"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, March 10, 2007

Posts you must read
Posted by Jill | 9:15 PM
Bookmark and Share

Hey, I can be just like Atrios
Posted by Jill | 7:42 PM
Have at it.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Too bad I never liked the Who
Posted by Jill | 7:36 PM
EVERYONE's blogging these days.

(h/t: Hoffmania)

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Posted by Jill | 7:33 PM
Raspy McHuskerson is FINALLY out of MSNBC as of April 1.

Well, it's a start, anyway. Paging Rachel Maddow....

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Honey, I broke the military
Posted by Jill | 7:06 PM
Is there anything in George W. Bush's life that he hasn't screwed up?

The military is starving for "fresh troops" for the so-called "surge" (read: long-term escalation and occupation):

Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.

Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled.


And here at home, Bush's use of the National Guard as an adjunct to active-duty military rather than institute an unpopular draft has broken that branch's ability to respond to domestic disasters:

Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" -- largely as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars' worth of equipment -- jeopardizing their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report yesterday on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.

The report found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the cobbling together of units and hurt recruiting.

"We can't sustain the [National Guard and reserves] on the course we're on," said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005. The independent commission, made up mainly of former senior military and civilian officials appointed by both parties, is tasked to study the mission, readiness and compensation of the reserve forces.

"The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping the National Guard for its domestic missions," the commission's report found. It faulted the Pentagon for a lack of budgeting for "civil support" in domestic emergencies, criticizing the "flawed assumption" that as long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to respond to a disaster or emergency at home.


This is the Bush record: An active military destroyed. A National Guard unready for responding to a domestic emergency. Such an emergency even more likely now due to his botching of his discretionary war in Iraq. A terrorist attack on his watch. An inability or unwillingness to capture the alleged mastermind of the plot for that attack. A war based on lies. Over 3100 soldiers dead and tens of thousands wounded, maimed and disfigured for life in that war based on lies. An expanded terrorist threat caused by his abandonment of the Afghanistan effort for his Ahab-like obsession with Saddam Hussein. A country in debt for generations to come while Dick Cheney and Bush cronies continue to stuff their pockets with taxpayer cash.

And there are people who still support this bunch? There are people who still trust the Republicans with anything?

This president broke the military. The next time you see someone with one of those fucking yellow ribbon magnets on his car, ask if he realizes that.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

The reality of war
Posted by Jill | 5:43 PM
Do you think George W. Bush and his neocon apologists have ever seen these photos? And if they have, does it touch them in any way?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Marc Maron watch for Saturday, March 10
Posted by Jill | 3:06 PM
I know this sounds weird and stalkerish, and I know that most of you really don't give a shit about Marc Maron or don't even know who he is, or know who he is and think he's just that really annoying Jewish comic that used to be on Air America in the morning and if you are in New York you actually think that Sam Greenfield and Armstrong Williams are an improvement, which makes me wonder why you're even reading this blog.

But I'm here at home, Mr. Brilliant is out flat with a really bad cold that I am now fighting off (I'm in the eyes burning/crushing fatigue stage), waiting for a handyman who hasn't shown up yet to give me an estimate for taking out this oven wall cabinet. But I have another handyman ready at a moment's notice to yank out this oven wall cabinet, but I know the work of the guy I'm waiting for, but he's kind of farchadat because his mother just died, and I'm kind of like a high school girl with two prom dates that doesn't know if the one she really likes is going to come through. Then one of these days I have to get myself back over to the fancy-ass appliance store I'm going to buy a range from because they'll cut my solid pine 1950's vintage base cabinet to make room for it, and deal with the electrician, and then look for flooring, and the whole thing is making me think maybe I'll just live with what I have.

Naah.

At any rate, I don't much feel like ranting about the Problems of the World today, because the temperature is actually mild today, it's Bix Beiderbecke's 104th birthday, and the 24-hour WKCR Bix Beiderbecke Birthday Broadcast is on, and that's the biggest benchmark that spring is on the way.

