"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, January 20, 2007

Morbid thoughts
Posted by Jill | 10:47 PM
I found myself feeling a bit depressed today over the death of Denny Doherty. I'm not sure why. As far as I'm concerned, the Mamas and the Papas are among the more forgettable short-lived musical acts to come out of the 1960's, but the realization that three out of the original four are dead just drove home the fact that yes, the generation that hoped it would die before it got old is getting old and dying anyway.

I'm not sure when this all started. It may have been noticing how stiff I am when I get out of bed in the morning if I don't stretch. It may be that the weight which was always hard to lose under the best of circumstances has become completely intractable, despite my best efforts to purge milk chocolate, anything with high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, and/or white flour from my life, watch portion size, and try to get as much exercise as possible given a busy schedule. Maybe it was Dennis Hopper doing retirement plan commercials, or Paul McCartney looking like a haggard old man in the tabloid photos, or Phil Lesh being diagnosed with prostate cancer, or Mick Jagger's upper arms flapping around like wings during last year's Superbowl half-time show, or James Brown dropping dead at 73 with his title of the hardest working man in show business still intact.

I found myself wondering how many of my generation's pop culture idols are going to pay a premature price for the lifestyle they lived when they were young. And I wondered whether this generation, which extended adolescence beyond any reasonable time, is going to become ridiculous -- or perhaps we're already there.

Author Tim Sandlin seems to think so, for he has published a book entitled Jimi Hendrix Turns Eighty. The premise is loaded with potential: a bunch of Woodstock generation types in an assisted living center. It sounds like it could be fun, doesn't it?

Perhaps not. As reviewer Neal Genzlinger says:

He was almost certainly hoping to create an endearingly irascible and eccentric bunch of rebels, the kind of people Walter Matthau and George Burns and Martha Raye would play in the film version if they were still alive. Instead he inspires a single, admittedly harsh thought: anyone still listening to Procol Harum in 2022, when this novel is set, is no longer welcome here.


Imagine the navel-gazers of The Big Chill, for my money one of the most overrated, cliché-ridden, pieces of cinematic crap this side of Terms of Endearment in their seventies and eighties. It's enough to make you think Roger Daltrey knew what he was talking about in "My Generation".

I've written before about how every generation feels that it is special, and that kind of horn-tooting looks insufferable to both the generation before and the one after. But one thing is for certain. No matter which generation you identify with: whether we're aware of it on any given day or not, whether we want to think about it or not, and as much as we believe that somehow we'll be different, that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary; WE won't get old, WE won't kvetch about our aches and pains and bladder problems and prostate and hot flashes and bunions and plantar fasciitis, and WE will somehow find a way to be fabulous, the bottom line is that we all end up taking the same journey. And the best we can hope for is to not embarrass ourselves too much along the way.
Bookmark and Share

So how's that surge working for ya, George?
Posted by Jill | 8:10 PM
Not so well, it appears:

U.S. forces had one of their costliest days in Iraq on Saturday when 21 troops were killed, including 13 in a helicopter and five in a clash in a Shi'ite holy city the U.S. military said was triggered by militiamen.

The battle at a government building in Kerbala was the bloodiest for U.S. troops in the Shi'ite south in two years and occurred as President George W. Bush presses leaders of the Shi'ite majority to crack down on militias from their community.

Hours after reporting three deaths in separate incidents and the loss of all 13 passengers and crew aboard a Blackhawk transport helicopter, the U.S. military said five soldiers were killed and three wounded in the Kerbala clash.

It was the deadliest day for U.S. forces since Bush announced 10 days ago he was sending about 20,000 troops to Iraq to try to prevent sectarian civil war between Shi'ites and the once- dominant Sunni Arab minority. His plans have run into resistance from opposition Democrats who now control Congress.

It was unclear whether the helicopter was shot down. Residents in violent Diyala province northeast of Baghdad said they saw a helicopter in flames in the air.

Bookmark and Share

I've been wondering where these guys were
Posted by Jill | 2:05 PM
Back in the days of the Clinton Administration, when the government didn't interfere in family decisions about medical care and when there wasn't talk about giving stem cells the full rights of human beings, there were guys muttering about black helicopters, certain that the Evil Clintons were going to take away all of their Constitutional rights.

Funny how during the Bush years, when we have an Administration that really IS taking away people's Constitutional rights, the militia types have been strangely quiet. Clearly the only amendment these guys care about is the second one. So it's been kind of disheartening that we haven't heard from these types much during the last six years.

Until now:

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 19) - A former militia man convicted of tax evasion prepared for a government siege Friday at his fortress-like home, but U.S. marshals gave no indication they were planning to confront him.

Ed Brown said he was ready for a swarm of federal agents to descend on his property to execute an arrest warrant issued after he failed to appear for the end of his trial. He and his wife contend that they did not have to pay income taxes, and his supporters say a conflict could be violent.

"If Mexico came up on my land and tried to take my land, would I not fight?" Brown said. "The United States is the same exact thing as Mexico in this state."

Brown, 63, and his wife, Elaine, 65, were convicted Thursday of plotting to conceal their income and avoid paying federal income tax. They argued the tax is illegitimate and they are not required to pay it.

U.S. marshals said negotiations with Brown continue and they have no plans to attack Brown's Plainfield home or act quickly on the arrest warrant. He has been holed up in his home with armed supporters for much of the trial.

"He wants attention. We're determined to keep this very low-profile," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said.

Brown said he has a stock of food and supplies and that his home can run on wind and solar generators.

"It's all set up for me to stay here forever," Brown said by phone.

Elaine Brown, a dentist who earned most of the couple's income, was staying at her son's home in Worcester, Mass., pending the couple's sentencing in April. She said she had no plans to return to Plainfield, where she fears there will be a violent confrontation.

The Browns' case has found support on the Internet from militia members to libertarians and anti-tax groups.


I guess now that the Democrats have taken over Congress, these guys can start muttering again...because it's clear that THEY will never be under surveillance. No, it's only peace groups and anti-war demonstrators that warrant surveillance; guys who hole up in compounds with guns, refuse to pay their taxes, mutter about Zionists and one-world government, and occasionally bomb an abortion clinic or two are perfectly OK under a Republican administration.
Bookmark and Share

Can't I just take a nap until January 2009?
Posted by Jill | 10:43 AM
The silly season has now officially begun.

Hillary has tossed her chapeau into the crocodile-infested waters of the 2008 campaign.

Isn't it wonderful? Of all the good things about the 1990's -- the peace, the prosperity, the fulfillment of the potential of the internet -- why is it that the part of the 1990's we get to relive now is the War against the Clintons?

Oh, sure, Joe Klein is going to thrilled, as are those wonderful people at Faux News, the assorted Blonde Bombshells of the right, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Freepers, and all the usual suspects whose nonstop cacophony made people believe that their rising incomes and the fact that the 1993 World Trade Center bombers had been apprehended, tried, and sentenced were BAD things -- all because the Clintons lost money on a land deal in the 1970's and Bill Clinton got a blowjob from an intern.

Well, we get to live those wonderful days all over again now.

Of course my beef with Hillary has nothing to do with the 1990's; it is because of a certain vote she placed as a Senator in 2002 -- the vote to give the Crawford Caligula authorization to go to war in Iraq -- a vote which she has still not admitted was a mistake. She can talk all she wants to about capping troop levels and not giving this president a blank check. It's all moot. She voted for this war, she has NOT repented of that vote, she owns it as far as I'm concerned, as does John Kerry and every other Democrat who cravenly voted for this war in 2002 when even I knew there was no reason to do it.

