digging our own hole, and eventually, we're probably going to get our own Stalingrad in some form or another. This "revenge" is really reprisal, don't kid yourself. We're the bad guys. We're the wrong side. The Afghan that did this killed people who might have been there to torture in his mind, and certainly came as bringers of death.

A reflection on Jaenelle Antas...

WWW--Surely, a hot body, to be sure, although she could eat a hamburger or a steak more often, she could use a little more weight on her ass and her trunk. I know, I'm picky, I like a woman with a natural figure, call me a Nazi. Still, very hot, very physically attractive, but then--like many women in America--she'd start talking and ruin the mood, the ambiance...OK, the delusion that she and most American women are reasonable. I have to say that while very few American women deny that 6 million Jews were exterminated by the National Socialist state under Hitler, they sure don't give a shit about America's victims and prefer shopping to the exclusion of the sun itself.

That's right, Jaenelle's not the only good-looking fascist out there, and I'm sure that had she not opened her mouth, posted on Stormfront, and gotten a regular schtupping by Der Fueher Irving (maybe even gang-fucked by some Storm Troopers), you wouldn't have noticed her at all, would you? We all stand accused, just some more than others.

Quit fooling yourselves, we're all fucking liars headed over the cliff. We have a chance here to avert it, but would it surprise anyone if we piss it away? When you have a public that thinks their main responsibility is to pull a lever or push a button every 2-to-4 years, it's called mutually assured destruction, not democracy. Citizenship is a lifetime obligation and it's time that we all started accepting this responsibility.

Small wonder then that Jaenelle and her fellow morons think that they have a chance at mainstreaming their pathetic white hate bowel movement that's going nowhere fast, but they really do since they're just a part of the Lollipop Guild. Apathetic or pathetic? It seems to be an admixture of both. If you don't assert yourself and stand up to power and challenge it, you deserve the lousy life you have. Anything less is your own fault. Democracy isn't a microwaveable pizza, but if you approach it the same way it's going to be about as satisfying. Anything worthwhile takes work, real work. No wonder the elites hate us. I would too...


Postscript, 08.29.2009: A piece-of-shit named Chris Downie wrote a worthless comment that I'm never going to post for its inanity. He claims that Jaenelle's "brave" and that I "should provide a counterargument," not that he says to what, but I assume that he's saying it's on me to prove 6 million Jews died under National Socialism. It's on you, and I don't waste my time on idiots, but I felt like beating-up on you tonight since it's entertaining to me to do so to someone so clearly moronic and pathetic, so easily hateable.

Here goes:

Fuck you Chris, you troglodyte motherfucker, you are not a man, even if you were one of the Storm Troopers that gang-fucked Jaenelle and did so for the four years you claim to have known her. You're all dysfunctional, emotionally retarded sociopaths who probably can't get-it-up anyway, and I defy you and your worthless life. You are kitsch-made-flesh, a pathetic anachronism, even more sad than a politician. You are flotsam, puerile shit that was fashioned into a human form that somehow moves, is somehow animate.

Your beloved Adolph Hitler's "thousand year Reich" lasted a mere twelve, which makes you a loser who worships nihilistic losers. If you love Hitler so much, go to Moscow, ask to see his jaw, and tongue it, asshole. My grandfather shot at asswipes like you and came back with trinkets off their stupid dead asses. With luck, you'll die in prison. And that's right asshole, I'm a socialist and an actual man. You're a pathetic child without a fucking clue about anything.

"It's a coup!": Some more reflections on the Wall Street bailout reactions

"When small men begin to cast big shadows,
it means that the sun is about to set."
--Lin Yutang

WWW--It was coming from Michael Moore, Naomi Wolf, and from all-points-in-between on the political spectrum back at the end of this last September and October: the bailout of Wall Street was a coup because "we're all being robbed," case closed. That we're all being robbed is a certainty, but a coup? I still keep hearing this weird contention, yet I'm not seeing any proof that any of the players being bailed-out are different ones.

Why should we care if it's the same people? Because that's one of the main preconditions of a coup--someone else has to be in-charge, replacing the last group. What coup? It doesn't fit the definition, yet you have progressives and conservatives screaming one has occurred all over the place. Was there one? Well, yes, ages ago, and they missed it. They're making strange sounds over this, and I wanted to know why, and I've given it a lot of thought and reached a few tentative conclusions.

My belief: people like Michael Moore have had major investments on Wall Street like many of us have had (not me, however!), and that includes folks like Arianna Huffington, Al Franken, much of the wider society, and maybe even a few investigative journalists and media-outlet owners out there. But aren't they begging the question? That was my feeling back in September, and it still is, with a few more historical reflections.

Now, if you lost your ass on Wall Street and you heard that others were being bailed-out--and you weren't--wouldn't you be freaking-out and yelling too? Sure you would, and if you had a soapbox bigger than everyone else's, you'd use it, right? Perhaps. This shouting that the first bailout of the banks was a "coup" by some of these celebrities across the political spectrum reminded me of someone from our past: Father Charles E. Coughlin, the radio priest.

Today, most Americans have no idea who Coughlin was, but you could say that he was one-part Rush Limbaugh, one-part Michael Moore, and one-part Joseph Goebbels. Yes, this is about the 1930s and the Great Depression, what else would it be about? Coughlin was originally from Ontario, Canada and had confronted a group of the KKK who had tried to burn his church in an act of anti-Catholic hate, so he began with "progressive" and populist credentials. At the dawn of the Great Depression, Coughlin sounded like a voice of reason to many, and they supported him with money and activism. He went as far as founding a short-lived political party, the NUSJ (The National Union for Social Justice), and was most popular with Irish-Catholics during the 1930s, but had a much wider appeal.

Incredibly, he and Gerald L.K. Smith (a lieutenant of Huey Long) could be fairly credited with creating the white supremacist movement. How did it end up that way? From frustrated populist aspirations and a deep disdain for Western-style capitalism. Some people react dysfunctionally to social injustice because they're terminal racists. Where did it all begin for the "radio priest"?

Father Coughlin's American parish in Royal Oak, Michigan began doing radio broadcasts of his sermons sometime in 1926 out of Detroit's radio station WJR, the beginning of the radio age. It has been calculated that Coughlin had a listenership-peak of as many as 40 million, an incredible number for its time. Coughlin was radically populist one moment in his speeches, backing Roosevelt completely one day, and then making remarks totally against the New Deal the next depending on which way the political winds were blowing at the moment. For him--as with Limbaugh--it was all about ratings. In this respect, little has changed since the 1930s, but he accidentally pushed FDR further to the left, so he had some value.