But for those twelve of you who are still waiting for the Lords of Radio to atone for The Sins of Danny Goldberg, and who think that instead of "a rotating cast of young comedic talent", HBO should just call the upcoming show to run opposite the Sabbath Gasbags, Marc Maron Explains It All For You, this little tidbit might be of interest:

Maron has so far hosted two shows on Air America radio, both in the morning and the evening, and there’s a rumor going around that he may be in talks for a third. “I don’t know if that’s going to happen yet,” Maron said. “They’re trying to get me to go back, but when you’ve been in a difficult relationship it’s hard to keep going back. We’ll see what happens but I certainly miss doing that. I miss getting up in the morning and doing all kinds of funny stuff and breaking news and yelling…I miss doing the morning show. You guys used to get it [in Chicago], but I don’t remember what station. I’ve done two shows for them. I’ve done an evening show and a morning show and they want me to come back and I’m still talking to them about it.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

But I still think POLAR BEARS are cute
Posted by Jill | 1:55 PM
OK, I give: Squirrels are not cute. They really ARE fluffy-tailed tree rats. I may even rethink the braking-for-squirrels-playing-chicken.

Here we are, two weeks to the day since a squirrel found its way down our chimney and ran around inside our basement ceiling (and much of the basement too, from what I can tell from the footprints and the knocked-over bottle of vodka, which means it was an alcoholic squirrel to boot), and there is no sign of Dead Squirrel Stench anywhere. This is of course good news; it means I don't have to pay a guy $1800 ($2200 if I want him to take down the old ceiling instead of doing it ourselves) to replace the basement ceiling to get a corpse out of there. But it does mean that either the wormhole in physical reality into which our late cat Wendy used to occasionally disappear really does exist, there's a Squirrel Transporter somewhere inside the ceiling, or somehow the motherfucker managed to find its way OUT again. But how? Climbing the chimney? If that's the case, why couldn't he have scooted back up again BEFORE I spent hundreds of dollars on a ripoff exterminator?

You know what's even worse? Mr. Brilliant swears he saw a very thin squirrel with a mangy-looking tail missing much of its fur (which is the kind of tail I saw on this thing when it was inside the fluorescent light fixture) in the backyard....yesterday.

Good thing the chimney's capped now.

I hate squirrels.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, March 09, 2007

POLAR BEARS!
Posted by Jill | 12:46 PM
There, I said it. Come and get me, coppers.

Maya's Granny recounts some stories on how climate change is affecting polar bears -- and the people who live near them. Worth checking out.
Bookmark and Share

Can we tell the moral scolds on the right to shut the fuck up now?
Posted by Jill | 8:32 AM
Hoist, petard, etc:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."


I guess that means Gingrich opposes a pardon for Scooter Libby then, right?

But of course, Gingrich has gotten down on his knees and asked God's forgiveness, right? Imagine how tired God must be of these people who have very little contrition and even less introspection, but beg God to forgive them. It's like that old Yiddish joke about God's answer to the pious, constantly-praying Job as to why the latter received all these tribulations from the Lord: "Because day after day after day, all you do is mutsche me!"

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Marc Maron watch
Posted by Jill | 7:49 AM
HBO may have denied it before last week's U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colorado, but it looks like its Marc Maron/Ana Marie Cox-hosted one-off, The Gaggle, worked well enough to make it to the regular schedule.

It's just a toss-off in an article about Bill Maher, but here's some tasty steak for Maronistas:

This is topical TV as competitive sport. There are the late shows, the late-lates, the Comedy Centrals, "Saturday Night Live," MadTV. Even Fox News entered the fray with its conservative-bent "1/2 Hour News Hour." Plus, HBO is planning to throw into the mix "The Gaggle," to cover the 2008 elections -- hosted by a rotating younger demo of political pundits, like former Wonkette blogger Ana Marie Cox, stand-up comic Marc Maron and Republican operative Mike Murphy.


But The Gaggle seems to have been greenlit (greenlighted?).

Variety:

HBO is developing a political satire series, "The Gaggle," to bolster its lineup during the campaign for the White House in 2008.
Named for the informal kibitzing between White House beat reporters and the press secretary that takes place before the televised briefing, "The Gaggle" will cast a younger generation of political journalists in a political opinion show that uses comedy as one of its key drivers.

Appearing in the first pilot, performed live at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, was Ana Marie Cox, the former Wonkette blogger and author of political novel "Dog Days"; standup comedian Marc Maron; and Republican operative Mike Murphy, who managed campaigns for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and 2008 presidential aspirant Mitt Romney.

The show will differ from HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher" in that it will tap a younger, snarkier group of up-and-coming political journos, and no particular host will drive the show's agenda.


Heh. "No particular host will drive the show's agenda." They don't know Marc Maron very well, do they?