This week, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, a governor with no 2006 coattails and friend of New Jersey 5th District Loser Dweeb-Boy Candidate Paul Aronsohn, throws his hat in; and Christian Talban Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas enters the race.

And I have a headache already.
Bookmark and Share
Friday, January 19, 2007

Would somebody please stop this guy before he destroys the entire world?
Posted by Jill | 10:01 PM
The President of the United States is insane. He's gone off the deep end. He's completely off his rocker. We have a lunatic running the show, and no one who is in a position to do anything about him seems to realize just how dangerous he is.

Now he's planning all-out war with Iran:

U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country.

President George W. Bush has stressed he is seeking a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.


How can he say he's seeking a diplomatic solution when he won't go to the negotiation table; when he refuses to talk to anyone he deems his "enemy"?

It's time for the Democrats to stop noodling around the edges of a president who believes himself accountable to no one; who believes he, "the decider" is the law, is the state, is the military.

It's time to introduce the articles of impeachment in the House. And if Republicans in the Senate can just put their country ahead of their careers for five minutes, they'll join with patriotic Democrats, convict this guy and send him back to Crawford.

The world can't wait.
Bookmark and Share

Referring to the president as a god and making burnt offerings is, however, perfectly acceptable
Posted by Jill | 7:06 AM
And you thought the press was finished fellating the Bush presidency:

Rich Little won't be mentioning Iraq or ratings when he addresses the White House Correspondents' Dinner April 21.

Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don't want a repeat of last year's controversial appearance by Stephen Colbert, whose searing satire of President Bush and the White House press corps fell flat and apparently touched too many nerves.

"They got a lot of letters," Little said Tuesday. "I won't even mention the word 'Iraq.'"

Little, who hasn't been to the White House since he was a favorite of the Reagan administration, said he'll stick with his usual schtick -- the impersonations of the past six presidents.

"They don't want anyone knocking the president. He's really over the coals right now, and he's worried about his legacy," added Little, a longtime Las Vegas resident.


As well he should be. But is it the job of the White House Correspondents' Association to keep this president in his little bubble?

This is what happens when you allow the right-wing echo chamber to hammer its message without hammering back. Whether it's turning an accurate point that neither Nancy Pelosi nor Condoleeza Rice has a personal stake in Bush's war escalation into "an attack on a single, childless woman" or claiming that a sharply satirical comic performance was tantamount to a physical attack on the President, the press has allowed itself to be cowed by the gasbags of the right for far too long. So now, in an effort to somehow "atone" for having someone intelligent provide the comic relief last year, the press has decided that George W. Bush must be allowed to stay in his little bubble and not trouble his beautiful mind about his botched adventure in Iraq.

I'm sorry, but this mean little fucker in the White House deserves to be reminded of the body count and the blood his war has spilled every waking hour of every day of his miserable little life. Even at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

(h/t: Attytood and Americablog)
Bookmark and Share

Is this what we want America to stand for?
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
We are supposed to be better than this:

The Pentagon set rules Thursday for detainee trials that could allow terror suspects to be convicted and perhaps executed using hearsay testimony and coerced statements, setting up a new clash between President Bush and Congress.

The rules are fair, said the Pentagon, which released them in a manual for the expected trials. Democrats controlling Congress said they would hold hearings and revive legislation on the plan, and human rights organizations complained that the regulations would allow evidence that would not be tolerated in civilian or military courtrooms.

According to the 238-page manual, a detainee's lawyer could not reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government had a chance to review it. Suspects would be allowed to view summaries of classified evidence, not the material itself.

The new regulations lack some protections used in civilian and military courtrooms, such as against coerced or hearsay evidence. They are intended to track a law passed last fall by Congress restoring Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror-war prisoners. Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court.

At a Pentagon briefing, Dan Dell'Orto, deputy to the Defense Department's top counsel, said the new rules will "afford all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."

In an interview, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, legal adviser to the Pentagon's office on commissions, said he doubted that most cases would rely solely on coercive or hearsay evidence.

"These case are pretty complex and it's not going to sink or swim, I don't believe, on a single statement," he said.

Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he planned to scrutinize the manual to ensure that it does not "run afoul" of the Constitution.

"No civilized nation permits convictions to rest on coerced evidence, and reliance on such evidence has never been acceptable in military or civilian courts in this country," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First.


If you have to rely on hearsay and coerced evidence in order to get a conviction, then perhaps you really don't have a case after all. It's increasingly appearing that the Administration has few strong cases against most of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, and so it is going to have to rely on cooked-up evidence in order to avoid embarrassment.

Why have trials at all, then? If we're going to be a banana republic, why don't they just line these guys up and summarily shoot them? It's insulting both to the intelligence of the American people (who at the moment seem at least to have more than I gave them credit for having) and to the legacy of this country as a beacon of justice for the rest of the world.
Bookmark and Share

Next time a right-wing radio hosts accuses liberals of cowardice, light a candle for this young woman
Posted by Jill | 7:00 AM
Ohio Woman Killed In Baghdad
Jan 18 2007 1:10PM
The National Democratic Institute reports that one of its convoys was attacked yesterday morning, January 17, in Baghdad, leaving four people dead and two wounded. Information is still being gathered about the incident, but it appears that the three-vehicle convoy was ambushed and sustained heavy damage.

One of the confirmed dead is a staff person, Andrea "Andi" Parhamovich of Perry, Ohio, and the other individuals were dedicated security personnel from Unity Resources Group (URG). The names of the security personnel are being withheld at the request of URG management.

The Institute expressed its deepest condolences to its Iraq staff and the families who are facing this tragedy.

"There is no more sacred roll of honor than those who have given their last full measure in support of freedom," said NDI Chairman Madeleine K. Albright. "Yesterday, in Iraq, Andrea Parhamovich and our security personnel were enshrined on that list. They did not see themselves as heroes, only people doing a job on behalf of a cause they believed in. They were not the enemies of anyone in Iraq; they were there to help. Now, the prayers of all of us at NDI are with them and with their families. We pledge to do everything that is within our power to see that they did not die in vain. We will honor their example, keep alive their memory, and carry on their work."

A graduate of Marietta College, Andi, 28, developed her career in political communication with the Massachusetts Governor's office and Department of Economic Development, Air America Radio and, most recently, the International Republican Institute in Iraq before joining NDI's Baghdad staff in late 2006. An outgoing woman who made friends quickly, Andi wanted to use her education and skills as a communications specialist to help Iraqi political party leaders and parliamentarians develop strategies to reach out to voters and constituents. Andi's work helped to build the kind of national level political institutions that can help bridge the sectarian divide and improve Iraqi lives. An energetic activist who inspired her colleagues with creative ideas, Andi forged impressive relationships with Iraqi political leaders, many of whom have expressed their deep sadness at her murder.

[snip]

The National Democratic Institute's engagement in Iraq started in June 2003. The Institute's nonpartisan programs focus on civic participation, political party strengthening, assistance with the formation of a democratic legislature and executive branch of government, supporting women's political participation and helping to ensure open and fair electoral processes.


More...

(h/t Liberal Talk Radio)

Our thoughts are with the family and friends of this remarkable young woman today.
Bookmark and Share

This kind of smackdown is long overdue
Posted by Jill | 6:26 AM
And I'm not talking about Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy's smackdown of Alberto Torquemada Gonzales yesterday, though that was some might fine smackin' too:

Leahy:

And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."


Feingold:

It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.

Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.

