"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, October 07, 2006

R.I.P. Buck O'Neil
Posted by Jill | 9:28 AM
When someone lives to be 94, it's hard to regard that person's death as a tragedy. 94 is a good, long run, especially when you enjoyed every minute, even the bad ones, the way Buck O'Neil did. But still, it's hard not to be sad today.

Mr. Brilliant used to tell me about his grandfather in the Midwest, who used to go to Negro League games because they was more interesting and more fun to watch than the then-all-white leagues. But for many of us, our first real exposure to the old Negro Leagues was in Ken Burns' series Baseball, in which Buck O'Neil figured prominently. The man's warmth and love for the game were palpable, and it is that series which gave O'Neil a late-life resurgence in the public consciousness. I'll leave it to the obituary writers to recap O'Neil's baseball career and his life, but as the keeper of the flame for all those players whose achievements might otherwise have been forgotten, O'Neil's status as one of the pivotal figures in the history of American baseball is self-evident.

That the baseball writers refused to include O'Neil among the 17 Negro Leagues figures who were elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame last February is a dark spot on the Hall. As Keith Olbermann wrote at the time:

Snubbing Minoso and O'Neil -- apparently for all time -- is extraordinary enough. But only baseball could make it worse. In honoring the Negro Leagues -- it managed to exclude O'Neill and Minoso -- but did elect two white people.

James Leslie Wilkinson was the founder of those Kansas City Monarchs -- Jackie Robinson's team before he broke the color barrier with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Wilkinson was a white businessman. And today's election also made a Hall of Famer out of Effa Manley... She was the owner of the Newark Eagles of the Negro American League. It sounds almost impossible to believe -- but she too was white -- married to a black man -- and she pretended to be -- as the term was, then, "passed" -- as a light-skinned black.

Most of the 17 electees yesterday were entirely deserving. Such legendary figures as Sol White and Biz Mackey and Jose Mendez will achieve in death and in the Hall of Fame something they were denied in life. Just to twist the knife a little further into Buck O'Neil, the special committee elected Alex Pompez, owner of the New York Cubans team... Also an organized crime figure... Part of the mob of the infamous '30s gangster Dutch Schultz... Indicted in this country and Mexico for racketeering.

He's in the Hall of Fame. For all time. Buck O'Neil is not. It is not merely indefensible. For all the many stupid things the Baseball Hall of Fame has ever done... This is the worst.


Despite being snubbed by these armchair quarterbacks -- or pitchers or outfielders or shortstops -- most of whom never picked up a ball in their lives, let alone experiencing the dangers of riding team buses through the deep South in the Jim Crow era, O'Neil never held a pity party, nor did he allow these nimrods to dampen his love of the game. In July of this year, at 94, he became the oldest man ever to play in a professional baseball game, going 0-for-2 with two walks in a Northern League all-star game.

"Shed no tears for Buck," he said after being snubbed by the baseball writers. "No, no. Ol' God's been good to me. You can see that, don't you? If I'm a Hall of Famer for you, that's all I need. Just keep loving ol' Buck."

And we do.

UPDATE: Thanks to commenter druidbros for this obituary in the K.C. Star.
Bookmark and Share

Is "George Soros" code for "The Jews"?
Posted by Jill | 8:01 AM
Just wondering, because it seems that every time the Republicans get into trouble, they like to blame George Soros:


As the Foley scandal casts its long, dark shadow over the GOP, embroiling the likes of Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, and Tom Reynolds, among others, no amount of damage control seems capable of containing the fallout. But you have to hand it to the Republicans for trying. Over the last couple days they’ve dusted off a well worn line, which they never fail to trot out when things are looking particularly bleak for the GOP: George Soros is behind this.

Why Soros? After all, he wasn't the one sending creepy emails or dirty IMs to congressional pages. That was Mark Foley. Nor is he at fault for failing to act after being warned of Foley’s lascivious behavior toward the pages. That was Hastert. In the minds of some Republicans, Soros, the billionaire financier and philanthropist who has donated generous sums of his fortune to democratic candidates and causes, is the kingpin behind a vast conspiracy to dismantle the Republican Party. So, in their thinking, it would follow that Soros and the watchdog groups that are funded by his Open Society Institute, such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), are pulling the strings on a well-timed effort to taint the Republican Party just before the mid-term elections by leaking Foley's emails to the press.

“The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros,” Hastert (who has previously intimated that Soros’ philanthropic efforts may be funded by “drug money”) told the Chicago Tribune yesterday. On Fox last night, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly were also preoccupied by this prospect. Interviewing Brian Ross, the ABC reporter who broke the scandal, O'Reilly said, “Now the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a far left group. George Soros gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you're hearing?”

“I'm not familiar with them,” Ross responded. “They didn't drive us.”