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Nope...no right-wing tilt here...none whatsoever
Posted by Jill | 7:34 AM
As readers of this blog know, I am no great fan of Hillary Clinton. In fact, a Clinton nomination may just cause me to either write in someone in whom I do believe or else sit this one out. But right on the heels of the vapors over Barack Obama's parking tickets comes Dana Milbank, in full Aging Diva Bitch Maureen Dowd drag, meowing on Hillary Clinton's use of platitudes -- on page 2 of the Washington Post, no less:

Candidate Clinton, Embracing the Trite and the True

By Dana Milbank
Friday, March 9, 2007; Page A02

Are you in it to win? Would you regard civil rights as the gift that keeps on giving? Do you believe in the American Dream, stupid?

If you answered yes to any of the above, you might consider supporting Hillary Clinton, the person to send to the White House when you care enough to send the very best. More than any other candidate, Clinton has brought the sensibility of Hallmark greeting cards to the 2008 presidential race.

Yesterday, the Democratic front-runner took a number of provocative stands as she spoke about soldiers and veterans at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank:

"If you serve your country, your country should serve you."

"I'm here to say that the buck does stop with this president."

"Let us work . . . to take care of those who are taking care of us."

The controversy didn't end there. She also offered her view that American soldiers are simultaneously "giving their all," "holding their breath" and "stretched to the breaking point." Candidate Cliche continued: "Who's on their side? Who's standing up for them? . . . We owe these young men and women the very best."

We do not owe them the very best rhetoric, however. Abraham Lincoln gave the last full measure of devotion to support-the-troops language 142 years ago, when he called on the nation "to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan." Yesterday, Clinton had this to say of the troops: "They don't have the luxury of passing the buck to somebody else. They step forward and they step up."

In fairness, the current occupant of the White House has left future generations little to work with, should they ever decide to etch his words in marble. Bring 'em on? Smoke 'em out? With us or against us? But Clinton's platitudes are deliberate, not innate. As the Democrats' front-runner, she needs to be as anodyne as possible if she is to overcome her polarizing reputation.


So that's it, then -- Hillary Clinton isn't polarizing because she's a woman, or because she's shrill, or because she's Bill Clinton's wife, or any of the other reasons people give for her being polarizing. No, she's polarizing because she uses the same political clichés politicians have been using -- successfully -- for generations. Meanwhile, the snark-free zone in which the Republican candidates travel is inviolate. Howie Kurtz tiptoes daintily around the embarrassment of Rudy Giuliani's son dragging the family dirty linen in public, Chris Cilizza genuflects before the Altar of Saint Chuck Hagel, and John McCain isn't even on WaPo's radar anymore.

It's hardly surprising that the Heathers of the press are gunning for bear on the 2008 Democratic field. They've had a good run fellating the Bush Administration as the latter ignored warnings of a terrorist attack that then played out as planned, took us into war based on lies, eviscerated the Consitution and put us into debt for generations to come. I suppose now they're afraid they might be denied the kind of access to cocktail franks they've enjoyed with the Republicans.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Impeach Gonzales first
Posted by Jill | 6:59 AM
The first person in the Bush Administration who should be removed from office, because he poses the most immediate threat to the American people is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

From attempting to place restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, to fighting to keep Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force records secret, to drafting the document to allow military tribunals for terrorist suspects, to the USA PATRIOT Act, to advocating torture, to asking Senators to adopt legislation requiring ISPs to monitor and keep records on all web sites visited by all Americans, to stating that Americans do not intrinsically have the right of habeas corpus, to the latest outrage of firing prosecutors who do not fall in line and investigate Democratic malfeasance while leaving Republicans alone, Gonzales has proven that he cares not for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Krugman:

For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.

The subpoenas were issued in connection with allegations of corruption on the part of Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat who seemed to be facing a close race at the time. Those allegations appeared, on their face, to be convoluted and unconvincing, and Mr. Menendez claimed that both the investigation and the leaks were politically motivated.

Mr. Christie’s actions might have been all aboveboard. But given what we’ve learned about the pressure placed on federal prosecutors to pursue dubious investigations of Democrats, Mr. Menendez’s claims of persecution now seem quite plausible.

In fact, it’s becoming clear that the politicization of the Justice Department was a key component of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a permanent Republican lock on power. Bear in mind that if Mr. Menendez had lost, the G.O.P. would still control the Senate.