While Coughlin was railing against Wall Street, he was heavily invested in it at a time when almost nobody in the general population was. Who had money then? Demagogues like Charles Coughlin, that's who; the radio priest was getting rich slamming Wall Street, from his appeals for donations, and his weekly radio program's advertising revenue. Unbeknownst to most Americans, by the mid-1930s, Father Coughlin was one of the largest holders of silver in America. In other words, he was a hypocrite in most respects, and vanity assured his fall. Coughlin began with very enthusiastic support of FDR's New Deal programs, but by 1934 he started having political aspirations of his own and began bitterly attacking Roosevelt and his policies. He also began broadcasting and writing anti-Semitic remarks and began his love affair with Continental fascism and the Nazi State.

By 1938, he reprinted the Tsarist secret police (Okhrana) forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in his own newsletter, "Social Justice," and was witnessed at a Bronx speaking- engagement doing the fascist salute. It was all downhill after that, as radio stations stopped carrying his programs and the Roosevelt administration moved on him to curb his ability to disseminate first his radio programs, then his newspaper and related literature through the postal system. By 1942, with his support of Nazism all-but-complete, Coughlin became a marginalized laughingstock, and went back to his tiny Royal Oak parish to live out the rest of his life in relative obscurity.

Interstingly, he had connections with a domestic fascist group called the "Christian Front," who plotted to overthrow the government of the United States. He never renounced his connection to them.

I don't think Michael Moore is exactly the same kind of creature as Coughlin, and this isn't some attempt to smear him with the same brush at all, because it's not accurate or fair. But there are a lot of parallels between his life and that of Coughlin, and he's not alone. New communications media have empowered many individuals in the last two decades like never before, and with that access comes the same kinds of issues that arose during the 1930s, a time when radio was first emerging as a force. But the cries of "coup" smack of similar hypocrisies that people like Coughlin once engaged in. One might ask such celebrities like Limbaugh and Moore (or even "conspiracy" writers/activists like Alex Jones) what their holdings on Wall Street are today. You might get a very surprising answer indeed, even with the contemporary prevalence of investment.

Now is definitely a time of demagogues, but the question is: "Who are they exactly? Who are the demagogues?" Rush Limbaugh and most of the right-wing noise machine certainly fit that bill, but there are others out there, right now, waiting for their time. Intellectual honesty is as good an inoculation as you're likely to get, a proactive solution for the ages.

Breaking news (OK, it's old): "Obama girl" for Nader and ruminations on the Cult of Personality

The Campaign Trail of Hope(?)--Obama girl has changed her mind on Barack over the last few months, and she's not alone.

Neither major party candidate is addressing the current financial crisis in any substantial or concrete terms, just more of the same. For this reason and all the numerous others, it's time to build a strong third party movement in America, and it has been a long time coming.

Though attempts at this during the Great Depression didn't pan-out, the voice of the people was heard loud and clear through the protest vote. The message remained clear, even after being filtered through the tragically flawed "pundits" and "Populist" leaders of that time, like the Catholic Father Charles E. Coughlin, Huey Long, and Dr. Francis E. Townsend.

Coughlin was a Catholic priest who preached a kind of peculiar social liberation gospel out of Northern Michigan and had a radio show from which he railed against Wall Street after the great crash of 1929. Long was an utterly corrupt Governor of Louisiana (though he did deliver social programs better than most states, even bettering the federal government's) who was dead by an assassin's bullet by 1935, and Dr. Townsend was a retired Doctor who found himself 66 and destitute during the Great Depression. After a long period of lecturing for aid to the elderly, Townsend actually had some real success with the creation of Social Security for the elderly. Millions listened to his radio broadcasts on the economic crisis and the government's inaction, and sent his organization large amounts of money as they did with Long and Coughlin. But these weren't perfect men by any means.

The others succumbed to their own egos in some way or another and became what is commonly known as "demagogues," which is much like accusing someone of yelling fire in a crowded theater. You might cause a stampede. But were they rabble rousers trying to fan the flames of hysteria in-the-midst of the Great Depression and the government's inaction under Herbert Hoover? Yes and no, though--like everything else--it's down to one's political opinions and persuasion where you come down on their methods and rhetoric. The fact is, people were angry and confused just as they are today and wanted some voice of reason, or any voice, that echoed their concerns and offered proposals to fix the economy. Not being genius material, these very famous men were really just channels for the feelings and ideas of the public during hard times, lifted-up by the masses to address and convey what the public wanted.

After all, here are no supermen coming to save us, and the public is the solution. As then, we're trying hard not to learn this, but we might succeed despite ourselves in improving our lives when this all blows over. When we no longer need them, we discard the so-called "strong men," because we should.

Predicably, Coughlin tended to go with whatever the trends of the day happened to be at the moment on his radio show, a program that was heard by as many as 40 million at its peak. In some respects, the "radio priest" whose broadcasts and sermons originated out of Royal Oak, Michigan, resembles today's Michael Moore who uses the mainstream media to spread the message of a socially progressive agenda. But that's where the comparisons end. [Ed., 10.25.2008--Both men have roots in Canada. Coughlin was originally from there, while Moore has Canadian relatives.]

Charles E. Coughlin was the same kind of disappointing blend of Jew-baiter and hypocrite as many of the Populists of the 1890s had been (my own great-great grandfather possibly being one). To be certain, the radio priest was a reactionary fascist who made a fortune from his radio broadcasts against Wall Street and the rest of big business--and then promptly invested in it. The irony is that without much of his agitating--and the agitating of the other Populists and the Left--against the Roosevelt administration and Congress, a number of important pieces of social legislation might never have gone anywhere. Bad times open-up these kinds of opportunities, and nothing comes from power without a demand, even when the messengers are wrong-headed boobs.

Coughlin, who claimed to have confronted the KKK for their acts of anti-Catholic violence degenerated into--or was revealed to be--a rabid anti-Semite and a hypocrite, finally embracing Hitler and National Socialism in Germany by the late-1930s. He was far from alone in this, and shared this opinion of fascism with that of the business class of his day. One of them was the grandfather of George W. Bush. After Pearl Harbor, nobody wanted to listen to the radio priest anymore. His Union Party and the Populist convention that converged in 1936 couldn't agree on much, his popularity was waning due to revelations of his own large-holdings on the Wall Street he railed against, and with the assassination of Huey Long, the momentum for a viable Populist Party had stalled once again (an 1896 attempt had also failed). But then, there's the fact that change sometimes occurs on-accident, but that's life. Long was larger-than-life.

As should be clear by now, Huey Long ran the state of Louisiana like a dictator. Yet Long began what was the template for massive public works programs in the state and went as far as to levy heavy taxes on the oil companies drilling off the shores of the Gulf state. Imagine a politician doing this today, because you're going to have to. At one point, Long was both the governor and a senator of and to Louisiana. Many in and out of Louisiana thought he was a run amok demagogue who had to be stopped.