So, apparently, all those speeches Bush officials and their supporters have spent the last year giving accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists, and all the television commericals making the same accusations throughout the months leading up to the election, were not about Democrats at all, but were about random bloggers who are against all eavesdropping. Where?


Heh. "Random bloggers." First of all, I read a lot of progressive blogs, and NO ONE BLOGGER has opposed all eavesdropping. The position from the left side of the fence is that surveillance is to be conducted within the bounds of the 1978 FISA law, and is not to be conducted without cause. In other words, fishing expeditions consisting of monitoring every activity of law-abiding Americans in the hope that some random terrorist will be caught by pure accident are NOT acceptable. That's a far cry from "opposing eavesdropping on terrorists."

But as fabulous as Russ Feingold is, we expect this from him, and he always delivers. What we DON'T expect from the newspaper that gave us Judith Miller and still gives us Adam Nagourney is a refusal to accept a non-apology apology from an Administration official:

It is hard to render a convincing apology when you are not really apologizing. Consider Charles Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of state for detainee affairs, who has been trying to spin his way out of his loathsome attempt to punish lawyers who represent inmates of the Guantánamo Bay internment camp.

Last week, Mr. Stimson expressed his “shock” that major American law firms would represent terrorism suspects, hinted that they were paid by unsavory characters and suggested that companies should reconsider doing business with them. On Wednesday, Mr. Stimson said he apologized and regretted that his comments “left the impression” that he was attacking the integrity of those lawyers.

It was not just an impression. It was exactly what he did. Mr. Stimson actually read out a list of law firms during an interview with a radio station friendly to the Bush administration.


The rest is here (fair use and all that).

I read Stimson's apology, and couldn't believe what I was reading. I also heard the recording of what he said, and there is absolutely no question what he meant. For him to say that he didn't mean that corporations should boycott law firms that provide pro bono representation to people the Administration deems unacceptable is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has any. And it's high time the Times stood up and refused to accept the Administration's lies, backtracks, and bifurcation.
Bookmark and Share
Thursday, January 18, 2007

Famous Last Words.
Posted by Jill | 9:46 PM
Farewell, Art Buchwald. You're STILL making us laugh.
Bookmark and Share

Hey, Ana...I have two words for you: Sue. Ellicott.
Posted by Jill | 9:35 PM
We all know about those TV pairings made in hell: Barbara Walters and Harry Reasoner, Connie Chung and Dan Rather, Star Jones and just about anybody.

But while the prospect of Marc Maron doing a cable political show to run opposite the Sabbath Gasbags of the networks is sheer genius, pairing him with that twit Ana Marie Cox is one of the most boneheaded moves we at Brilliant Central have ever heard. But that is the rumor:

Gaggle, a live political gabfest featuring growed-up blogger Ana Marie Cox, now the Washington editor of Time.com, and former Air America Radio talker Marc Maron, will have its debut at the U.S. Comedy Festival next month. It's currently conceived as a one-off panel just for the HBO-sponsored fest, which serves as a sort of live development slate for the network. But a source tells Radar that HBO is testing the waters for a Sunday morning alternative to Meet the Press and This Week With George Stephanopoulos that would feature Cox, Maron, and two rotating panelists grilling whatever political figures they can convince to appear.


I'll still watch, though. And take bets on how long it will take Marc Maron to mop the floor with the former Anal Sex Rumor Queen of Washington DC.
Bookmark and Share

Best. Sports. Headline. Ever.
Posted by Jill | 9:26 PM
Bookmark and Share

This is why we need checks and balances
Posted by Jill | 7:32 AM
This morning I was thinking about what an amazing document the United States Constitution is, and how over 200 years ago, the men who hammered together our system of government addressed so many of the potential problems that could arise. For all that these were men of the Enlightenment, they were very well aware of the kind of base venality that can come with power, and for the most part did a heckuva job (!) in addressing that.

Our governmental system isn't perfect by any means. The kind of breathtaking corruption and willful thwarting of the will of the people that has been the hallmark of the Bush Administration is something not even men who had lived under a king ever imagined -- a president who would steal the office by sending thugs to a state run by his brother to intimidate people attempting to recount the vote. A one-party Congress with absolutely no respect whatsoever for either the law OR the Constitution. A president determined to go to and then escalate a war with the support of barely over one-tenth of the American people, asking no sacrifice of anyone other than the families of those fighting.

But let's give props where they are warranted, in this case for the notion of three branches of government, two of them to keep a check on the executive branch. Ever since the 9/11/01 attacks, this Executive branch has conducted itself as if this were a monarchy or a dictatorship. "I am the decider", sayeth George W. Bush, and as long as the Republicans in Congress were allowed to continue to accept golf junkets and gifts from lobbyists, they didn't care what the executive branch did. And when the executive branch flagrantly violated the Fourth Amendment by claiming the right to conduct mass surveillance on the communications and finances of all Americans in the name of "national security", the Republicans ate their prime beef and played golf and drank their premium lobbyist liquor and not just looked the other way, but gave impassioned speeches as to why this is a GOOD thing.

It's not that the Democrats have shown such bravery as of yet, but the mere FACT that the rubber stamp no longer exists may have been enough to put the fear of God into even these most megalomaniacal of men. All of a sudden, without his own party in charge of Congress and with investigations looming, FISA court overseeing the Bush Admininstration's surveillance programs is not an undue burder after all:

The Bush administration, in a surprise reversal, said on Wednesday that it had agreed to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and would end its practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists.

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.

The Justice Department said it had worked out an “innovative” arrangement with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that provided the “necessary speed and agility” to provide court approval to monitor international communications of people inside the United States without jeopardizing national security.

Some legal analysts said the administration’s pre-emptive move could effectively make the court review moot, but Democrats and civil rights advocates said they would press for the courts and Congress to continue their scrutiny of the program of wiretapping without warrants, which began shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Democrats praised the administration’s decision, but said it should have come much sooner.

"The announcement today is welcome news,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee. “But it is also confirmation that the administration’s go-it-alone approach, effectively excluding Congress and the courts and operating outside the law, was unnecessary.”

Mr. Rockefeller added, “I intend to move forward with the committee’s review of all aspects of this program’s legality and effectiveness.”


You'd better, Mr. Rockefeller, because we have a right to know what this president who has forgotten that he works for us has been doing.

Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.
Bookmark and Share

Yeah....that'll work
Posted by Jill | 6:25 AM
I just HAD to read what kind of horseshit David Brooks was going to shovel in the aftermath of a report that 51% of women are living without a husband.

Of particular concern to Brooks seems to be this statement by Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families.

“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,”


Brooks seems to think the problem is that young people have "too much reverence for marriage":

The research shows that far from rejecting traditional marriage, many people down the social scale revere it too highly. They put it on a pedestal, or as Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins puts it, they regard marriage not as the foundation of adult life, but as the capstone.

They don’t want to marry until they are financially secure and emotionally mature. They don’t want to marry until they can afford a big white-dress wedding and have the time to plan it. They don’t want to marry until they are absolutely sure they can trust the person they are with.

Having seen the wreckage of divorce, they are risk averse, but this risk aversion keeps them trapped in a no man’s land between solitude and marriage. Often they slide into parenthood even though they consider themselves not ready for marriage. The Fragile Families study shows that nearly 90 percent of the people who are living together when their child is born plan to get married someday. But the vast majority never will.

In her essential new book, “Marriage and Caste in America,” Kay Hymowitz describes the often tortuous relations between unskilled, unmarried parents. Both are committed to their child, but in many cases they have ill-defined and conflicting expectations about their roles. The fathers often feel used, Hymowitz writes, “valued only for their not-so-deep pockets.” The mothers feel the fathers are unreliable. There are grandparents taking sides. The relationship ends, and the child is left with one parent not two.