For now, the nation’s focus is on the eight federal prosecutors fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In January, Mr. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that he “would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons.” But it’s already clear that he did indeed dismiss all eight prosecutors for political reasons — some because they wouldn’t use their offices to provide electoral help to the G.O.P., and the others probably because they refused to soft-pedal investigations of corrupt Republicans.

In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal.

The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”

And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”


No one is advocating that malfeasance go uninvestigated. But the highly selective pattern of investigations skewed by party, combined with the documented firings of those prosecutors who refused to toe the Bush party line such as Carol Lam, who put Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham behind bars, demonstrates conclusively that Alberto Gonzales has no business being the top law enforcement officer in the country.

If the Democrats want to start investigating this administration, Gonzales would be a good place to start.

And while we're on the subject, anyone seriously considering supporting Joe Biden for the presidency would do well to his immortal words to Gonzales during the latter's confirmation hearing: "I like you, you're the real deal."

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, March 08, 2007

The positive vibes vigil
Posted by Jill | 10:12 PM
Please join me in sending good thoughts to Steve Gilliard, who's still not out of the woods yet, his friend Jen, who's under the weather herself, and to Tata, who is doing perhaps the most difficult vigil of all.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

On the so-called Jesus tomb and not pissing off the goyim
Posted by Jill | 9:19 PM
One of the things I've been wanting to read but haven't had time to is the Gnostic gospels. As someone born into a marginally Jewish family, I'm predisposed against buying into the notion that Joshua of Nazareth was the literal son of God in any sense other than that we ALL are "sons and daughters of God" -- if you believe in the Judeo-Christian Great White Alpha Male in the sky model of deity. But I've often wondered what would happen if somehow the resurrection that is the core of Christianity could somehow be disproved.

The new documentary about the ossuaries that were discovered in 1980 probably doesn't answer the question, and the fact that it's James Cameron who made it, along with Simcha Jacobovici, an Israeli Jew, doesn't exactly make one inclined to think there's anything to it. The increasingly lunatic Rabbi Marc Gelman seems to think Jews have no business digging into this stuff; that this is some kind of shandeh far di goyim and even if it's true -- ESPECIALLY if it's true, for a Jew to debunk Christianity would provoke a shitstorm:

The first thing that made me feel creepy about the program was the sight of an Orthodox Jew (the filmmaker, Simcha Jacobovici) supposedly discovering a tomb containing the bones of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their alleged family. Before I go on, let me first say that I do not believe that it is the place of anyone to make other people feel foolish about following their faith. If this was indeed the tomb of Jesus, then not only is the Christian Testament false but, worse, Christianity is a cruel deception, à la “The Da Vinci Code,” foisted on the world by Jesus' panicky followers to help market a faith led by a dead messiah. I don't think that is how Christianity was born, and I don't think interfaith relations are improved when a Jewish filmmaker implies such a thing. At least Dan Brown is not Jewish, and at least he thinly disguised his anti-Christian screed as a novel. For a Jew to produce a documentary film that supposedly disproves both Jesus' celibacy and his resurrection is bad ecumenical business. I feel the same way about Jews defending Nazis who want to march through Jewish neighborhoods. Perhaps somebody should do it, but Jews should not be defending the rights of the killers of Jews. There has been so much blood and suffering, so much venom and so much hatred in past Jewish-Christian relations. How are we helped in our efforts to heal our wounds and the wounds of our world by trying to refute the foundations of the other's faith?


The problem with Gellman's argument, and perhaps his support for the Iraq war makes it more understandable, is that it assumes we have an obligation to allow others to persist in delusion, particularly if said people have a history of mass killings of those who don't believe what they do. But similarly, this brings up the question of whether we are obligated to allow those who still believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that George W. Bush is a good, honest, Christian man who would never lie to us to continue to do so. At what point is one obligated to accept empirical truth?

I admit to being twisted enough to want Jacobovici and Cameron to be right and for ossuaries to actually be those of the so-called Holy Family. For one thing, it would bring a historical dimension to a story that is now only known through various versions and translations, and would make for fascinating study. But it would also be interesting to watch how Christians would respond to this test of their faith.

It isn't that Christianity would be completely debunked, though much of it would be. It would, however, mean that some acceptance of the Bible as allegorical and symbolic rather than literal would be required for the faith to be something other than mass delusion. And frankly, the idea of a historical Jesus with the kind of impact on the world that he has had, a Jesus whose words could be studied and followed without the need for divinity, is far more interesting than blind belief in a story that for many of us is just not plausible.