To say that Huey Long was flamboyant would be an understatement, and the governor used the medium of radio and speechmaking as well as Coughlin and FDR, if not better. Eventually, his growing power and fame would put him in an adversarial position with the president and many others. Ironically, the Louisiana governor was a longtime supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but his own aspirations for the White House severed the ties between them. In 1934, Long created the "Share-our-Wealth Society," a political organization that was supported by tens-of-millions like Coughlin's and Townsend's own groups. When Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama mentioned the term "share-our-wealth," he was referring to Long in an oblique way.

Long stated in an April, 1935 radio address:

Now in the third year of his administration, we find more of our people unemployed than at any other time. We find our houses empty and our people hungry, many of them half-clothed and many of them not clothed at all.
Mr. Hopkins announced twenty-two millions on the dole, a new high-water mark in that particular sum, a few weeks ago. We find not only the people going further into debt, but that the United States is going further into debt. The states are going further into debt, and the cities and towns are even going into bankruptcy. The condition has become deplorable. Instead of his promises, the only remedy that Mr. Roosevelt has prescribed is to borrow more money if he can and to go further into debt. The last move was to borrow $5 billion more on which we must pay interest for the balance of our lifetimes, and probably during the lifetime of our children. And with it all, there stalks a slimy specter of want, hunger, destitution, and pestilence, all because of the fact that in the land of too much and of too much to wear, our president has failed in his promise to have these necessities of life distributed into the hands of the people who have need of them. (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5109/)

It all sounds very familiar, even timely to our present crisis. Long was dead not long after the broadcast, and it had been hoped that he would be part of a coalition with Townsend, Coughlin, and other progressive groups fighting for social programs to fix a broken nation and economy. With the exception of Huey Long, none of these men ever held public office and were generally off the public stage by the end of the 1930s. Their dreams--and the dreams of the tens-of-millions of Americans who backed them--of a unified national Populist Party--were dashed on the rocks.

Yet, things changed in the several of the directions they had pushed, and they influenced the public dialogue for a badly needed social agenda during an unprecedented economic crisis. It wasn't just FDR or Congress that created the New Deal. It was the American people, speaking through these horribly imperfect men, who achieved the Social Security programs, the public works programs that brought people out of widespread unemployment and poverty, who created progressive taxation, who unionized the workplaces of predatory and exploitative employers, and who helped civilize this society in ways their ancestors would have thought unthinkable.

But where does Ralph Nader fit into this? Why should he run at all if he doesn't have much of a chance of winning?

Things change, and contexts change. We're in a threshold moment in our history where things are never going to be the same ever again. These moments hold incredible opportunities that must be acted on by the public if they want them to go in a constructive direction for all. Some of the infrastructure is already here with the internet, but we must begin rebuilding social-networks based on trust and friendship. The day of "me first, and only me" is coming to a crashing end, and only by banding together and helping one another will we come out the other end with a nation worth living in and defending.

"Obama girl" isn't a girl at all, but a woman. She's grown-up and understands that the two party system is going to fail us without some very hard shoves. For this reason, she--like myself and many others--will be supporting our most responsible public citizen, Ralph Nader. Because, you don't always have to "win," but you have to pressure the people in Washington endlessly to do what you want them to do for the good of everyone. Hint: you don't ask. Trust is important, foster it in yourself and others. Have someone else's back. Smile. Make a friend. Open a door for an old lady. Give people the right-of-way. Treat others as you would like to be treated. That's the social contract, and it's time to retake the political process in this country. Why Nader? Why not? People like Ralph Nader are here to push the politicians to serve the public.

The myth is that Nader's the "spoiler" of the 2000 election, which is a lie and holds an anti-democratic attitude that deserves no quarter. Democrats should remember that the Republicans are working hard to attempt stealing this election as they have done so for a very long time. But there's a catch: it has to be close. That's also not Ralph Nader's fault, but the fault of the electorate for choosing poorly, especially when they vote Republican, truly the party of crime and corruption.

Vote with your heart and your mind, but also with your conscience. Don't ignore the warning-signs of a candidate, and remember that you're going to hold them accountable once they're in office. The last eight years is the cost of apathy and indifference in these areas.


Postscript, 10.25.2008: The best thing to remember with Nader is that he's also a person-of-color, an Arab-American, and one of the finest examples of the positive-effects of immigration for America. His parents were Lebanese. I will be voting for another historically unprecedented candidate besides Obama. Who's done more for America? Obama or Ralph Nader? It wouldn't matter who it was--don't listen to me--a voter--and you're going to be out. That includes Ralph Nader, or anyone else.

GOP convention's closing music...

St. Paul, Minnesota--What was that music? It wasn't Aaron Copland. It wasn't George Gershwin. Was it John Williams? It wasn't good. It wasn't inspiring. It was boring, but at least it wasn't that dumbass Fleetwood Mac song the Clintons picked several-years-ago. Daft.

I know, I know. It wasn't like either party is going to pick something like Phil Ochs, Benjamin Britten's "War Requiem," or something inspiring like John Lennon's "Working Class Hero," or something from Woody Guthrie--that wouldn't kitschy and meaningless, like most life lived under the (not-so) New Fascism of consumerism.

But hey, it appears this order is dying anyway. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" states that all countries have their time at the top power-wise. That time is ending for America, and nothing can stop it. That doesn't mean it has to be a catastrophe either, yet if we keep fighting this reality that Smith wrote of, we'll ensure it. That's what the GOP's for--wrecking things in the service of the "big money." Why wouldn't they have shitty taste in music? So did Hitler. Ever try to sit-through an entire opera by Wagner? It's excruciating. Boring.

Suggestion: play the Three Stooges theme next time.

Was Tim Russert a Divinely Inspired Hack?

Our Generally Crappy Mainstream Media--Perhaps eclipsing the death of the last Pope, Rudolph Valentino, JFK, RFK, and Gerald Ford (still dead), we got an earful about the allegedly wonderful Meet the Press host over the last several days. The litany was endless over what a "great guy" Russert was, and just what an incredible journalist he'd been...except that he wasn't, and expect them to keep braying. And where's Russert's Oswald? It was his heart, it betrayed him after he betrayed all of us.

Granted, he cast a charming Irish spell on those of us who want to feel reassured by a journalist who doesn't ask the "hard" questions of public officials--something he rarely ever did, if ever. I never noticed any substantial questions. For those of us who don't want things to change for the better, and for those of us who are afraid of a truly dynamic democracy where there's supposed to be acrimony and disagreement, Tim Russert was Jesus.