It’s as if there are two invisible rivers of knowledge running through society, steering people subtly toward one form of relationship or another. These rivers consist of a million small habits, expectations, tacit understandings about how people should act and map out their lives.

Among those who are well educated and who are rewarded by the information-age economy, the invisible river reinforces the assumption that childbearing is more arduous and more elevated than marriage. One graduates from marriage to childbearing.

But among those who are less educated and less rewarded, there is an invisible river that encourages the anomalous idea that marriage is more arduous and more elevated than childbearing. One graduates from childbearing to matrimony.

The people in the first river are seeing their divorce rates drop and their children ever better prepared to compete. Only 10 percent of students at an elite college like Cornell are from divorced families, according to a study led by Dean Lillard and Jennifer Gerner.

The people in the second river are falling further behind, and their children face bad odds. For them, social facts like the rise of women without men cannot be greeted with equanimity. The main struggle of their lives is not against the patriarchy.

The first step toward a remedy, paradoxically, may be to persuade people in this second river to value marriage less, to see it less as a state of sacred bliss that cannot be approached until all the conditions are perfect, and more as a social machine, which, if accompanied with the right instruction manual, can be useful for achieving practical ends.


The hubris of this article is breathtaking in its ability to combine sexism and classism into some kind of Guiding Principle of the Universe. Brooks posits, after years of conservative thought that the less educated do not revere marriage enough, that instead they revere marriage MORE than those who are better educated, citing the fact that only 10% of students from elite colleges like Cornell come from broken homes. Obviously it has never occurred to Brooks that perhaps the financial costs and complications of divorce among better-educated and higher-income Americans have a lot more to do with that number than any kind of "pragmatism" about what marriage is.

It's also interesting to see a conservative columnist call for less reverence for marriage at a time when his own movement regards the very idea of a gay couple living together and raising children in a committed relationship that has been solemnized before their friends and family as "destroying the sanctity of marriage." If people in the less-educated groups are taking marriage seriously, perhaps they have simply listened to too much conservative dogma about marriage being some kind of holy state accompanied by trumpets from heaven.

Can Brooks really be advocating for the kind of cavalier attitude about marriage among women that was common among some of my peers in college -- an attitude that rarely went any further than the big party and the white dress and being Queen for a Day? Or is there something else operative here?

My guess is that the idea that women may be CHOOSING to remain single, and be happy with that decision, is profoundly threatening to the social order. I have been fortunate enough to find a compatible partner with whom I've lived happily for almost 24 years, 20 of them sanctioned by the government. One reason I think we've gotten along so well is because we do not have children. From what I see, it is the very educated class that Brooks lauds for staying married that has elevated childrearing to the status of a cult, in which the child's every move must be studied, lauded, and examined under a microscope.

I'm not one to hold up the preposterously self-indulgent Ayelet Waldman as a paragon of anything, but I think she was onto something in this article from 2005:

I HAVE been in many mothers' groups -- Mommy and Me, Gymboree, Second-Time Moms -- and each time, within three minutes, the conversation invariably comes around to the topic of how often mommy feels compelled to put out. Everyone wants to be reassured that no one else is having sex either. These are women who, for the most part, are comfortable with their bodies, consider themselves sexual beings. These are women who love their husbands or partners. Still, almost none of them are having any sex.

There are agreed upon reasons for this bed death. They are exhausted. It still hurts. They are so physically available to their babies -- nursing, carrying, stroking -- how could they bear to be physically available to anyone else?

But the real reason for this lack of sex, or at least the most profound, is that the wife's passion has been refocused. Instead of concentrating her ardor on her husband, she concentrates it on her babies. Where once her husband was the center of her passionate universe, there is now a new sun in whose orbit she revolves. Libido, as she once knew it, is gone, and in its place is all-consuming maternal desire. There is absolute unanimity on this topic, and instant reassurance.


And what of these husbands, who find themselves put out to pasture in favor of their children? Instead of leaving, do they perhaps find solace in someone from the office, assuming (probably correctly) that wifey will be so wrapped up in the consistency of little Jacob's poop, or every crumb little Jacob ate today, or the mode of little Jacob's play, that she won't notice that hubby is working late more often these days? In David Brooks' world, that is a preferable state of affairs to the dire one in which women who aren't married aren't sitting in diners with their girlfriends bemoaning the fact that Men Just Don't Want To Get Married Anymore.

I'm always amazed that anyone gets married in this country at all. We live in a society that has always socialized girls from the time they are toddlers to look forward to their weddings. They read fairy tales. Catholic families even dress them up as brides for First Communion. At the same time, we socialize boys to avoid marriage as long as possible and to run the other way when a girl mentions it. In my circles when I was in my 20's, you had a bunch of girls wanting to find someone to marry, and a bunch of guys running away as fast as they could. This hardly seems like a way to foster more marriages.

I think about the way I was in my twenties. I think about it more often than I used to, mostly because once you reach 50, the changes in your body and how you look start to accelerate and you are smacked in the face with your own mortality every morning when you have to do ten minutes of stretching exercises just to walk downstairs and get coffee. I think about it because like so many other people, I could kick myself for not enjoying my youth when I had it. And much of my unhappiness in my early to mid-twenties was because I believed I wanted to get married but just wasn't finding anyone. That I really didn't want to get married and that the men I chose were a function of that never occurred to me. It wasn't until after I'd made some peace with being single that I did find the right person.

I still know young women in their early 30's who feel prisoners of their own biology, wanting to find someone so that they can marry before having children. I worry about these women, because they hear their clocks ticking so loudly it drowns out the alarms that should be going off in their heads when they encounter men who seem to be willing to commit but are a bad bet for various reasons.

But I applaud these young women who don't feel that they aren't really people until they get married; that they aren't really worthy until someone says "I want to spend my life with you." I applaud the older widows and divorcees who don't feel they have to go out and humiliate themselves at singles dances to try to replace the spouse who left them (or whom they left).

Perhaps David Brooks might be comforted by this little anecdote: I have a friend who was widowed in her early forties. She is now in her early sixties and has been alone for over twenty years, raising her daughter to adulthood and trying to make a life for herself. Last year she met someone online, and he is moving to where she lives. They are both ridiculously happy and wondering how it happened.

Women may not want to be the baby factories that the right would want them to be. But as long as there are people, there will be connections.
Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Good wishes for Jane Hamsher
Posted by Jill | 7:55 AM
I rag a lot on the alpha dogs of progressive bloggerdom. I rag on their insistence that Blogtopia is an egalitarian environment while they exchange links among themselves and do little to help the little guys gain exposure and readership. But whether you have a million visitors a day or five, the one thing we all are is human. And cancer is an equal-opportunity disease.

Jane Hamsher, founder of Firedoglake, is battling breast cancer for the third time. She is having surgery Thursday (tomorrow) at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica, California if you want to send a card.

My thoughts are with Jane in her battle against this terrible disease that is every woman's worst fear. I hope yours are too.
Bookmark and Share

Oh, this should be good
Posted by Jill | 7:17 AM
This year's State of the Union Address ought to provide some interesting political theater., becasue this will be the first time that the Crawford Caligula has had to speak before a Congress led by the opposition party in BOTH houses.

As a living rebuke to whatever pablum he decides to toss out to the Christofascist Zombie Brigade about his opposition to federally-funded stem cell research on the grounds of "reverence for human life" will be Michael J. Fox, who will be in attendance as a guest of Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin.