Lynn has some thoughts on the matter:

Long before the DaVinci code, my reading had convinced me that Jesus and Mary of Magdala would have had to be married. Jesus was a nice Jewish boy and a rabbi, and as a Jewish boy with a Jewish mother he would have been under enormous pressure to be married. The whole concept of celibacy among priests did not become a rule until the early fourth century CE; previous to that time the first pope, St. Peter, is known to have been a married man and subsequent popes and bishops were married, many with children. This became a problem as the early church began amassing property since children become heirs and inherited the priestly property. It was only after the early fourth century that church writers began to expound on the horrors of women and their sexuality.

There is no evidence of any celibate Jewish priests during the time of Jesus. Christian writers like to quote Jesus's words as indicating a preference for celibacy when he said, "there are those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." But earlier translations reveal this quote to actually be "some have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19.12 This is a good example that shows how retranslating the bible has twisted all of the original meaning out of the story in order. The eunuch statement follows a strict teaching about the sanctity of marriage and equates divorce to adultery, after which the followers of Jesus say "then it is better never to marry." Jesus then makes the statement that some are born eunuchs and some become eunuchs by their own hand.

[snip]

One of the more interesting points of the film was the likelihood that Mary of Magdala may have become a respected priestess of Jesus's teachings after his death, a concept that rehabilitates Mary's reputation from the whore of the bible to a woman with spiritual power. Long before the DaVinci Code the Nag Hammadi scrolls included a Gospel of Mary, indicating that she was in fact one of the apostles with her own story to tell. If this is true, it is a major turnabout in the entire Christian epic that forces a question of the story as a whole.


Granted, I don't have a dog in this particular hunt, and the notion of "faith" -- believing something with absolutely no evidence of its truth -- is alien to me, and that may be why I find even the possibility of concrete facts about these people so exciting. But it seems to me that a charismatic leader with the ability to impart a message of hope and peace can be as holy, if not more so, than one to whom people ascribe divinity.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Shhhhhh.....
Posted by Jill | 10:55 AM



Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.

[snip]

In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the bears use for seal hunting.

Environmentalists are trying to use such a listing to force the United States to restrict heat-trapping gases that scientists have linked to global warming as a way of limiting risks to the 22,000 or so bears in the far north.

It remains unclear whether such a listing will be issued. The Fish and Wildlife Service this week held the first of several hearings in Alaska and Washington on the question.

Over the past week, biologists and wildlife officials received a cover note and two sample memorandums to be used as a guide in preparing travel requests. Under the heading “Foreign Travel — New Requirement — Please Review and Comply, Importance: High,” the cover note said:

“Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who’ll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.”

The sample memorandums, described as to be used in writing travel requests, indicate that the employee seeking permission to travel “understands the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”


They fear the Power of the Cute and Furry.
Bookmark and Share

Clean slate Christianity in action
Posted by Jill | 8:20 AM
I'm starting to understand the attraction of evangelical Christianity -- you can do whatever the fuck you want to, and you will be forgiven. Think about it -- you can act on all your impulses and there are NO CONSEQUENCES, as long as you believe. Steal your neighbor's TV, shoplift, rape little boys in the choirloft, cheat on your wife or husband, embezzle money from your boss -- none of it matters, as long as you believe that a Jewish guy 2000 years ago who got nailed to a cross was put here by God and died a horrible death so that you could do whatever the fuck you want.

Go ahead, Bill Donohue....make my day. Of course, I'm not talking about Roman Catholicism, which at least has the ritual of confession, thus requiring you to acknowledge your sins.

Exhibit A on the appeal of clean slate Christianity is Newt Gingrich, who has decided that despite cheating on his first wife with the woman who would be wife #2 and then giving wife #1 divorce papers on her sickbed, then cheating on wife #2 with wife #3, he's gotten on his knees, sought God's forgiveness, and now he's an A-OK guy.

Doesn't it seem a little strange that a universe should be ordered so that you can be forgiven for any crimes against humanity by just asking for it, but being skeptical damns you to hell for all eternity?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Sorry, Matt, but when you're a hypocrite, all bets are off
Posted by Jill | 7:02 AM
Conservatives sure do love their gay prostitutes, don't they? First it was Jimmyjeff Gannonguckert, now Matt Sanchez, darling of CPAC because he's a Latino gay military conservative.