Of course, there isn’t a shred of truth to the Soros/CREW conspiracy angle (though CREW was in possession of some of Foley’s emails earlier this summer and forwarded them to the FBI). As The Hill reported today, the source who provided the Foley emails to several news outlets back in July, via an intermediary, was a House GOP aide.


I think there's an element of "Soros = Jew" there, but I think the more likely explanation is that this is another classic case of Republican projection: Since THEY have a guy, Richard Mellon Scaife, who really DID finance a far-reaching effort to topple a sitting president. So since it's the way THEY operate, they just assume that we have a similar guy -- because it isn't just about sexual matters that Republicans project their own traits onto others.

Of course, if Soros WERE kingpin of a vast left-wing conspiracy, he wouldn't be regarded as a very effective one, because lest people forget, the Republicans DO control all three branches of government, and have been highly effective at getting the mainstream media to do their bidding (Wolf Blitzer, I'm talking to YOU). It's to get the conspiracy meme to gain any traction when you still control everything.

(Hat tip: C&L.)
Bookmark and Share
Friday, October 06, 2006

That's why they're setting up Christian madrassas
Posted by Jill | 8:03 AM
Joe Scarborough, perhaps mindful of the growing Cult of Keith, has been devoting a fair amount of attention to the film Jesus Camp about an evangelical summer camp where "Rev." Becky Fisher is training martyrs for Christ.

Perhaps the Christofascist Zombie Brigade needs these Christian madrassas to train their version of the very same aspiring martyrs we're fighting in the Middle East, because they fear if they don't get 'em young, they might lose them once the hormones start flowing:

Despite their packed megachurches, their political clout and their increasing visibility on the national stage, evangelical Christian leaders are warning one another that their teenagers are abandoning the faith in droves.

Their alarm has been stoked by a highly suspect claim that if current trends continue, only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” as adults. That would be a sharp decline compared with 35 percent of the current generation of baby boomers, and before that, 65 percent of the World War II generation.

While some critics say the statistics are greatly exaggerated (one evangelical magazine for youth ministers dubbed it “the 4 percent panic attack”), there is widespread consensus among evangelical leaders that they risk losing their teenagers.

“I’m looking at the data,” said Ron Luce, who organized the meetings and founded Teen Mania, a 20-year-old youth ministry, “and we’ve become post-Christian America, like post-Christian Europe. We’ve been working as hard as we know how to work — everyone in youth ministry is working hard — but we’re losing.”

The board of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group representing 60 denominations and dozens of ministries, passed a resolution this year deploring “the epidemic of young people leaving the evangelical church.”

Among the leaders speaking at the meetings are Ted Haggard, president of the evangelical association; the Rev. Jerry Falwell; and nationally known preachers like Jack Hayford and Tommy Barnett.

Genuine alarm can be heard from Christian teenagers and youth pastors, who say they cannot compete against a pervasive culture of cynicism about religion, and the casual “hooking up” approach to sex so pervasive on MTV, on Web sites for teenagers and in hip-hop, rap and rock music. Divorced parents and dysfunctional families also lead some teenagers to avoid church entirely or to drift away.

Over and over in interviews, evangelical teenagers said they felt like a tiny, beleaguered minority in their schools and neighborhoods. They said they often felt alone in their struggles to live by their “Biblical values” by avoiding casual sex, risqué music and videos, Internet pornography, alcohol and drugs.

When Eric Soto, 18, transferred from a small charter school to a large public high school in Chicago, he said he was disappointed to find that an extracurricular Bible study attracted only five to eight students. “When we brought food, we thought we could get a better turnout,” he said. They got 12.

Chelsea Dunford, a 17-year old from Canton, Conn., said, “At school I don’t have a lot of friends who are Christians.”

Ms. Dunford spoke late last month as she and her small church youth group were about to join more than 3,400 teenagers in a sports arena at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst for a Christian youth extravaganza and rock concert called Acquire the Fire.

“A lot of my friends are self-proclaimed agnostics or atheists,” said Ms. Dunford, who wears a bracelet with a heart-shaped charm engraved with “tlw,” for “true love waits,” to remind herself of her pledge not to have premarital sex.

She said her friends were more prone to use profanity and party than she was, and added: “It’s scary sometimes. You get made fun of.”

To break the isolation and bolster the teenagers’ commitment to a conservative lifestyle, Mr. Luce has been organizing these stadium extravaganzas for 15 years. The event in Amherst was the first of 40 that Teen Mania is putting on between now and May, on a breakneck schedule that resembles a road trip for a major touring band. The “roadies” are 700 teenagers who have interned for a year at Teen Mania’s “Honor Academy” in Garden Valley, Tex.

More than two million teenagers have attended in the last 15 years, said Mr. Luce, a 45-year-old, mop-headed father of three with a master’s degree from the Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard and the star power of an aging rock guitarist.

“That’s more than Paul McCartney has pulled in,” Mr. Luce asserted, before bounding onstage for the opening pyrotechnics and a prayer.