And this year, the response will be given by none other than Fightin' Jim Webb, the Democratic Senator from Virginia, whose past as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy will also serve as a living rebuke to the Chickenhawk-in-Chief.

It appears also that he is planning to blame the Democrats -- the very same Democrats who weren't even allowed to bring any legislation to the floor for debate under Republican rule -- for the profligate spending that has marked Republican control of Congress:

When he takes the House rostrum next week for the State of the Union address, President Bush will list among his goals a balanced federal budget, a shift for a president who has presided over record deficits while aggressively cutting taxes.

Politically, analysts say, the president is calling the bluff of Democrats, who won control of Congress in part by accusing Bush of reckless fiscal policies. While Bush now shares the Democrats' goal to erase the deficit by 2012, the politically perilous work of making that happen -- cutting spending or raising taxes -- falls to the Democratic-run Congress.

"The Democrats have assailed deficits under President Bush. The White House is telling Democrats to walk the walk," said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Budget experts and economists from across the political spectrum, including some who worked in the Bush White House, say that Bush is unlikely to offer real concessions toward a balanced budget in the plan he delivers to Congress next month.


This is breathtaking chutzpah, but it is not out of character for a man who has required other people to clean up his messes for his entire life. This is a president who has spent a half-trillion dollars in Iraq and demanded no accountability from the military contractors in whose pockets he and his Republican minions on Capitol Hill have stuffed wads of cash for nearly five years. This is a president who has aggressively cut taxes, with most of the benefit going towards his friends in industry, and asked for no cuts in anything other than programs that benefit the middle class. This is a president who has talked the talk of "sacrifice", but has demanded nothing of those most able to pay. And now he is going to stand up in front of Congress and the entire United States and say, "I broke it, but I am of the Bush Family, the royal family of America, and you serfs will have to clean up that mess I just made."

It's true that in the past, it has always fallen upon Democrats to clean up the economic messes Republicans leave from the profligate spending under Republican rule. But there has never before been a president who borrowed so hugely for such little benefit to the American people as a whole.

It's going to be strangely fitting to see this president, a relatively small man who is growing smaller by the day, as his head sinks further and further into his shoulders, flanked by the parental images of Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney as he delivers his speech. Because in the administration they have been allowed to operate for the last six years, they have been like a closely-bonded father and son while Mom is away visiting Grandma. They pile up dishes in the sink, they spill chip crumbs all over the floor, they blithely pee all over the toilet seat and the floor, and seem to not notice the squalor they are creating, instead assuming, and expecting, that Mom will clean it up.
Bookmark and Share

Is there ANYTHING military these clowns have not screwed up?
Posted by Jill | 6:26 AM
Remember Afghanistan? The country from which the Crawford Caligula plans to pull troops in order to try to save his bacon in Iraq? The country in which the Administration likes to believe we "won"?

Not so fast, bucko:

Attacks by militants crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan have tripled since September along portions of the border, a senior American intelligence official said Tuesday, prompting calls for a greater effort by Pakistan to curb the influx and a larger deployment of American and other NATO soldiers here.

Of particular concern, officials said, has been a rise in attacks by Taliban and other militants from remote and largely ungoverned tribal areas in Pakistan in eastern Afghanistan, where most of the American combat forces in the country are based.

“The border area is a problem,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters after meeting on Tuesday with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. Mr. Gates said more attacks were coming from across the border and from “Al Qaeda networks operating across the border.”


Across the border? You mean in PAKISTAN, Mr. Gates? You know, our "ally in the war on terror" Pakistan? Across THAT border?

Apparently so:

A senior American military intelligence officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said cross-border attacks had tripled in that part of the border region.

Staff Sgt. Ronald Locklear, one of the 120 American soldiers at the base, said fighters based in Pakistan “cross the border on a regular basis.” He said the base was being hit by rocket and mortar fire at least once a week. Officials said they had evidence that Pakistani border guards ignored infiltration of Taliban fighters.

The senior American commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, told reporters after meeting with Mr. Gates that he was hopeful that the Bush administration would seek a much larger aid package from Congress for the training of Afghanistan security forces and for reconstruction projects.

Other officials said that the total budget request was likely to be at least twice last year’s level of nearly $3 billion, but that the exact number had not been determined.


"Reconstruction projects"? What the hell has the money for Afghanistan been used for, then? Oh yes, silly me -- lining the pockets of contractors, like a certain Texas-based company, perhaps?

Given this Administration's focus on commerce over security, it shouldn't surprise us, then, that the Pentagon has been selling surplus military hardware, including F-14 parts, to arms brokers who in turn sell them to countries like - wait for it - IRAN.

Yes, really:

The U.S. military has sold forbidden equipment at least a half-dozen times to middlemen for countries — including Iran and China — who exploited security flaws in the Defense Department's surplus auctions. The sales include fighter jet parts and missile components.

In one case, federal investigators said, the contraband made it to Iran, a country President Bush branded part of an "axis of evil."

In that instance, a Pakistani arms broker convicted of exporting U.S. missile parts to Iran resumed business after his release from prison. He purchased Chinook helicopter engine parts for Iran from a U.S. company that had bought them in a Pentagon surplus sale. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, speaking on condition of anonymity, say those parts made it to Iran.

The surplus sales can operate like a supermarket for arms dealers.

"Right Item, Right Time, Right Place, Right Price, Every Time. Best Value Solutions for America's Warfighters," the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service says on its Web site, calling itself "the place to obtain original U.S. Government surplus property."

Federal investigators are increasingly anxious that Iran is within easy reach of a top priority on its shopping list: parts for the precious fleet of F-14 "Tomcat" fighter jets the United States let Iran buy in the 1970s when it was an ally.

In one case, convicted middlemen for Iran bought Tomcat parts from the Defense Department's surplus division. Customs agents confiscated them and returned them to the Pentagon, which sold them again — customs evidence tags still attached — to another buyer, a suspected broker for Iran.

That incident appalled even an expert on weaknesses in Pentagon surplus security controls.

"That would be evidence of a significant breakdown, in my view, in controls and processes," said Greg Kutz, the Government Accountability Office's head of special investigations. "It shouldn't happen the first time, let alone the second time."

A Defense Department official, Fred Baillie, said his agency followed procedures.

"The fact that those individuals chose to violate the law and the fact that the customs people caught them really indicates that the process is working,"
said Baillie, the Defense Logistics Agency's executive director of distribution. "Customs is supposed to check all exports to make sure that all the appropriate certifications and licenses had been granted."

The Pentagon recently retired its Tomcats and is shipping tens of thousands of spare parts to its surplus office — the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service — where they could be sold in public auctions. Iran is the only other country flying F-14s.


Let me see....customs officials confiscate some parts and equipment from an arms broker, and returns them to the Defense Department, which then turns around and sells them AGAIN to OTHER arms dealers, who turn around and sell them to Iran.

When you think about the way this Administration has eviscerated the Constitution; the way they say they need to monitor your phone calls, your e-mail, and your financial transactions, all in the name of fighting terrorists, you seriously have to evaluate whether you want to sell your freedom to a government that is selling military hardware to a country at which it's rattling its sabers and is likely planning to invade before the first quarter of 2007 is over. If Americans are going to be foolish enough to give up their liberty for temporary security, it at least ought be to a government that's at least trying to keep them secure, instead of selling your security to the highest bidder without heed to the consequences.