Today, in a truly cranium-combusting piece in Salon, Sanchez sees nothing inconsistent about sucking up to the very people who revile people like himself.

In September 2005, I wrote a column for the campus newspaper that blasted the anti-military bias among my fellow students at Columbia University. In addition to being an American studies major at Columbia, I am a Marine Corps reservist, and my comrades in arms were proud of me once that column had turned into appearances on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" and an opinion piece for the New York Post. None of those media outlets knew who I had been before I was a Marine, an Ivy Leaguer and an outspoken defender of the military.

Up until last weekend, Salon and the rest of the left-wing media had largely ignored me. Given the left's constant talk about equality, discrimination, minority rights and systemic oppression, I thought the fact that I was a Latino Marine, a nontraditional, 36-year-old Ivy League student and a 100 percent flag-waving red-blooded Reagan Republican would make my point of view interesting, but so be it. Everything is political now, and even the double standards have talking points.

Then came last weekend. I was invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, an annual convention of the right attended by more than 5,000 people, to accept the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award. It was recognition for what I'd said in print and on-air about anti-military attitudes on campus. During CPAC, I had my picture taken with the controversial conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter.

Coulter's comments about John Edwards drew unprecedented attention to this year's CPAC. Then, after a while, some of that attention was turned on me.

[snip]

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don't like it. That's not hypocrisy talking; that's just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let's face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They'd be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.

Sure, I had my picture taken with Ann Coulter. I don't agree with what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it. I'm not apologizing for it. I'm also not going to claim I'm sorry for leaving a long-ago summer job off my curriculum vitae. A lot things in my life don't add up, but then I was never good at math. It's just a part of my past, and as anyone who reflects on the past realizes, it contributes to who I am today.


Yes, it does, Matt. And you're wrong -- no one on the left cares about your past in gay porn. Unlike the people you're sucking up to on the right, we believe that what consenting adults do is their own business. Now, I can't speak for anyone in the gay community, but from where this 100% heterosexual, 20+ years married, middle-aged lapsed Jewish suburban woman is standing, you are not just a hypocrite, but are wrestling with a good bit of self-loathing.

I refuse to associate with any activities sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R., because their pro-Palestinian view is NOT limited to opposition to Israeli government policy, but veers over into anti-Semitism. I won't associate with groups that hate people like me, nor will I support them or help them to gain power. So why on earth are you willing to associate with people like Ann Coulter and the rest of the crew? Why are you willing to associate with someone who refers to gay marriage as "insane"? Why on earth would you want to associate with people who profess to hate everything that you are? And even if they don't (which I wonder about, since the Republican party and its allies seem to be rife with barely-closeted gay men and women), why would you want to associate yourself with people who are willing to sacrifice YOU on the altar of their drooling, ignorant Jeebofascist base?

Matt, there is help for you -- not help to "cure" homosexuality, but help so that you can better accept yourself and stop allowing yourself to be used by people who would wipe you off the face of the earth if they thought they could get away with it. But you cannot expect to align yourself with the moral scolds of the right and expect your hypocrisy to not be fair game.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

What is Scooter Libby hiding?
Posted by Jill | 6:59 AM
Bookmark and Share

About that pardon....
Posted by Jill | 6:51 AM
Now that the conservative punditocracy has decided that the only time perjury counts is when it has to do with a sex act and a Democratic president; not outing a non-official cover CIA agent investigating nuclear weapons in a country the president wants to attack for developing nuclear weapons, said punditocracy is now screaming for a pardon.

There's just one problem: Scooter Libby doesn't qualify for one:

Following the furor over President Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich (among others), Bush made it clear he wasn’t interested in granting many pardons. “We were basically told [by then White House counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales] that there weren’t going to be pardons—or if there were, there would be very few,” recalls one former White House lawyer who asked not to be identified talking about internal matters.

The president has since indicated he intended to go by the book in granting what few pardons he’d hand out—considering only requests that had first been reviewed by the Justice Department under a series of publicly available guidelines.

Those regulations, which are discussed on the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/pardon, would seem to make a Libby pardon a nonstarter in George W. Bush’s White House. They “require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application,” according to the Justice Web site.

[snip]

Moreover, in weighing whether to recommend a pardon, U.S. attorneys are supposed to consider whether an applicant is remorseful. “The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to ... victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication,” the Justice Web site states.