There is one thing, and one thing only that the late Tim Russert should be remembered for: he and his counsel resisted testifying over his involvement in the Plame scandal, an incident that needs no explaining to anyone paying attention. Russert had crucial information on the outing of a CIA officer by members of the executive branch as part of a disinformation campaign surrounding the pretext for the war in Iraq, and he withheld it. So much for patriotism or principles, Russert was a crusader-in-disguise for creeping authoritarianism:

Russert was aware that a special prosecutor probing the leak of a CIA operative's name knew of his summer 2003 telephone conversation with Libby, and that Libby had released him from any promise of confidentiality. [Ed.-My emphasis.] But Russert, the Washington bureau chief for NBC News and host of "Meet the Press," and his attorneys argued in previously sealed court filings in June 2004 that he should not have to tell a grand jury about that conversation, because it would harm Russert's relationship with other sources. ("Russert Resisted Testifying On Leak," the Washington Post, 01.10.2006)

As this site has always contended, the livelihoods and careers of these so-called journalists are their main priority, and they believe in nothing. The "Fourth Estate" aren't concerned or worried about our rights, and therefore feel no connection to the social contract or the common good. What they care about is themselves only, but orders are orders. But man, the coverage of his death! Oh, the coverage! Wall-to-wall, just breathtaking.

CNN and other major television news outlets even told us that there was a rainbow shining during Russert's funeral, strangely begging the question that he--like El Presidente--was somehow touched by God (more like in the head).

Mark this, and mark it well: whenever this system props-up a supplicant like Tim Russert for public deification, something is amiss, and the lies are flying. Court jesters had more courage than this clown ever did. Mediacrit.com sums-it-up best:

Being favored by Dick Cheney’s handlers doesn’t sound like a case for the journalism hall of fame, though.

In the case of Russert, we should consider what small impact “public affairs” journalism like Meet the Press has in these days of The Daily Show, social networking on the Internet, and Obama’s nontraditional campaign. I think the New York Times’ Media Equation columnist David Carr got it right when he observed that the mourning seemed not only for Russert, but an attempt to celebrate and shore up the increasingly irrelevant establishment political journalism. ("Mourning in America," Mediacrit.com, 06.19.2008)

All hail the death of establishment journalism. No, there's no reason at all to think of Tim Russert as anything but an American version of a commentator for Pravda under the Soviet regime, or a voice-over from a creaky old Nazi propaganda film. He was a stooge, a lapdog, and a moral coward without a shred of credibility.

Not that that makes him any different from his peers who attended his funeral this week, endlessly expounding on his (and their) fictitious merits as a journalist. His passing really is only relevant in relation to the Plame scandal.

Like most working within the world of the mainstream news media, he was not a man, but he was a traitor to himself, his family, and his nation. He will not be missed by those of us with the ability to reason, and history will judge him harshly. We're all born, and we all die. Tim Russert was no exception to this rule, and therefore, not special. Mourn the people he could have saved, save it. See you in the Emerald City, the Populists are off to meet the Wizard!The only problem is, they're shelling the Emerald City.

"Russert Resisted Testifying On Leak," the Washington Post, 01.10.2006: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901745.html

Mediacrit knocks it out of the park, June 19th, 2008:

http://mediacrit.com/mourning-in-america

OK Indiana, you upset my expectations with the primaries, but I was still right.

Indiana's 2nd District--Say what you want, but Indiana and my own voting district has miraculously made me proud. OK, it wasn't all that miraculous: even racist Hoosiers know that Clinton isn't going to fix anything, and that we're going to get more of the same from her and the McInsane, that guy with a hair-trigger temper and a yen for making Beach Boys songs into hymnals for bombing Iran. The difference between George W. Bush, Hilliary Clinton, and John McCain is: nada, zip, zero.

The good news:My own district, and the county I live in (St. Joseph) voted predominantly for Barack Obama. That's saying something, as this isn't a particularly enlightened region--Michiana--but we've got the nuts outnumbered, an obverse to the 19th century when Abolitionists who ferried runaway slaves through here were the minority. Attitudes have changed significantly, and we're moving in a better direction. It hurts to write this again, but we're improving as the WWII generation dies-out. So the wheel turns, the real meaning of "revolution."

Predictably, National Socialist (GOP) candidate Tony Zirkle (see article below) lost in the primary race, but received an appallingly-high vote of nearly 6,000. It takes a very motivated racist to vote for someone as clearly insane as Zirkle, but we have them outnumbered. They're a fringe-phenomena, and it's enjoyable to watch the candidate waste his own money with his personal lost-cause of theocratic white supremacy.

Emigrantes mexicanos, tengai cuidado! Tony Zirkle es un abogado que no actuará en el mejor de vuestros intereses, el es contra los emigrantes!

Hilliary Clinton received just a barely 2% margin-of-victory over Barack Obama, which is considerably less than her "victory" in Pennsylvania. It's not going to be enough for her to prevail. We can thank her and the mainstream media for the paltry 2%. They hammered-home the Rev. Wright story again-and-again, going well beyond "heavy rotation." If it seemed like the GOP echo-chamber, that's because it was.

The Indiana count: At this writing, candidate Clinton holds 643, 442 votes (51%), while candidate Obama holds 629, 029 (49%). Clinton has garnered 37 delegates, while Obama has earned 33, but today Obama received the superdelegate endorsement of George McGovern. This comes from CNN, with 99% reporting. That's hardly a victory for Senator Hillary Clinton at all. It doesn't help her overall, and today we're hearing that she's dipping into her massive savings for $5.6 million as a "loan" to her campaign.

How does one loan oneself money, and is she good for it? Thank heavens for stupid girls, because stupid girls vote Clinton everyday. We're the state of Eugene Debs and New Harmony. It's just that we keep trying to forget. How did I vote? Obama. Rep. Joe Donnelly got no vote, and never will again for standing with President Bush on Iraq, and for helping block impeachment.

Donnelly needs to go, but there's no viable Democratic or third party candidates running against him (take that, Steve Francis). The one Republican who was for a withdrawal from Iraq (his name was Roush) lost along with Tony Zirkle. I would have voted for Mr. Roush over Joe Donnelly any day.

Indiana's Election results as of 3:38PM: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IN

No, it's not Urkle: It's mad dog, race-baiting Tony Zirkle!

Indiana's 2nd District--Expect much more on this individual, Tony Zirkle. Who is Mr. Zirkle? You could not make someone like Tony Zirkle up, only the human condition could. It would be too polite to refer to him as a confirmed whack-o, or that he's decidedly racist. Zirkle's law office (one of five he purportedly owns and runs) is located in Crown Point, Indiana, a place that would be essentially unknown were it not for John Dillinger's clever escape from the County Jail with a wooden-gun.

Zirkle compromises the worst that Indiana has to offer the rest of humanity, forget the rest of America. On Sunday, The South Bend Tribune--our one newspaper--asked all of the runners for seats in and representing Indiana, some interesting questions on current issues.

Each of the runners' political affiliation, educational background, political experience, and even age, were laid-out nicely. First, we got a lot of hot air from soon-to-be former Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (aka "Scarface," Bush's economics adviser in the first term, hint-hint), and some interesting answers from Jill Long Thompson, and James Schellinger, both Democrats running against the incumbent governor. Not a bad piece, and all done from questionnaires sent to each candidate.

Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly's answers about Iraq--and nearly everything else-- were disappointing as usual, and there appears to be no viable Democratic candidate to replace him in this district...but that's where the GOP's runners come in, at the tail-end of the piece.

Of all of the candidates for the 2nd District of Indiana's representative seat, Joseph Alan Roush wins the award for the most human and progressive platform on every issue he was questioned on, including Iraq--he wants a full-withdrawal. Immigration? he wants an end to NAFTA, and doesn't blame migratory workers and illegal immigrants. If Roush actually makes it further, it will be because of a progressive platform, and not because he's a Republican. It's doubtful Indiana's GOP will be giving him much support.

But this makes Roush a more reasonable candidate than the boorish Joe Donnelly, a man who won't be getting my vote anytime soon. The rest is fine-print, see for yourself. But then...then (brace yourselves), there's Tony Zirkle:

Tony Hvfvgpd Zirkle

Address: Homeless [Ed.-?!]

Political affiliation: Republican -- Original Intent [Ed.-?!]

Occupation: Attorney

Education: U.S. Naval Academy; Georgetown University, B.S.F.S. International Economics; Andrews University, B.A. religion & economics; Indiana University Bloomington School of Law, J.D.; Andrews University Theological Seminary, master's in divinity candidate (two tests remain to completion)

Political Experience: 1988-1989 -- Indiana state president, Future Business Leaders of America; 1989, 1990, 1992 -- class president, U.S. Naval Academy.

Ran as a Republican for the following offices [Ed.--And blessedly failed...]:

2000 -- Indiana House, District 8

2002 & 2006 -- St. Joseph Co. Prosecutor

2004, 2006, & 2008 -- U.S. House of Representatives, Indiana 2nd District

Age: 38

What's the best solution to the conflict in Iraq?

The best solution? Stop glorifying adultery by enshrining neo-Baal porn worship in the heart of the First Amendment. Porn-adultery appoints "terror" to us. Lev. 26:16. Remember, slave-raping extended the Civil War. [Ed.--The meaning of this answer escapes me entirely, but perhaps Mr. Zirkle should try his hand at writing science fiction some time in the near-future, he's got a wild imagination. At-minimum, the candidate appears to be sexually-obsessed. One has to wonder if he's ever seen a prostitute or a mistress...]

Describe your position on illegal immigration.

If we want immigration fixed, the absolute critical issue is to secure local concurrent jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws with no bond holds. I would compromise on almost all for that. [Ed.--It should be noted here that Mr. Zirkle represents illegal immigrants. One might ask him how many clients he has achieved exoneration for.]

Explain your position on the rising price of oil.

We need a LaPorte County U.S. Civil Service Academy where the master's and doctorate students and researchers will have an unobstructed key to the patent office for energy technological development. [Ed.-?!] ("Candidates Seek to Challenge Donnelly," The South Bend Tribune, 04.27.2008)

And there it is, Tony Zirkle. He has a presence on the Internet, making a real spectacle of himself regularly there (and in courtrooms). Google his name sometime. You're bound to be offended, but always entertained.

Yet the fear will remain that there are creatures bearing his name: race-baiter, religious nut, and all-around opportunist and grouser, Tony Zirkle. Dr. Seuss could never had made you up. He didn't do nightmares (much). And here I didn't even mention that Tony wants to bring back the guillotine, and a segregated United States that closely resembles the version the Aryan Nations would prefer. Then, there's the birthday party for Hitler that he attended recently with some armband wearing friends. Tony Zirkle: how the other 1% lives.

"Candidates Seek to Challenge Donnelly," The South Bend Tribune, 04.27.2008: http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS07/804270385/-1/elections

Tony's Scary, and he keeps scarier company...I think: http://wonkette.com/politics/tony-zirkle/tony-zirkle-keepin-it-scarily-real-168906.php

Tony at a birthday party for Adolph Hitler: http://nwitimes.com/articles/2008/04/23/news/top_news/docf6a35b9d5a72e89d8625743300832e52.txt

"Worst Campaign Idea Ever?": http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=12532

KARL ROVE ANNOUNCES HIS DECISION TO RESIGN

Washington D.C.--You can still be subpoenaed. Your kid is at college. You can still be pardoned, but the president had better save it for last.

You're a traitor, guilty of more crimes than Aaron Burr, or even Benedict Arnold--at least there was a smidgen of validity to their motives. We all know you're going to be running the RNC's campaign strategy for the 2008 elections. This is why we must watch your every move making your life extremely transparent.

The threat of prison will always be over your shoulder, it's coming...or is it? You'll never know, will you? Not until Federal Marshals come for you. Then, it'll be too late. It's funny how you Republicans use the same lame excuse when it's obvious you're about to be felled: "I need to spend time with my family."

Sure. You've been so attentive already. At least Joseph Goebbels had the common courtesy to kill himself.

The Antisocial Personality in History

"It was wholly in keeping with this retreat from the game of politics that he increasingly lapsed, in terminology and in the tenor of his statements, back into the plane of irrationality. ...Strictly speaking, he never again returned to politics." --the late German Historian Joachim Fest, from his book "Hitler", pgs. 610-611. 1973. Translation, Harcourt, Inc., 1974.

[6] Let them now therefore be punished as their crime requires, and do not, while you condemn the aristocracy, absolve the people.
--Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, book 3, chapter 39, section 6.


Washington D.C.--In the first piece I did on Bush's core nature, I noted that the antisocial personality-type has a disregard for the lives and safety of others.

New developments in the war in Iraq bring-to-light another aspect: his absolute rejection of politics and compromise, abetted by the Republican and Democratic Party's incumbents serving in the legislature. This seems to be suddenly rearing-its-head to many observers, yet it has been at the core of his--and this political era's--personality and approach. There is an unfortunate parallel here: Hitler and Nazi Germany again, and the misconceptions surrounding the causes and actions during that period of European history. The reality is far different than the public perception of that era, often startlingly so.

After the Fall of 1938 it was clear that most of the German people didn't want a wider war. The Prussian officer class feared that a world war was coming, and made several desperate attempts to curtail Hitler's push (too late at that point without the resolve to assassinate him).

Remember: Hitler was not elected. This is a myth, and Kurt Vonnegut and many others have been mistaken on this point since the end of WWII. Hitler was beaten by Hindenburg in the 1932 Presidential elections, and the machinations surrounding his rise to power are complicated. The reality is that Hitler was essentially appointed Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenberg.