For the next two days, the teenagers in the arena pogoed to Christian bands, pledged to lead their friends to Christ and sang an anthem with the chorus, “We won’t be silent.” Hundreds streamed down the aisles for the altar call and knelt in front of the stage, some weeping openly as they prayed to give their lives to God.


In the context of the Foley scandal and in contrast to the live-and-let-live Christian life of the Amish people of Nickel Mines, PA that is is now under our most unwelcome spotlight, the sheer fear of the self, the terror if you will, that pervades these evangelicals, is highly instructive. The footage that has come to light of Mark Foley talking about exploited children gives credence to the notion that the more you here so-called evangelical Christian Republican clergy, politicians and talking heads ranting about man-on-dog sex, fisting, daddy-daughter sex, man-on-donkey marriage, and other practices that never even enter the minds of those of us who do NOT spend our days obsessing about other people's sex lives, the bigger the window into their own psyches.

Unlike the Christofascist Zombie Brigade, which is trying to cement its children into the fold at an early age, the Amish allow their young people to leave the community and sample the outside world when they turn sixteen, so that they can make a free-will choice whether to spend their lives in the insular community in which they grew up, or leave altogether. It's called rumspringa, and it allows teens to sample the "English" world so that if they do decide to return (and 85-90% do), they have chosen to do so of their own free will. Is there a greater manifestation of the "If you love something, set it free" doctrine in Christianity than this?

By allowing their children to decide their own futures, the Amish ensure that those who do stay are at peace with their decision and with their lives in the community. Now it may very well be that when you're talking about a restrictive, all-or-nothing way of life, the only way to practice that in the modern world is to insulate yourself from exposure to that world.

Most of us would have no problem if evangelicals want to live in insular communities without MTV, video games, cable television, and the other stimuli that they believe is the biggest threat to the fragile little belief system in which they've wrapped themselves. The problem is that because proseletyzing and conversion is such an important part of their faith, these people aren't content to set up communities and live and let live. Instead, they seek to impose their views and their restrictions on the larger community.

We don't see the Amish trying to get the English to turn off the lights, because those who have decided to remain in the community are comfortable in their lives and in their faith. It's those like Mark Foley and Rick Santorum and James Dobson, who clearly grapple every day with the kind of inner sexual demons that most of us can't even fathom, who seek affirmation of the restrictions they need by imposing them on the larger society.
Bookmark and Share

Generalissimo El Busho
Posted by Jill | 7:09 AM
Congratulations, America! You are now officially living in the dictatorship that George W. Bush repeatedly told us he wants.

Consistent with the Bush Doctrine of Truthiness, El Generalissimo said yesterday, in yet another one of his over 700 signing statements that are designed to inform the country that he has no intention of obeying any laws, that he can edit any reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security about whether it is obeying privacy laws. In other words, he reserves the right to doctor any report which indicates that the Bush Administration is overstepping its bounds so that what you see is an Administration in compliance -- while it's busy "disappearing" people:

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.


In another part of the statement, Bush re-affirmed his right to hire more unqualified cronies to Homeland Security positions:

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."


Now how does requiring demonstrated ability in emergency management rule out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge? It doesn't, unless by "experience and knowledge" you mean "my friends and campaign contributors."

How can anyone continue to believe that this man is a patriotic American, while he's shredding the Constitution? Why does no one outside of readers of blogs seems to give a shit? Are we really still that frightened? We ought to be more frightened of our government at this point, because it is the Bush Administration that hates our freedoms.

Today the Bush Administration demands the right to eviscerate the Constitution in an effort to apprehend suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. But tomorrow it's dissenters. And I don't mean in fifty years, I mean before two years are out. Because arresting dissenters has already started:

A Colorado man who was arrested in June on harassment charges after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney to denounce the war in Iraq filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday accusing a Secret Service agent of civil rights violations.

In his suit, filed in Federal District Court in Denver, the man, Steven Howards, an environmental consultant who lives in Golden, Colo., says he stepped up to the vice president to speak his mind in a public place and found himself in handcuffs — in violation, the suit says, of the Constitution’s language about free speech and illegal search and seizure.

[snip]

Mr. Howards, 54, said at a news conference here that he was taking his 8-year-old son to a piano lesson on June 16 at the Beaver Creek Resort about two hours west of Denver when he saw Mr. Cheney at an outdoor mall. Mr. Howards said he approached within two feet of Mr. Cheney and said in a calm voice, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” or as the lawsuit itself describes the encounter, “words to that effect.”

Mr. Howards said he then went on his way. About 10 minutes later, he said, he was walking back through the area when Agent Reichle handcuffed him and said he would be charged with assaulting the vice president. Local police officers, acting on information from the Secret Service, according to the suit, ultimately filed misdemeanor harassment charges that could have resulted in up to a year in jail.


All of this brings us back to the Diogenes of the Death of America, Keith Olbermann, who delivered another shiv to the foul, pus-filled boil that is George W. Bush last night. No video up at YouTube yet, but Crooks and Liars has it.