Of course, there is nothing that requires Bush to follow these guidelines in reviewing a pardon for Libby (whose lawyer, Ted Wells, stated on the courthouse steps Tuesday that he intended to push for a retrial, adding that he has “every confidence that Mr. Libby will be vindicated.”) As Love, the former pardon attorney, points out, “the president can do whatever he wants.” Both Clinton and Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush (who pardoned Casper Weinberger among other Iran-contra figures), bear that out.

Still, Bush himself publicly reaffirmed his determination to stick to the Justice pardon guidelines as recently as last month. In a Feb. 1 interview with Fox News anchor Neal Cavuto, Bush was asked about whether he would pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug dealer who was fleeing across the border into Mexico.

[snip]

“I’m saying … there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decisions. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process,” the president answered.

Doug Berman, a Ohio State University law professor who specializes in pardons, said the president may have just been pointing to the Justice Department process as a way to “avoid responsibility” for the political flap over the Border Patrol agents’ case. But Bush has always used his pardon power sparingly—dating back to his days in the Texas governor’s mansion.


Of course, given this president's belief that he doesn't need no es-teenking guidelines, or laws, or the Constitution, or anything else that might stand in his way of doing exactly what he wants, none of this is really significant. If he wants to pardon Libby, he'll do so. The question is whether he is willing to tarnish the glorious legacy he still believes he will have by issuing a pardon -- and just how much Dick Cheney is going to be able to strongarm him into doing so.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Whack-a-Mole
Posted by Jill | 6:35 AM
The glorious surge:

Insurgents have sought to intensify attacks during a Baghdad security crackdown and additional U.S. forces will be sent to areas outside the capital where militant groups are regrouping, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday.

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus said the troop buildups outside Baghdad will focus on Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, a growing hotbed for suspected Sunni extremists fleeing the U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad.

But Petraeus stressed that military force alone is "not sufficient" to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government.

"This is critical," Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort."

Petraeus listed a series of high-profile attacks since U.S. and Iraqi forces began the security sweep three weeks ago, including a suicide blast at a mostly Shiite university and an assassination attempt against one of Iraq's vice presidents.

The Pentagon has pledged 17,500 combat troops to the capital. Petraeus has said the full contingent should not be in place until early June. He declined to say how many U.S. forces will be deployed to Diyala, which the group al-Qaida in Iraq has made one its main staging grounds.

Military officials believe many insurgents have shifted from Baghdad to Diyala to escape the security operation.


Unless this Administration is willing to institute a true draft and send massive numbers of U.S. soldiers all over Iraq -- in perpetuity -- to quell the violence, no effort consisting of less is going to work. This is not an endorsement of such a course, it's just the reality. Why the Administration refuses to consider a draft, given its lame duck status, is puzzling, given Bush's repeated assertion that "it has to work." After all, it's not as if he gives a rat's ass about the soldiers and their families who will be affected.

Bob Herbert:


Why in the world is anyone surprised that the Bush administration has not been taking good care of wounded and disabled American troops?

Real-life human needs have never been a priority of this administration. The evidence is everywhere — from the mind-bending encounter with the apocalypse in Baghdad, to the ruined residential neighborhoods in New Orleans, to the anxious families in homes across America who are offering tearful goodbyes to loved ones heading off to yet another pointless tour in Iraq.

The trial and conviction of Scooter Libby opened the window wide on the twisted values and priorities of the hawkish operation in the vice president’s office. No worry about the troops there.

And President Bush has always given the impression that he is more interested in riding his bicycle at the ranch in Texas than in taking care of his life and death responsibilities around the world.

That whistling sound you hear is the wind blowing across the emptiness of the administration’s moral landscape.

U.S. troops have been treated like trash since the beginning of Mr. Bush’s catastrophic adventure in Iraq. Have we already forgotten that soldier from the Tennessee National Guard who dared to ask Donald Rumsfeld why the troops had to go scrounging in landfills for “hillbilly armor” — scrap metal — to protect their vehicles from roadside bombs?

[snip]

Have we forgotten that while most Americans have sacrificed zilch for this war, the mostly uncomplaining soldiers and marines are being sent into the combat zones for two, three and four tours? Multiple combat tours are an unconscionable form of Russian roulette that heightens the chances of a warrior being killed or maimed.