The Nazis demanded that Adolf Schickelgruber (sounds pretty Aryan) be installed as Chancellor of Germany with a number of Nazis entering the Cabinet. Hindenburg, Von Papen, and several other State conservatives allowed it for social peace in the streets and to keep the German Communist Party from making further advances politically. They did it to use Hitler and NSDAP as a bulwark against a healthy domestic Left. In a period of such social chaos, Hitler's pathologies weren't immediately apparent. But it is interesting to note that the antisocial personality type is easily diagnosed today in what are more domestically "peaceful" conditions:

The most effectively-diagnosed personality disorder is the antisocial personality. The outstanding traits of this disturbance are an inability to feel love, empathy, or loyalty towards other people and a lack of guilt or remorse for one's actions. Due to the lack of conscience that characterizes it, the condition that is currently known as antisocial personality disorder was labeled moral insanity in the nineteenth century. (Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 2001.)

This describes Hitler well from all of the accounts of his behavior behind-the-scenes, and is reflected in George W. Bush's public demeanor, policy decisions, and from his language in speeches (we don't know much about the private-sphere...yet).

Few want to admit it, but the majority in a society can become mad--but what of a significant minority that's capable of society-wide destruction? This is always possible in any developed nation, and at all times. We know this from accounts from the Middle Ages (the witch hunts), cults, satanic panics, psychiatric cults, abduction phenomena, and periods of political and cultural "demonism" like the Cold War's Red Scare.

In late-1938, the military-columns that paraded through Berlin headed towards Czechoslovakia were met with stunned silence and apathy by the populace. Hitler stood angrily at his balcony--nobody wanted what he wanted, there were no crowds, and the majority of Germans wanted nothing of his war-aims. If you thought everyone in Germany was behind Hitler, you were wrong. Scores-of-innocents died under the Allied aerial-bombing.

The German public had deep misgivings about the Nazi regime as early as 1935, after the "Night of Long Knives." This is rarely reported in the accepted history. After the autumn of 1938, Hitler gave fewer-and-fewer speeches and appearances before the public. Overall, the German people didn't adore him anymore and they feared his drive towards war. By 1944, he wasn't seen in public, and even rarely gave his famed radio addresses. Gauleiter Josef Goebbels did most of the public-speaking for the Nazi centre towards the end.

You can see a similarity here with the Bush administration--the more-reluctant the public has become, the deeper the President and his administration digs-in, illustrating no regard for the safety of the troops and the Iraqi people. They have deliberately cut-themselves-off from the American public physically, and whomever comes after them isn't likely to be very different.

This withdrawl is a general aspect of personality disorders: a stiffness and an unwillingness to change under changing circumstances, and n inflexibility and ossification of a personality. Granted, with the revelations of secret CIA prisons and illegal rendition (kidnapping, then torture), this should be no surprise, but expect future revelations that are considerably worse in their depravity. Where does this all come from? There is no consensus on the causes of antisocial personality disorder (APD), however:

The cause of this disorder is unknown, but biological or genetic factors may play a role. The incidence of antisocial personality is higher in people who have an antisocial biological parents. Although the diagnosis is limited to those over 18 years of age, there is usually a history of similar behaviors before age 15, such as repetitive lying, truancy, delinquency, and substance abuse. This disorder tends to occur more often in men and in people whose predominant role model had antisocial features. (http://www.psychnetuk.com/clinical_psychology/criteria_personality_antisocial.htm)

In Hitler's, Stalin's, and George W. Bush's case, their "predominant role model" was their abusive father. Ponder this relationship and how very publicly it has played-out. It's known that Stalin's father beat him and was emotionally-abusive, and there is evidence that Hitler's father was this way too.

Both Hitler and Stalin's mothers were the reverse of the fathers: loving and doting, while the father was distant and rejected them.

While we don't know the whole story regarding the Bush clan's culture, there are signs that George W. Bush has been repeatedly rejected by Sr. It's also not difficult to fathom that George H. W. Bush is a pathological-liar and a criminal with a tendency towards manipulation and deceit. Whether he has been physically-abusive to his children is unknown. Nonetheless, Bush Sr. ran the CIA, after all (often wearing-disguises at Langley so nobody knew what he was doing, even close associates and allies). He was also one of the masterminds behind Iran-Contra, and showed a deep-tendency towards sadism. The apple doesn't fall very far from the family tree here.

Bush Sr. has lied about his entire life, as well as the history of his family and their connections to the Nazi regime. Pathology is interconnected, and communicable, in the opinion of this author. A recent disclosure has revealed that he has had connections with the CIA beginning in 1953--an assertion he has denied for decades, and is still-denying with the release of key-documents this-week that prove otherwise. His recent breakdown at a speech might mean a fear of disclosure of the family-illness, and potential criminal penalties. Impeachment--it should be remembered--bars further-charges against an elected office-holder in our Constitution.

Yet, truth is always stranger than fiction and the "conventional wisdom." It appears that at least ten GOP senators are going to vote against further-escalation of the war, possibly more. This is becoming precipitously-close to the 2/3's majority in both the House and the Senate it will take to override a veto from the President. [Ed., 09.13.2008-Yet they ended up supporting even more funds for the wars in the Middle East and the so-called "surge."] What if he still commits the troops? He's up-for-grabs. [Ed. Or not!] Like Hitler on the eve of WWII, he's pushing it to where we will have to go as far as to unseat him. This fits the antisocial personality type, because many of them crave excitement and fear boredom or banality.

Hitler played this poker game with the OKW (the Military Command of the Wehrmacht), and for a brief-moment, they plotted a coup against him as some of them had done years earlier. It was the only option Hitler had left them, and he did it consciously as a matter of brinksmanship. The same applies to the Bush II administration. His advisers did their homework on how to bum rush the Constitution. Our option is massive civil disobedience and nonviolent non-compliance by the military and political-class, as well as those in all of the Federal bureaus (the bureaucracy). We have had a Constitutional crisis since 2000, but Americans love putting things off.

The current condition of our nation, our liberties, and on the ground in Iraq, are the cost of this inaction and lack of resolve and principles. We are all to blame, but we need to look at all those who somehow still support George W. Bush--they could very-well be sick. We might want to have our politicians tested as part of their qualifications for office.

Our Constitution should be amended so that it would disqualify anyone who tested-positive for psychopathology from holding public office. 3% of all men, and 1% of all women in America are antisocial personality types. And now we know why there are rich people...

Radically Revised, 09.13.2008

The Constitution of the United States of America (I know, it's been since High School):http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

DSM IV Info:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0002/ai_2699000257

Is Wal-mart selling Nazi paraphernalia?

THE UNITED STATES AGAIN--You gotta love reactionaries on the Left and the right. The blogosphere is going ballistic over a Wal-mart selling t-shirts with a "Nazi-skull emblem" on them. Ferchrissakes, pay attention to Iraq, watch the lame duck Congress so they don't pass any more totalitarian laws.

Just do something useful.