The one good thing about our inevitable future in Generalissimo El Busho's concentration camps is that people like Keith Olbermann will be there with us.
Bookmark and Share
Thursday, October 05, 2006

Quote of the Day: Clean-Slate Christianity in action
Posted by Jill | 7:11 AM
When you know that Jesus got nailed to a cross and suffered the way he did SO THAT YOU WOULD NEVER, EVER HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR SINS, life is easy.

Exhibit A is House Majority Leader John Boehner, who gives us today's Quote of the Day:

". . . What else do you want me to do? Take off my shirt and give myself forty lashes?" he asked. "Would've, could've, should've."


By that logic, we might as well save a ton of federal and local tax dollars and completely dismantle the criminal justice system. Because after all, once the damage is done, holding people to account is just "Would've, could've, should've."

Unless, of course, they're Democrats, abortion doctors, women with unplanned pregmancies, swarthy men carrying copies of the Koran, or black males who just happen to be walking around.
Bookmark and Share

Now we see why they want to control YOUR behavior
Posted by Jill | 6:50 AM
Here's a nice little peek inside the Republican mind: They can't control their dark sides, so they assume no one else can either, and they embrace this critical father/dire consequences model of religion without which they would do all kinds of unspeakable things, most of them sexual.

Most of us go about our lives knowing what to do and what to avoid. We may look at the hot young high-schooler, but that's all we do. We realize that the co-worker who's coming on to us means risking everything we have at home, so we put on the brakes. There's a scene in the movie Closer in which Natalie Portman says something along the lines of "There's always a moment where you make a choice."

This is not to say that it's only Republicans who are incapable or unwilling to make that choice; political history is littered with Democrats who who have taken the wrong fork in the road as well. But it seems to be only Republicans who want to punish YOU because THEY can't control themselves. THEY hate their homosexual leanings, so they want to force other gays back into the closet. THEY feel badly about their abortions, so they want to deny YOU that choice. THEY can't enjoy sex so they don't want you to either. If the Foley scandal teaches us anything, it should teach us to be alert when Republicans speak on moral, especially sexual issues -- because they are revealing a great deal about themselves.

Illinois Republican Congressman Ray LaHood understands this, and so rather than trying to get Congressmen to keep their hands -- or their keyboards -- off the pages, he's recommending that the page program be eliminated:

LaHood said the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley sending sexually explicit emails to Pages, proves it's not a good idea to bring young teenagers to Washington D.C.

He said this has happened to Pages before because the program is flawed.

He wants it eliminated now, and then re-evaluate whether the program should ever return.

"We need to look at the idea of bringing 15- and 16-year-old children to Washington D.C., exposing them to adults who they look up to and admire and these people turn out to be flawed people with flawed personalities," said LaHood.


We're all flawed people with flawed personalities. I'm too quick to have my feelings hurt. If someone's having a bad day, I wonder what I did to cause it. I talk too much. But I don't send erotic text messages to teenagers. I don't lust after teenagers, and if I did, I'd know that this is not acceptable. Those are some of the things that make me a flawed person. A man in a position of power who continually preys on teenagers is not a "flawed personality", he is a sex predator. And this Republican Congressman is telling us that the answer isn't for Congressmen to behave themselves, it's to remove the temptation.

Unbelievable. What's more unbelievable is that there are still people who believe that Republicans are the party of "values."
Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, October 04, 2006

A Foley-Free Zone (for today, anyway)
Posted by Jill | 6:31 AM
Because John is doing such a bang-up job (no pun intended) of covering the latest in the Republican Congressional Pedophile scandal (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), there's no point in re-inventing the wheel, however tempting it might be to weigh in. So go pay John a visit and catch up there when you're done here. Then go see Pam and take special note of how Faux News is now identifying Mark Foley as a DEMOCRATIC Congressman. Creating your own reality indeed.

There used to be a not-very-funny joke about how the big Jewish dilemma was free ham. It has been fun, however, in that same not-very-funny way, to watch as Republicans get all holier-than-thou about not wanting to gay-bash, with guys like Newt Gingrich try to spin this thing by claiming that they couldn't have done anything about Mark Foley without being accused of gay-bashing -- as if the ever-spiraling rhetoric about gay marriage and how homosexuals are responsible for the downfall of western civilization is simply concern for the children. Disingenuousness, thy name is "Republican." It's also been fun to watch them draw parallels between Bill Clinton's liaison with a groupie who was a consenting adult with a Congressman preying on teenage boys.