Hell, at least when Reagan sold arms to Iran, we got hostages in return.
Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

How we got here
Posted by Jill | 7:27 AM
Jane Smiley does a terrific job at HuffPo explaining how the madman that is the Crawford Caligula was built:

How do you build yourself a madman? Well, first you flatter him, and then you try never to make him angry, and then you feed him ideas that flatter him even more by making him seem to himself sentimentally visionary and powerful and righteous. You appeal to his already evident mean streak and his hot temper by reminding him all the time that he has enemies, and you cultivate his religious side so that the sense of righteous victimization inherent in extreme religion comes out. If he were not already an ignorant, dependant, fragile, and rigid person, he would not be susceptible to this sort of conditioning, but by temperament and practice, he has nothing of his own to counter your efforts. Then you hire a few shyster-sycophants like John Yoo to tell him (ignorant as he is, with no actual understanding of the Constitution), that as president he can do whatever he wants.

So, here he is, Little George, caught between the devil (Cheney) and the deep blue sea (fifty-some years of being infantilized by B/S/B). Cheney and Rumsfeld, aided by Rice and Miers and Hughes, convince him that his masculinity will only be enhanced by doing all the masculine things he missed out on over the years, especially making war. And Gerson gives his war a virtuous, godly gloss. And Gerson's words come out of his mouth so often that he believes them and thinks they are his. In the meantime, Karl Rove continues to think that he is the maestro, playing Little George (and his base and the rest of the nation) like his own personal piano. Playing the president, for Rove, means enhancing LIttle George's actual dependency while encouraging him to think that he's the boss (allowing him to call you "Turdblossom", for example, and isn't it telling that "turd" seems to be Bush's favorite imprecation, rather than, say, "fuck"?).

Bush is the worst possible president because he is simultaneously unusually ignorant for a president and unusually shallow, as well as desperate for a success he can call his own. I can see how in a certain sort of era--say an era of prosperity and world peace (can you think of one? I can't) an unusually ignorant and shallow man could bump along in the presidency for a few years without creating havoc and destruction, but these years didn't happen to be peaceful and prosperous, they happened to be delicate and dangerous. Clinton knew that, and he approached his compromising and self-contradictory foreign policy tasks with care. But Bush and his fellow boors were so blind that they adopted as their motto "anything but Clinton", sheer contrarianism and resentment. It wasn't enough to them for the US to be powerful, as it was in the Clinton years, or to be generally respected and appreciated--they wanted something more sensational--power they could feel, power that was erotic and fetishistic, power that was uncomfortable for others, power that would make them feel big by making others feel small, power that would show Clinton up. That's the tit Little George has been sucking for the last six years--the deluded propaganda of the neocons, addressed first to him and through him to the rest of us. What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more "foes" was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn't even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals--ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there's lots of precedent on this), so there's no telling what he will do. We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn't want him to do. The propaganda that Bush's sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself. He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is.

[snip]

Little George isn't the same guy he was in 2000, the guy described by Gail Sheehy in her Vanity Fair profile--hyper-competitive and dyslexic, prone to cheat at games, always swinging between screwing up and making up, hating criticism and disagreement, careless of others but often charming. He is no longer the guy who the Republicans thought they could control (unlike, say, McCain). The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history.


Smiley is correct. Bush shows a certainty this history will judge that he was Correct In All Things, and like the religion he follows which tells him that faith, not deeds, guarantee an eternity in a paradise which he has no proof exists, his certainty is based on the knowledge that he won't be here if he is proven wrong. So he can wake up every morning, certain in the knowledge that future generations will revere and respect him, and there is nothing that will happen to burst this bubble -- one of many in which he's been allowed to spend his life.
Bookmark and Share

Why there is no organized antiwar movement
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
Gary Kamiya wonders in Salon why the very people who are most likely to be affected by George Bush's war in Iraq -- those very kids in community colleges who are most likely to fight it -- aren't taking to the streets; why there is no antiwar movement.

There isn't any one answer to this question. The antiwar movement of the 1960's represented a confluence of a number of cultural factors missing at the moment:


  1. The draft
  2. A HUGE demographic affected by #1
  3. The draft
  4. The fact that images of the war's toll were being broadcast into our living rooms night after night. Today we are not even allowed to see flag-draped caskets, on the evening news, let alone shots of American kids with their legs blown off, writhin in pain
  5. The fact that the bulk of the casualties took place long AFTER the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that resulted in the escalation of the war.
  6. An overall e.conomic affluence which gave people the luxury of participating in movements


Today, there is no draft, other than the indirect economic one in which kids with no other prospects enlist in the hope of a better life. The generation of war age right now isn't the cultural force that tha baby boomers represented by dint of sheer size. There are more electronic media feeding stuff into people's ears to distract them than just the evening news; and those who run the networks that deliver the evening news have signed onto this war, marginalizing what little antiwar activity exists.

The other factor is that the message of Iraq being, however indirectly, a response to the attacks of 9/11/01, which DID play out in the national media, has been so ingrained in people's heads that even among those who might be inclined to be skeptical, there is this little voice that says "But what about 9/11?" -- as if killing enough Iraqis and a generation of American kids would somehow make it all better. The Vietnam war had no such triggering incident. Instead, it crept up on us on little cat feet through the Kennedy years and the first year of the Johnson Administration, until the post-Gulf of Tonkin escalation made it impossible to ignore.

Americans saw the actual toll of the Vietnam War -- today they see a president in a costume strutting like a bantan rooster on an aircraft carrier -- macho imagery right out of the video games the kids who at one time would have marched are playing on a daily basis. Today, there are communities with a high level of enlistment for whom this war is real; which have seen the man in the uniform ringing their neighbors' doorbells to deliver the bad news. But for most of us, the war just doesn't resonate.

This is why, as counterintuitive as it may seem, an antiwar movement's best friend would be a military draft without the college exemption that would do nothing to make this something other than a war fought largely by the poor and the working class. Perhaps only then would enough Americans feel that they have a personal stake in this war. As it stands now, there are over 20,000 exhausted American young people, pushed to limits their fathers in Vietnam couldn't have imagined, being sent to be used as target practice in a sectarian war -- and because most Americans with teenagers know that theirs are sleeping upstairs, they are disconnected -- as if it's just a video game after all.
Bookmark and Share

As long as they don't tip over into deciding that a woman is just a vessel for 9 months, I'm in favor of this
Posted by Jill | 6:21 AM
I'd like to believe that this is throwing down the gauntlet to the fundie wingnut groups that are now not just targeting abortion, but also contraception:

The promise may not outlast their political honeymoon, but Democratic Congressional leaders say they are committed to governing from the center, and not just on bread-and-butter issues like raising the minimum wage or increasing aid for education. They also hope to bring that philosophy to bear on some of the most divisive social issues in politics, like abortion.

In their first days in session, Senate Democratic leaders reintroduced a bill that they said was indicative of their new approach: the Prevention First Act, which seeks to reduce the number of abortions by expanding access to birth control, family planning and sex education.


For right-wing groups to oppose legislation designed to reduce the need for abortions is to pull off their mask of "caring about the unborn" and show them for the moral meddlers they are. Of course, we already know what these groups and their adherents think of the so-called "contraception culture", but I'm not sure the world at large does. So this kind of legislation, which provides women (and presumably men) with the tools they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy is definitely something to applaud.

As long as they stop there.

The question is how far Democrats are willing to go in this effort to find "common ground." For those so-called pro-lifers who genuinely want to reduce the number of abortions, reducing the need for them is just common sense. But lurking under the surface of most of the pro-life movement is a "punish-the-evil-unchaste-sluts" sentiment that legislation like this does nothing to address.