The image is the SS Totenkopf (death's head) symbol, often worn by American bikers. It's pretty obvious this is an overreaction and that the shirts are a mistake by a lazy graphic designer.

But what if they sold the real thing? What if they sold actual Nazi paraphernalia from 1933-1945? I wouldn't be bothered by it at all. Really? Nope. People should have physical artifacts to prove that Nazism and the Holocaust really happened. These are objects with no power other than what we project onto them.

If you think a swastika or an Iron Cross holds some strange power over you, you might consider an analyst. Wal-mart is removing the shirts, so it appears that democracy's safe for another week. But we all know that it was Nazi paraphernalia that started WWII: an entire generation of Germans were hypnotized and obeyed all those medals, posters and uniforms, not Hitler. "But why would you even want that stuff?" I think I just said why.

[Ed., 12.28.2008--Yes, it was medals and Nazi paraphernalia that caused WWII. Not the devastation and reaction to WWI, not Versailles and the absurd reparations leveled on Germany, and not a Great Depression and a compliant conservative aristocratic establishment that allowed Hitler into Bismarck's cabinet--we can prevent another Third Reich by stamping-out any memory or reference to it. Fuck you.]

The Original Irritant:

http://www.bentcorner.com/2006/11/09/wal-mart-is-selling-shirts-with-a-nazi-ss-skull-on-it/

MENTAL HEALTH & POWER: IRAQ IS ENDING, BUT CHOCOLA & THE GOP WON'T ADMIT IT

South Bend,Indiana--I was watching a Chris Chocola (GOP) advertisement yesterday, and it dawned-on- me how completely-insane this moron is. The ad was something that would have worked in 2004, but when it's obvious America is never, ever going to 'win' in Iraq (what that means is anyone's guess). Not ever.

But Chocola, sitting cocksure in his Mr. Rogers sweater, leans-forward to the camera to tell us widdle' constituents that we 'must win for the safety of our families.' I thank God we are losing, but it would be sweet if nobody was getting-killed--Iraqis or Americans. The advertisement really flies-in-the-face of reality when we have lost 103-soldiers in October alone for an illegal-war without any tangible-aims (except cutting the flow of Iraqi-oil), and yet I think his Democratic-opponent Mr. Donnelly is going to lose to such an uncharismatic pud.

But Iraq is all he has, and it will be Chris Chocola's legacy too. I plan to remind-him until both of us are dead, I'm his political-memory and shadow for life. If he loses and ever runs for public-office again, he's my ONE cause. Activists, take-note: stop trying to fight some generalized-nouns, go-after real, tangible subjects and targets-for-exposure and ridcule. Play dirty, no-holds-barred, because nice-nice doesn't work. You have to have RISK for results.

Chocola's opponent, Mr. Joe Donnelly: he's going to lose. Why? He STILL hasn't come-out against-the-war, he just won't do it. Local anti-war activists aren't exactly prodding-him, either. But this kind of wishy-washiness is probably part of why he lost the last two-times against a Republican--Donnelly just won't act like an opposition-candidate.

Either he's listening too much to campaign advisers (people we should all be watching very-closely), or he just lacks any balls. He has so much ammunition--more than any candidate could hope-for--and he just won't use any of it. Maybe he's just too-nice, though he owns a local-business, so how nice could he be? Iraq is a game played by and for elites, which is why they should die on the battlefields. I'd volunteer Chocola and his kids for front-line duty against the Sunni militias. We'll put them in a poorly-armored Hummer, with no flak-jackets or adequate headgear.

If only that missle had hit Chocola's C-130--but it had a defense system, installed just for Christopher and his congressional-peers. (http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8936) & (http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/amp.htm)

While Saudi Arabia's ruling-class continues to be the paymaster of extremist-terrorism, and while Pakistan still trains them, the GOP and Bush administration cover for them. They protect-them from...us, the average American and the Saudi and Pakistani-peoples. The American State Department has created this mess, even before Bush.

Yes, even Bill Clinton is to blame. We supported and became entangled with nations who provide us oil, but who also oppress their people. They then take this reasonable rage against-them, and then channel it into extremist-causes for their own geopolitical aims. It's not a secret.

Well, except to people who would vote for Chris Chocola--the stubborn idiots. Yes, it would be best if some people didn't ever vote. This is an unpopular-position on the Left, but it has merit. After all, the Nazis were elected legally into the Reichstag, something the GOP cannot say since the elections of 2000 (indeed!). Even Hugo Chavez was elected legally. If you want people voting the next Adolf Hitler into-office so you can feel-better about everybody voting, you should check yourself. Yes, you can be too liberal.

So, when Chris Chocola was leaning into the camera to explain to us child constituents that we all have it wrong, and that Iraq is winnable--were you angry about it? If not, you're either hopelessly-ignorant, or you can't feel anything anymore. It was insulting, like his whole time in office, or his very existence. Still, if he loses, Jeff Gannon has some gay-hustler work for him on K Street. Does it matter if the GOP keeps their majority? I don't think so, they're clearly self-destructing anyway.

Who but they could write such a disasterous-agenda? Who is resigning-in-droves because they have to? Who made them go into Iraq? Who made Mark Foley touch congressional pages, and who forced-them into covering-it-up? Who made them accept bribes from lobbyists like Jack Abramoff? If they win the elections, it won't go away.

Yes, that's right Republicans, your party is over. From 1981, then 1994-to-now, you had your anti-1960s. Tim McVeigh was your Weathermen [Ed., 08.26.2008-Or was he?], and Gingrich was your Bobby. We can thank God that Reagan wasn't your JFK, and none of the right will ever produce an MLK Jr. You're going-the-way of the Whig Party, the people you replaced 150-years-ago. This time, it's over for similar-reasons--a split over the role of the Federal government.

Traditional conservatives feel betrayed (welcome aboard) over this, wanting less government-encroachment into their lives, and some fiscal-responsibility (you too?). Illegal-wiretapping and the ending of Habeus Corpus qualifies as encroachment. The Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress have done the exact opposite of what they promised, expanding intrusive government more than the Democrats have in over 20-years. And are we any safer? Get real, ask people in New Orleans that.

Ask people in New York City, when NORAD failed them on 9/11. Yes, our entire defense system is worthless, a waste of money. Spending more on it won't help either. The only way our country can be secure is by taking care of eachother, making government do-our-bidding and providing what is necessary in the modern world: a national health care plan, laws against shipping jobs overseas (bye-bye NAFTA & CAFTA), progressive taxation of the richest, a cap on carbon-dioxide emissions, sane environmental policies, stern white collar crime laws and enforcement, stern laws restricting the power of lobbyists and corporations, defense-spending cuts, and on-and-on.

No, the GOP loses either way, which is somehow difficult for most on the so-called 'Left' to grasp. This is because, like most Americans, they have an 'all-or-none' mentality that comes from watching too-many crappy Hollywood movies (mainly action-movies and westerns). It's not an all-or-none equation, that's not how human society or objective reality works.