But while there is a certain pleasurable schädenfreude about the whole thing, I fear that the "all pedophilia, all the time" news cycle is obscuring a far more important story -- the revelation in Bob Woodward's new book, now confirmed by the State Department, that then-DCI George Tenet met with Condoleeza Rice on July 10, 2001 to go over intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. by Osama Bin Laden was imminent -- and getting the brushoff from a National Security Adviser who regarded action on Bin Laden as "swatting flies." It was clear even back then that the Administration was already thinking "Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq and Iraq" -- and even Rice herself testified before the 9/11 commission that the Bush Administration wanted to include dealing with Al Qaeda as part of a broader Middle East strategy (read: the PNAC agenda). In case you missed it the first time, this is part of Keith Olbermann's terrific timeline on how the Bush Administration misjudged and neglected the terrorism threat every step of the way in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks:





"I don't remember a so-called emergency meeting," Rice said on Monday, obviously understandably believing that the entirety of the U.S. press was still going to behave as the Bush Administration lapdogs they've been for the last five years. Well, I understand, as a woman only a year younger than Rice, that brain fog and forgetfulness is part of what happens temporarily at this time of life until you get through menopause. But one would think that the nation's National Security Adviser would have meticulous records of who told her what when.

Rice may not have kept notes, but the State Department did, and yesterday her spokesman tried to spin the department's confirmation of this meeting:


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did receive a CIA briefing about terror threats just about two months before the Sept. 11 attacks, but the information was not new, her chief spokesman said.

In doing so, Sean McCormack confirmed a meeting _ on July 10, 2001 _ that his boss had said repeatedly she could not specifically recall. She had said earlier that there were virtually daily meetings at the time.


"The information was not new". Now where have we heard that before? Oh yes...in this very same Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission:

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president -- and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum -- I remember it as being only a line or two -- that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.


Now, wouldn't one think that if the head of the CIA briefs you on July 10 that attacks are imminent, and then you see a PDB on August 6 that says "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S.", you'd do the math and figure that just maybe there was a risk of something significant happening?

YOU would, and I would, because if you see water puddling under the water heater, you don't wait till the basement is flooded before calling the plumber. But the Bush Administration doesn't. And it doesn't because it has this idée fixe about Iraq, which either makes them ignore all these warnings because they are obsessed with Saddam Hussein, or take the calculated risk that whatever attack occurs will provide the pretext they need without causing significant casualties and damage. And that's why you put Cheney in charge on 9/11 and ship Bush off to a first-grade classroom. And that's why you leave him there with that "Oh, shit, they didn't tell me it would be something like this" expression on his face for seven full minutes.

And this nitwit, this Condoleeza Rice in her Ferragamo shoes bought while people are dying in New Orleans, this woman who can't even lie credibly, is someone they're touting as a presidential candidate?

Even now, Dennis Hastert, in a desperate attempt to continue to play the fear card by saying "We are the insulation to protect this country" to voters who are growing ever-more disgusted with a Republican Congress that's acting as a procuring agency for pedophiles is still insisting that only Republicans can protect Americans. Except for teenaged boys, I guess, who are simply a perq of the office for Republican Congressmen.

But in light of the revelations about the now Secretary of State's blowing off of information that could have generated a Federal response much earlier on 9/11, or even before, how on earth can anyone possibly vote for the Republicans as the "protecting America" party?
Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Remember the put options on airlines in 2001?
Posted by Jill | 7:06 AM
Remember the put options placed on United and American Airlines shortly before the 9/11 attacks five years ago, betting that their stock prices would plummet?

Simbaud at The King of Zembla notes similar activitiy going on for the Diamonds Dow Trust, S&P Depository Receipts, the NASDAQ, and Market Vectors Gold Miners.

I don't know what it all means, perhaps someone in finance who reads this blog can enlighten us. But given Karl Rove's promise of an October Surprise, one has to wonder.
Bookmark and Share

The luckiest man on the face of the earth
Posted by Jill | 6:48 AM
...is New York Times writer Joe Sharkey, who survived a midair collision with the Boeing 737 that crashed in Brazil last Friday.
Bookmark and Share

Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee weigh in on "Foley Moley"
Posted by Jill | 5:58 AM
Be sure to put down the coffee first:





Meanwhile, it looks like the right is seeking to throw Denny Hastert under the bus in a desperate attempt to NOT pay a political price for the Republican House Leadership having covered up the actions of a pederast for up to five years. But what IF Hastert is thrown under the bus? Who becomes Majority Leader? Boehner? Tom Reynolds, who tried to cut a deal with Brian Ross at ABC to not publish the explicit instant messages? Given the growing list of names involved in this cover-up, you'll either have to make a Democrat Speaker by default, or else pay the men's room attendant enough so that he'll FEEL enough like a Republican to make a credible Republican House Speaker.

Meanwhile, in other news:

Who on earth could have a beef with the Amish?

Where have you gone, Chuck Jones, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

And there's still these little matters:

Rumsfeld has already grown bored with the impending bombing of Iran, and he now has his eye on Venezuela.

Condoleeza Rice needs to be checked for early-onset Alzheimer's, for she can't remember George Tenet warning of her of an impending Al Qaeda attack on July 10, 2001. LIHOP, anyone?