It's unlikely that a Democratic Congress is going to be able to accomplish things like expanding access to health care for babies and children, or making the workplace friendlier to these new moms, or expanding nutrition programs for low-income mothers, or any other programs that might help women who do not abort manage their new life as parents. So as far as I'm concerned, any Democrat that takes even one step towards reducing access to abortion in an effort to placate the most irrational element of a right wing that isn't going to vote for them anyway is going to lose MY vote.
Bookmark and Share
Monday, January 15, 2007

Gone fishin'
Posted by Jill | 9:11 PM
Well, not really; more like gone to ModFab's Fabulous Online Golden Globes Party. Turn on your TV, put your dishin' shoes on, and join us over there!
Bookmark and Share

And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you
Posted by Jill | 7:48 AM
Iran? Me? Planning war against Iran? You mean l'il ole me? A good ole boy from Texas like me? Moi? Surely you jest.

Newsweek:

...administration officials (anonymous due to diplomatic sensitivities) concede that Bush's Iran language may have been overly aggressive, raising unwarranted fears about military strikes on Tehran. Instead, they say, Bush was trying to warn Iran to keep its operatives out of Iraq, and to reassure Gulf allies—including Saudi Arabia—that the United States would protect them against Iranian aggression. A senior administration official, not authorized to speak on the record, says the policy is part of the new Iraq offensive. "All this comes out of our very detailed, lengthy review of strategy from last fall," he says. Recent intel indicates the government of Iran, or elements in it, have stepped up interference in Iraqi political affairs and the supply of weapons to Iraqi Shiite insurgents, say several U.S. intel and national-security officials, anonymous when discussing sensitive material. "The reason you keep hearing about Iran is we keep finding their stuff there," Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace said Friday. Two of the officials, however, indicated Bush had not signed a secret order—known as an intel "finding"—authorizing the CIA or other undercover units to launch covert operations to undermine the governments of Iran and Syria.


This is the Gulf of Tonkin resolution:

Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repeal any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression.


With this resolution in hand, another Texas president lied about a U.S. destroyer allegedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, leading to the escalation of the Vietnam War that ended up costing over 58,000 American soldiers their lives, only 1,864 of them killed from 1961 to 1965. ALL of the others died in the aftermath of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Bookmark and Share

Why they hate us
Posted by Jill | 7:24 AM
Twenty-three (interesting number for all you Discordians out there) minutes of George W. Bush was about all I could stand in one week, so I opted out of watching his 60 Minutes interview last night, choosing instead to read the transcript.

This part just leapt off the screen:

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.


Might I remind the Crawford Caligula that the Iraqis didn't ASK us to invade their country? They didn't ASK us to depose Saddam Hussein. And they sure as hell didn't ask us to turn their country into an anarchic, dangerous deathtrap. That this president invaded Iraq for his own personal reasons and now expects the Iraqis who live in a ruined country with no electricity, very little potable water, and few ways to earn a living, to be GRATEFUL is not just typical of this president's narcissism, in which he does what HE thinks is right for them without consulting them, and then expects them to appreciate his efforts, but is typical of the way the U.S. has treated the world for a generation. We do what's in our interest -- like supporting Saddam Hussein against the Iranians in the 1980's, then calling him a tyrant akin to Hitler; or creating the Afghani mujahadeen to fight the Soviets and laying the foundation for the creation of al-Qaeda; or helping to deposing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950's when he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry instead of turning it over to Western interests, which laid the foundation for the Iran crisis of 1979. We do what we want and then expect those hurt by our short-term thinking to be grateful.

And he wonders why they hate us? No matter what Dinesh D'Souza thinks, they don't hate us because we allow women outside the house, or because of birth control or homosexuality or Michael Moore's weight. They hate us because we have this idea that everything in the world is ours by some kind of divine right -- this "What is our oil doing under their sand" mentality that has caused us to make one boneheaded decision in the Middle East after another for as long as I've been alive.

And this nimrod has the nerve to ask the Iraqis to be GRATEFUL?
Bookmark and Share

A pre-emptive strike against a Hillary Clinton candidacy?
Posted by Jill | 7:11 AM
First, let me reiterate: I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president. I don't think she should run, I won't work for her, and I highly doubt I'd vote for her -- even in a general election. I am disgusted and appalled by her refusal to admit that her vote for the Iraq war was wrong and her continued squishiness on that issue, and in 2008, that trumps everything. And frankly, I really don't want to relive the "dig for anything" atmosphere that Republicans created -- an atmosphere that has given us eight years of a lunatic with penis size issues in the White House.

That said, I find it interesting that the Bush Administration has appointed J. Timothy Griffin to be the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas.

As the New York Times points out, Mr. Griffin...

has a thin legal record but a résumé that includes working for Karl Rove and heading up opposition research for the Republican National Committee.


Hillary Clinton is all but certain to run. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is all but certain to run. I can add 1 + 1 and get 2.

Interestingly, this appointment, which should have been subject to Senate Confirmation, wasn't, and is apparently part of an Administration tactic to push out U.S. attorneys and replace them with "temporary" appointments that turn out to be not so temporary.
Bookmark and Share
Sunday, January 14, 2007

Today's weird Google searches
Posted by Jill | 9:46 PM
Welcome to all our visitors who found us via Google. Now please explain why you were searching on:


  • Dirty Tinkerbell
  • Benadryl Marijuana
  • eat n*****s for breakfast
  • John Cusack - asshole


...and a special welcome to the person who found us by searching on "right wing nutcase radio", and the one who found us by searching on "refaced cabinets", who is invited to drop me an e-mail for information. I've finished veneering the top cabinets and they look fabulous.
Bookmark and Share

"The Spare" headed for Iraq
Posted by Jill | 2:21 PM
ABC News reports that Prince Harry, the "spare" of the "heir and a spare" in the British royal family, is preparing for Iraq deployment (though whether he himself is actually put in combat remains to be seen:


A British newspaper reported Sunday that Prince Harry was scheduled to begin final training for deployment to Iraq with his army regiment, but the Defense Ministry said no decision had been made on whether he would be deployed.

The News of the World said the 22-year-old prince, who is third in line to the throne, would take part in a two-day pre-deployment course which includes instruction in basic Arabic phrases.

Harry, known as "Cornet Wales" by his Blues and Royals regiment, has trained to command 11 soldiers and four Scimitar tanks.

A Defense Ministry spokesman said the Blues and Royals were among a number of regiments being considered for deployment to Iraq in April.

"Even if the regiment is selected, it is not the case that the entire regiment would be deployed. If his unit was selected, it would be down to the unit commander to determine whether it would be appropriate for Harry to go," the spokesman said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity in line with policy.

The Defense Ministry has previously said Harry could go to Iraq if his unit was deployed, but he might be kept out of situations where his presence would jeopardize his comrades.

Prince William, currently training as a troop leader within the Blues and Royals, cannot be deployed to war zones because he is second in line to the British crown.


Nevertheless, he's ready to go if called.

Now THESE two, on the other hand...





...I'm not holding my breath.
Bookmark and Share

Place your bets now
Posted by Jill | 12:28 PM
Atrios is rebuilding his blogroll from scratch. Anyone want to lay odds that I still won't be on it?

Aside from that, revisiting one's blogroll periodically is a good idea. I'm going to be doin the same thing myself. Time for us 29th-tier bloggers to band together and form a Bloggers Union Against the Man.
Bookmark and Share

"They went to church every Sunday. They just seemed like a very happy, normal couple"
Posted by Jill | 10:15 AM
Via Avedon Carol comes yet another tale of how being a good, churchgoing Christian should stop being the benchmark we use to evaluate Americans' morality.