Here's a great-example of that idea hitting-a-wall: Yesterday, the Air Force requested $50 Billion in emergency funds to be able to airlift wounded and killed American soldiers.

Rumsfeld decides on November 15th if they qualify, conveniently after the elections, just like the Libby-trial. Yes, Scooter Libby is going to reveal a whole lot of information along with Mr. Jack Abramoff. Abramoff is so busy ratting they had to give him a desk in his cell, where for four hours every day he outlines all the bribes, gifts and cross-alliances. Many more heads are going to roll after November 7th, which alone could insure a Democratic majority. At that time, it will be appropriate to pile-on them for radical-reforms. Rest assured they will fight any gains made by working-class Americans if we let them. The fight will only have begun.

The Democrats will try to prolong this War in Iraq, you can bank-on-it. Those dozen-or-more permanent military bases are there for a reason--we're there for the long-haul according-to the GOP and Democratic Party. This is why none of them will discuss the bases. Remember what military-bases in Saudi Arabia got us? Possibly, 9/11. We'd all better get-ready, the tidal-wave of bodies (American this-time) is coming to our shores, and soon, and a lot of angry veterans. Many of them will be radicalized forever, and some of them will run for office. With some luck, we might wipe-away an entire political-generation. This would be a best-case scenario. Politicians like Chris Chocola have bet the farm with the Bush administration, and he's voted for practically everything they've wanted him to (except on immigration).

It's possible George W. Bush has come to campaign for Chris Chocola more than any other GOP-candidate, since he practically lives-here. Perhaps they promised Chocola a kingdom in Hell? I hope he gets that kingdom. Once again, as I write this, a local SWAT team is doing their target-practice at a nearby FOP firing-range. Burst-after-burst of fully-automatic volleys, so they must need the practice...

The Air Force's Sudden Need for Airlifting-funds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/31/AR2006103100621_pf.html

The Whig Party (edumacate yo'-selves):
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1004

http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2692

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561572/Democratic_Party.html

The Birth of Pop: Ken Russell's "Lisztomania" (1975) review

To many, this film is the stunning proof that director Ken Russell never had it and that idiocy and egotism were mistaken for genius. You could say mistaking idiocy and egotism for genius has been the appeal of rock music all along!

Others might say that Russell is simply childish or immature, and that his films are the "masturbatory fantasies" of an overgrown-adolescent. This belief is unfounded. Consider this film part-autobiography and the problems faced by most artists who have to battle for control over the direction of their work with their backers, their "patrons." Before there was even a notion of "capitalism," artists have had to fight to protect their visions from the very people they're dependent on to realize those dreams.

Is this film over-indulgent? Yes it is, dear readers, very-much-so, because it is art and not entertainment. That said, if you chuck any expectations, this is also a funny film and allegory about the rise of pop culture in the 19th Century.

Russell's Lisztomania ( phrase coined while the composer was at the height of his powers) draws parallels between Liszt's fame and that other generally hollow spectacle known as "rock." That's not to say Russell dislikes Liszt's music or that he views it as meaningless--the contrary is true. What Russell hates is the empty spectacle. But this is great filmmaking, and it should be noted that it has similarities between itself and another film of the same year, "Rocky Horror," and even "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," as they examine and explore the relationships between sexuality and pop culture. It really is true that women threw their underwear at Franz Liszt during his performances and that he had many-many lovers, 19 th century "proto-groupies."

Lisztomania is also that very odd bridge between "classic" arena rock and the emergent punk movement of the time. The film can be seen as a statement that "rock" is not really subversive or rebellious at all, but ultimately arch-conservative and repressive. Amen. It's just a hilarious, wild romp that will make your guests extremely nervous, which films all great films should do. Movies should challenge people to think and reflect, at least occasionally.

Ironically (or perhaps not-at-all), Mr. Russell had previously contracted Malcolm MacLaren and Vivienne Westwood to design the S&M costumes for his film, "Mahler." It should also be noted that "Liszt-O-Mania" was released exactly the same year that MacLaren's shop "SEX" shop opened on King's Row; the rest is, as they say, history. It couldn't be more camp considering it has Little Nell in it, but it would be without her.

Basically put, this is about the the ins-and-outs of "why" we want and need pop culture and WHAT we generally want from our "pop idols" (sex and some form of wish-fulfillment, naturally). One could say this film criticizes the absurd spectacle that rock had become by 1975, and this theme pops-up often throughout the film, but Russell was never a fan. No, this psychological comic book portrait goes much deeper into the relationship between artist and patron. Nowadays, the patrons are the mass audience, something that was just emerging from the industrial and commercial age. Once, it was just the aristocracy, now the mob has been added.

Sexuality is about mass psychology, so Wilhelm Reich gets-his-due here in some areas, and there is a plethora of Freudian imagery, which is something you expect from Russell. Lisztomania is certainly a very personal film for the director and probably amuses him as much as it does myself that it enrages so many critics (definitely a "get-screwed" message to all of them), but it should be noted that some of the absurdity and excess came from the producer of the film, not Mr. Russell. The enfant terrible director has complained about the opening country song in his autobiography "Altered States," and that there were other aspects of the production he didn't want in the film. Perhaps. Yet Russell tends to enrage all the right people, and that's what at least some film-making should be.

God love this lapsed Catholic, and God love his ways. Lisztomania is a flawed part of his canon, but a very watchable and educational one. As Russell began his career doing documentaries and impressionistic films on composers for the BBC, it makes a kind of sense that this is considered one of his most heretical works since it goes well beyond his work for television in the 1960s...until one becomes aware of his banned "Dance of the Seven Veils" about Richard Strauss.

Critics of the film tend to trot out the BBC documentaries as a yardstick, yet this isn't so far removed from "Dance of the Seven Veils," a film that also utilized the same psychosexual comic book approach of Strauss's and Hitler's fateful relationship. Liszt and Wagner's fateful relationship is portrayed in similar terms and imagery, namely that of National Socialism. Dance of the SevenVeils got him booted from the BBC for nearly twenty years. It's hard to generalize about Russell's career, except perhaps on a thematic level, but he's always willing to rile.

It's interesting to note that the 1980s was the period of his purest work, due mainly to a three-picture deal with the now-defunct Vestron pictures. But the standard view of many of his sharpest critics is that it was a fallow decade. The opposite is true.

The 1970s were actually a very mixed-bag for Russell, as evinced by Lisztomania and Valentino, and he continued to struggle for artistic control over his films as the decade rolled-on. He isn't entirely pleased with Lisztomania, but Russell definitely had some fun with the material, and so, there it is. This is hardly one of his best films and surely not his worst. What it is is a real laugh riot. I think it's a hoot, which means it isn't on DVD.