...and curfews have been extended in Iraq after the second mass kidnapping in the last two days. Yup -- Iraq is a shining beacon of democracy for the Middle East, all right.
Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 02, 2006

Hastert requests a free pass for House members -- and prosecution of the media
Posted by Jill | 6:43 AM
A good point has been raised at Talking Points Memo regarding Dennis Hastert's request for an investigation into the Foley matter. It seems that in true Republican fashion, while Hastert is now willing to throw Foley under the bus, he's handling the rest of the scandal -- the fact that just about everyone in the House leadership knew what Foley was doing and did nothing -- in true Republican fashion: Blame the Media.

The letter is here. Here's the relevant excerpt:

“As I am sure you are aware, there are two different and distinct communications at issue here. First, Mr. Foley sent an email to a former page of Representative Alexander in the fall of 2005. This email was determined to be "over friendly" by Representative Alexander's office but was not sexual in nature. Second, based on media reports, there is a different set of communications which were sexually explicit instant messages which Mr. Foley reportedly sent another former page or pages. These communications, of which no one in the House Leadership was aware to my knowledge, reportedly were sent sometime in 2003.



“According to an Editor's Note that appeared on the St. Petersburg Times' website yesterday, the Times was given a set of emails from Mr. Foley to Representative Alexander's former page in November of 2005. (See "A Note From the Editors" located at http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz /, visited on September 30, 2006). The editors state that they viewed this exchange as "friendly chit chat" and decided not to publish it after hearing an explanation from Representative Foley. Acting on this same communication, the Chairman of the House Page Board and the then Clerk of the House confronted Mr. Foley, demanded he cease all contact with the former page as his parents had requested, and believed they had privately resolved the situation as the parents had requested.



“Unlike the first communication, the second communication was a set of instant messages that contained sexually explicit statements and were reportedly generated three years ago. Last week, ABC News first reported these sexually explicit instant messages which led to Representative Foley's resignation. These sexually explicit communications warrant a criminal referral in two respects. Initially, since the communications involve interstate communications, there should be a complete investigation and prosecution of any federal laws that have been violated. In addition, since the communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the appropriate authorities. It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now.



“Therefore, I also request that the Department undertake an investigation into who had specific knowledge of the content of any sexually explicit communications between Mr. Foley and any former or current House pages and what actions such individuals took, if any, to provide them to law enforcement. I request that the scope of your investigation include any and all individuals who may have been aware of this matter-be they Members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives, or anyone outside the Congress.




This seems to be a request to limit the investigation to those who specifically had access to the Instant Messages, which are where the sexually explicit communications took place. Presumably House members, while they had the e-mails, in all likelihood did not have these, because these were provided to ABC News by the former page who had received them. Therefore, Hastert's request is less a request for a full investigation than a request to limit the investigation to just Foley and ABC News, and perhaps even one to prosecute ABC News for not forwarding the messages to authorities the minute they received them.

It's appalling that for the Republicans, once again it's not about doing the right thing, it's about doing whatever is necessary to retain power. While at first glance, it LOOKS as if Hastert is trying to "do the right thing", in reality this letter is about spin and damage control. He's taking a page from the Bush Administration "blame the leakers" book -- and hoping it works. And given the leanings of the Bush Justice Department, it probably will.

Meanwhile, John and Glenn have more, Pam shows us a Wing Nut Daily poll proving just HOW much wingnuts adhere to the IOKIYAR rule, ShakesSis asks "What would Karl Rove Do with This?", and Digby reminds us not to forget about how Cheney pushed Rumsfeld as Secretary Defense way back in 2000, even when others had their doubts about him.

Because the Foley mess may be big, and it may even bring down the House leadership (though somehow I doubt it), but the fact still remains that the Bush Administration botched the handling of the terrorist threat back in 2001, they've botched it ever since, and they will continue to botch it for as long as they're in power.
Bookmark and Share
Sunday, October 01, 2006

Shepard Smith spits out the Fox Kool-Aid
Posted by Jill | 7:44 PM
Shepard Smith must have photos of Roger Ailes with a House page or something to still be working on Fox News. Smith was incredible on the air in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina last year, and here he smacks down one of the most odious of PNAC-ers, William Kristol, blaming George W. Bush for every death that occurs in Iraq between now and Election Day.

It starts about 1:18 into this video. Watch it:



Bookmark and Share

Is ABC trying to atone for The Path to 9/11?
Posted by Jill | 7:12 PM
It was ABC News that broke the Mark Foley scandal, and it seems that it is ABC News that continues to be at the forefront of developments:







One has to wonder why, after putting its credibility on the line to run a docudrama full of falsehoods in order to burnish George Bush's image, ABC is so willing to throw the entire Republican House leadership under the bus.

It seems that the coverup of Foley's predatory contacts began five years ago:

A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."