This one is more horrifying than most:

A man suspected of decapitating his 4-year-old daughter and leaving the body for her mother to find in their suburban home was arrested in Washington, D.C., early Saturday, authorities said.

Investigators have not found any history of domestic or mental health problems at the home, and still have no leads as to a possible motive in the killing, said Clayton police Lt. Jon Gerrell.

Amber Violette told police Friday evening she had found her daughter, Katlin, with her head severed from her body, police said.

An "edged weapon" believe to have been used in the killing was found in the house, though Gerrell declined to give more details.

"This is devastating for the whole community as a whole, and it's the most horrific thing I've seen in 13 years of police work," said Sgt. S.P. Lapsley. "That a father could do this to his child, I just can't believe it."

John Patrick Violette's vehicle was found at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, and investigators learned he had taken a flight to Washington. Deputy U.S. marshals arrested the 37-year-old after police tracked his credit card to the hotel, Lapsley said.

Police said Violette, 37, would be held in Washington pending an extradition on a murder charge expected to be filed in Clayton, about 15 miles southeast of Raleigh. The U.S. Marshals Service said an extradition hearing is expected to be held Tuesday.

The mother is not a suspect in the investigation, and Lapsley said police don't expect to make any more arrests.

Police said John Violette quit his job at a home improvement store on Thursday, the News & Observer of Raleigh reported.

Lori McCreary, who lives across the street from the Violette home in Clayton, a suburb about 15 miles southeast of Raleigh, described the family as "very private, but normal."

"They went to church every Sunday. They just seemed like a very happy, normal couple,"


Isn't it funny how every time something like this happens, people are surprised because they "went to church"? John List was such a good churchgoing Lutheran that after he murdered his wife, mother, and three children in 1971, the Westfield, NJ police figured (correctly) that he'd affiliate with a church as quickly as possible. Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer, was also a Lutheran, and not just a Lutheran, but president of his church.

You know, the only times I've ever been in a house of worship since early childhood have been for weddings and funerals. And somehow I've managed to avoid murdering anyone, committing sexual assault, embezzling money, cheating on my spouse, or anything more heinous than a parking ticket. Kind of makes you wonder about this whole business about "good churchgoing Christians", doesn't it?
Bookmark and Share

The final nail in the coffin of Tom Cruise's career
Posted by Jill | 8:10 AM
Of course we said this of Battlefield Earth and John Travolta too, and this year Travolta gets to spit on Divine's grave in Hairspray -- but we can still hope.

Coming soon to the Hell Plaza Duodecaplex:

Britain's Daily Star newspaper reports that the wife of football star David Beckham has apparently been lined up to play the alien bride in The Thetan - based on the religion, which believes in alien life forms.

The Daily Star reported that Victoria - who Cruise has described as a "comic genius" - is said to be "thrilled" about getting her big Hollywood break.

A source told the Daily Star: "Victoria is really hoping to make a go of it in Hollywood.

"This could be the perfect start for her, with good pal Tom Cruise in charge."

The 32-year-old - who made her first attempt at acting in the 1997 Spice Girls movie Spice World - will play the bride of an alien leader called a thetan, which Scientologists claim is an immortal spiritual being, present in all humans.

Cruise - who is bankrolling the project himself after it was rejected by all the major film studios - is said to have picked Victoria for the role after being impressed by her "comic genius".
Bookmark and Share

It isn't just about politics, dammit!
Posted by Jill | 8:04 AM
This article in the Washington Post focuses entirely on the political machinations of Bush's Iraq policy of bumping troop levels back up to where they were last year, which didn't work then either. How about focusing just a wee bit on the fact that his intransigence means that he doesn't give a shit about Congress (not even its members in his own party), and he sure as hell doesn't give a shit about the American people?

The bipartisan opposition to President Bush's troop-increase plan has proved more intense than his advisers hoped and has left them scrambling to find support, but the White House is banking on the assumption that it can execute its "new way forward" in Iraq before Congress can derail it.

The plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq was virtually guaranteed to provoke a furor in Washington, Bush advisers said, but the storm was exacerbated by the slow, leaky way that the White House reached a decision. The policy review stretched two months after the election and the essence of the plan became known long before Bush announced it, making it a political pinata for opponents.

Without Bush making the case for it until last week, resistance hardened, and aides now harbor no hope of winning over Democrats. Instead, they aim mainly to keep Republicans from abandoning him further. Bush invited GOP leaders to Camp David this weekend and will argue his case to the nation on CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight. Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley will also hit the airwaves today.

"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said in his radio address yesterday, adding: "Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

Many Democrats, in fact, have proposed alternatives centered around pulling out troops, an idea Bush flatly rejects. So hopes for a bipartisan consensus after Democrats captured Congress in the November midterm elections have evaporated, and Bush appears more isolated than ever.

"We are headed towards quite a donnybrook in Congress," said former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose plan for withdrawing combat forces by early 2008 was never fully embraced by Bush or Democrats. "We had hoped that there would be more progress towards a more bipartisan approach."

The White House has downscaled its goals and is playing for time. Advisers resign themselves to a nonbinding congressional resolution condemning the troop increase but want to avoid many Republicans voting for it. Former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who lost reelection, called Bush's plan "a step in the right direction" and said Republicans do not want to walk away from Iraq but are "in full political survival mode" now. "It's very hard, particularly if you're on the ballot in two years, to run on the side of the president on anything to do with the war."


Is anyone else offended by this almost single-handed focus on the political ramifications of supporting or opposing this policy? Either it's the right thing to do or it isn't. If it's right, you fund it. If it's wrong, you get the Constitutional crisis underway NOW, before Bush can send any more young Americans to be embedded with an Iraqi army that may very well be infiltrated by the very insurgents they're supposed to be fighting. In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations reported that in some areas, up to one-fifth of the security forces consist of insurgents. Does anyone honestly believe that this has changed? And how safe do you think these additional troops are going to be when the guy who Bush thought was HIS puppet, but instead is Moqtada al-Sadr's, puts Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar into the top military job in Baghdad against the opposition of the U.S. military brass? Does anyone honestly think this decision was Maliki's alone? And just what do they think is going to happen to American troops who go after al-Sadr if a decision is made to target him for assassination?

Whoever believes that this "surge" of a 15% increase in troop levels -- what Jon Stewart calls "a gratuity" -- is going to somehow manage to turn Iraq into a land of peace and plenty is delusional.

Oh, right. They ARE delusional. But even assuming that the American troop presence can calm the situation down, the ONLY winners here are going to be American oil companies, who are waiting for the country to be secure enough so that their sweetheart deal of getting 75% of the revenues from Iraq's oil fields can come to fruition. The families of the Americans who will, it can now be acknowledged, "die for oil", or die for Bush's legacy, or die for little else, don't win. The American people, who will be even more hated worldwide than we are now, and who will in the future have a much-reduced standard of living because of the huge cost of this war, don't win. The Iraqis, who will see much of their country's wealth go into the pockets of American oil executives, don't win.

In 1988, I used to say that the Bush family views the entire United States as a private fiefdom for enriching themselves and their friends. Little did I know that they view the entire WORLD that way.

It's not about the politics anymore. This is no longer about Democrat and Republican, right and left. It's about what kind of country we are and what kind of country we want to be. It's about "moral values" -- the kind of moral values that really count.
Bookmark and Share