I'm not fool enough to believe that someone in management at ABC News decided that if they pursued this story, perhaps it would somehow compensate for the factual travesty that is The Path to 9/11. It probably has more to do with the fact that a juicy sex scandal, particularly one involving a dead girl or a live boy, gets ratings (unless the dead girl works for Joe Scarborough, but that's another story).

But gee, I wish it were true. Because if it were truly a mea culpa, I'd be able to watch Lost on Wednesday.
Bookmark and Share

WTF IS it with these guys?
Posted by Jill | 4:08 PM
You know, Democrats like Barack Obama might want to rethink that "Let's try to appeal to 'values voters' by being moral scolds" strategy, given who the Republicans are turning out to be.

Another one:

Randal D. "Randy" Ankeney, the convicted sex offender who just a few short years ago was a rising GOP star in Colorado, is being held on a $1 million bond in Larimer County.

Ankeney, 35, who was arrested Wednesday, is facing five counts of sexual assault on a child, three counts of sexual enticement of a child and one count of sexual exploitation of a child. The felonies, if he is convicted, could send him to prison for life.


The charges come less than 15 months after the former attorney, head of Gov. Bill Owens’ economic development office in Colorado Springs and graduate of the Republican Leadership Program, was released from prison after serving a two-year sentence for attempted sexual assault on a child.

Cara DeGette
At the time of his first arrest, in 2001, Ankeney was serving as the El Paso County co-chairman of Owens’ reelection campaign and was being groomed for a seat in the state legislature. His network of connections ranged from Bill Hybl, the powerful chairman of the El Pomar Foundation and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to Colorado Springs developer and school voucher advocate Steve Schuck, to current state Sen. Andy McElhaney and state Rep. Bill Cadman.
Former friends liked to point out that Ankeney was so committed to the Republican Party that he named his dogs Reagan and Nixon.

[snip]

When he was first arrested in 2001, Ankeney resigned his $63,000-a-year economic development post. At the time, Hybl said he was “shocked.” Owens’ then-spokesman, Dick Wadhams, reported "the governor is sickened by the charges."

But, as detailed in the Aug. 30, 2001 Colorado Springs Independent, numerous other Republicans attempted to distance themselves from Ankeney when queried about their relationship with him.

In the case, Ankeney, then 30, was accused of picking up a 13-year old girl up after he had met her on the Internet using the moniker “coloradofella.” The girl told police he took her to his home, in central Colorado Springs, got her drunk and stoned on marijuana, convinced her to take off her shirt and took photographs of her. When she passed out on the couch, she awoke to found Ankeney on top of her, kissing and fondling her. The girl told police that she feared Ankeney would rape her, but that he eventually let her up, apologized and told her that if she told anyone about the episode "he would ruin her life."

He then dropped her off near a Wendy’s fast food restaurant, in the middle of the night.



Nice fucking guys these Republicans have working for them, eh? Just think about this the next time a Republican gets up and gives a press conference or a rant on the House floor about morality and family values.
Bookmark and Share

Quote of the Day
Posted by Jill | 8:24 AM
"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." -- Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley, referring to President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.


(Link and hat tip)
Bookmark and Share

Watching a pack of wild dogs devour each other
Posted by Jill | 7:33 AM
Grab your popcorn, as the Party of Personal Responsibility not only tears off its mask to reveal the perverts and enablers within, but also starts devouring itself.

WaPo, today:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley's contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership's inaction. Foley abruptly resigned his seat Friday.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post on Friday that he had learned in late spring of inappropriate e-mails Foley sent to the page, a boy from Louisiana, and that he promptly told Hastert, who appeared to know already of the concerns. Hours later, Boehner contacted The Post to say he could not be sure he had spoken with Hastert.

Yesterday's developments revealed a rift at the highest echelons of House Republican ranks a month before the Nov. 7 elections, and they threatened to expand the scandal to a full-blown party dilemma.

Only after Reynolds's definitive statement did Hastert concede yesterday that he may have been notified of some of the questionable activities of Foley, 52, who had co-chaired the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Hastert said, however, that he knew nothing of the sexually explicit instant messages that became public Friday when ABC News and other news outlets reported them. The messages apparently were exchanged with youths other than the 16-year-old.

Hastert's aides learned in the fall of 2005 only of e-mail exchanges that House officials eventually deemed "over-friendly" with the Louisiana teenager, the speaker's office said yesterday in a lengthy statement. "While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation" with Reynolds, the statement said, "he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution."

Boehner and Reynolds said their offices learned of the Foley e-mails months ago from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R), who sponsored the page from his northeastern-Louisiana district.

"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of the e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds said yesterday. "Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."

GOP leaders have said they referred the matter promptly to Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), who heads a three-lawmaker panel that oversees the House page program.

Shimkus questioned Foley, but at that time, he had seen only suspiciously friendly e-mails, not the explicit instant messages revealed recently. In one e-mail to the former page, for example, Foley asked for a picture of him. The boy reportedly told an associate that he considered the request to be "sick," but Foley convinced Shimkus that the exchanges were innocent, Shimkus and Republican leaders said.

Republicans appeared to have kept the matter under wraps. Rep. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.), the only Democrat on the House Page Board, said yesterday: "I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House page, and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter."


And as the game of "Not me, him" continues, we finally have a Republican scandal that involves sex instead of mass death, policy lies, and plans to blow up the entire world for U.S. hegemony -- so perhaps now Americans will take their eyes off of Dancing with the Stars long enough to pay attention. And this one involves not just the perpetratrator, but a Republican House leadership that enabled this pedophile to prey on house pages and head up the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.

I give it four days before we start seeing a tearful Hastert and an equally tearful John Boehner standing before a microphone apologizing for "bad judgment" before saying that they know Jesus has forgiven them because they are Christians. And I give it another week before the spin on this becomes a "gay predator" scandal, even though it is not a "gay predator" scandal, it is a pedophile scandal. People who have a brain in their heads know this, but it's going to be so much easier to scapegoat gay Americans than to face the fact that a quite open pedophile was hiding in plain sight in the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, while Alberto Gonzales is warning the Supreme Court that if they dare to vote down the George W. Bush Dictator-For-Life bill that just passed both houses of Congress, he's in no hurry to investigate the House Pedophile:

At the Justice Department, an official said that no investigation was under way but that the agency had “real interest” in examining the circumstances to see if any crimes were committed.


I love that verbiage: "real interest". Oh, I'll just bet they have real interest. The only question is whether they're going to jerk off in the same room while they "examine the circumstances."

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. The Republican Party has proven again and again these last five-plus years that the party trumps everything -- the needs of the party trump common human decency, they trump the good of the country, they trump the good of the world, and they certainly trump any obligation to put your money where your mouth is while you accuse Democrats of "coddling terrorists." The bottom line here is that the House leadership knew Mark Foley was using the House page system -- and for all we know, the people he came in contact with in his Missing and Exploited Children caucus capacity -- as his own personal "escort service".

Ask your Republican friends if they are aware that they are planning to vote for a bunch of pedophile-enablers in November.

UPDATE: The House of Representatives is looking more and more like the Roman Catholic Church every minute. According to a report in the Palm Beach Post (hat tip: Josh Marshall), now that the Foley scandal has broken, more House pages may come forward:

Sexually explicit messages from former Rep. Mark Foley to one former congressional page might be just the tip of the iceberg, the leader of an alumni association for former congressional pages told Scripps Howard News Service on Saturday.
While Foley resigned this week after published reports of "friendly" e-mails to one 16-year-old male page and the pending broadcast of more sexually explicit instant messages, similar graphic messages from him were received by at least three other teenage boys who once worked in the page program, said Matthew Loraditch, a Maryland college senior who runs the U.S. House Page Alumni Association's Internet message board.

"I've known about them (messages) for several years now," he said Saturday.
"It was more like, 'Hey, look at this,' " said Loraditch, 21, who served in the page program in the 2001-02 session. "I don't think the people in question felt that uncomfortable. It was more, 'Ooh, look at that creepy guy.'

"It was definitely crossing-the-line stuff. The instant message stuff, and stuff I've seen and heard about, definitely couldn't be misconstrued" as merely "friendly" or innocent, Loraditch said.

Loraditch said during his time on Capitol Hill, Foley was one of the members of Congress who expressed what appeared to be a sincere interest in the young pages, often visiting the areas where they congregate in the corner of the House of Representatives chamber to chat or offer stories and advice.

Loraditch said he and other pages viewed Foley as gregarious and "flaky" at the time, and that he offered several of them, not including Loraditch, his personal e-mail when they were graduating from the program and saying goodbyes.

After Loraditch returned to Maryland and began attending college at Towson University, several male former pages told him they had received Internet messages that were similar to the graphic messages first reported by ABC News last week.

"At the age we were when those things happened, 16 or 17, when you see that kind of stuff, most people our ages know what's going on and know what's happening," Loraditch said. "You're not like a little kid who can be roped into that."

Loraditch said his friends all thought the messages were disturbing, but they did not report them, either because they did not think the messages posed a serious threat or because they might have worried about career consequences.

He added all his friends received the questionable messages only after they had graduated and left the program, when, theoretically, that would not raise the same in-house sexual harassment issues as if they had been sent when the former pages still worked for Congress.

"This all happened after we were outside the protective umbrella of all our supervisors, not when we were there," Loraditch said. "To me, that indicates some sort of thought process going on in Foley's mind."


You bet it does. It means that Foley was very well aware of the potential consequences of his actions, and deliberately set up his correspondence so as not to trigger an investigation within the House. Talk about parsing the definition of "is" ...

It also means that House leadership knew of Foley's penchant for House pages, and essentially decided to pimp them to him.
Bookmark and Share