In the old days, these troops would have been referred to as cannon fodder. However you want to characterize them now, their casually unfair treatment is an expression of the belief that they are expendable.

[snip]

There is something profoundly evil about a country encouraging young men and women to go off and fight its wars and then shortchanging them on medical care and other forms of assistance when they come back with wounds that will haunt them forever.



Iraq is FUBAR no matter what we do, and George W. Bush, because of his need to prove that his dick is bigger than Poppy's, is at fault, along with Dick Cheney's greed. The question is whether Iraq is going to be FUBAR with additional American casualties or without them, and how many Americans must we sacrifice before we have somehow atoned for allowing this president to do this.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Best wishes to Steve Gilliard
Posted by Jill | 9:12 AM
Steve Gilliard of The News Blog is undergoing bypass surgery today. Even though he doesn't link to us, we wish him well, and let this be a wakeup call to all of us.
Bookmark and Share

Meanwhile, over on Planet Fox News
Posted by Jill | 7:38 AM
...a highly selective reality:





Today on Fox News:

"Over 100,000 brave American soldiers were not killed in Iraq today."

"No terrorist attack in New York today....George W. Bush continues to keep us safe."

"Suicide bombers fail to kill over a million Shiites in Iraq."

"Indonesia jet fire: over 100 people survive; the others don't matter."

"Prescription drug prices soar for seniors; geezers ungrateful that they're living long enough to NEED them."

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

It's very simple, really...you don't prosecute Republicans
Posted by Jill | 7:32 AM
Victoria Toensing does her best Pilobilus imitation on The Situation Room:

BLITZER: He, according to this jury, men and women of his peers, he's convicted of lying to the FBI, lying to a federal grand jury. Presumably he's going to jail, at least for some period of time.

Was justice served?

TOENSING: Well, I didn't think justice was served by bringing the case in the first place.

I had never heard...

BLITZER: But you can't justify lying to a federal grand jury...

TOENSING: Well, wait a minute...

BLITZER: ... or obstructing justice.

TOENSING: That's not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- but, Wolf, there's a difference between lying and two witnesses' memories differing. I mean look at how the inconsis...

BLITZER: These aren't just two witnesses. These were like 10 wit -- nine witnesses...

TOENSING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

BLITZER: ... said they discussed her identity with him...

TOENSING: Right.

BLITZER: ... before he claims he learned about it from...

TOENSING: And he...

BLITZER: ... Tim Russert.

TOENSING: The charges were only, because -- trust me, Fitzgerald would have brought more if he had had that kind of -- any kind of inconsistency with someone else -- were Matt Cooper and Tim Russert. And so those are two people.

And guess what?

They had all kinds of problems with what they remembered.

BLITZER: Yes, but there was a lot of...

TOENSING: Witnesses at the trial...

BLITZER: ... other witnesses -- there were a lot of other witnesses...

TOENSING: But witnesses at the trial just...

BLITZER: ... who said that -- prosecution witnesses -- who said they discussed her identity with him...

TOENSING: Right.

Guess what?

Let's just take Ari Fleischer, who is a fine man, an honest man. And he said that he remembered talking about it with "Scooter" Libby. But he said he never talked about it with Walter Pincus, the "Washington Post" reporter.

And what did Walter testify to?

I'm sure you know. He said oh my goodness, in the middle of the conversation, Ari Fleischer interrupted me and said, hey, you know, his wife works for the CIA.

This is why prosecutors -- and, Wolf, I don't know of another case where it's just a memories differ kind of case...

BLITZER: But...

TOENSING: You usually have to have something else, like Martha Stewart, there was witnesses there that she asked me to lie. You have none of that in this case and...

BLITZER: But are you questioning Patrick Fitzgerald, his integrity?

TOENSING: Oh, absolutely.

I'm not questioning...

BLITZER: He wasn't... TOENSING: I questioned his judgment because...

BLITZER: But, you know, he was named the special counsel by John Ashcroft, the attorney general.

TOENSING: Well, I wrote an article that questioned this...

BLITZER: He's an attorney...

TOENSING: ... his capability.

BLITZER: And he's a U.S. attorney in Chicago.

TOENSING: That's right.

BLITZER: So he comes with a really credible reputation.

TOENSING: Yes, well, I'm not alone in questioning his judgment in pursuing a case where you don't have evidence more than just some other witnesses...

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Inside the jury room
Posted by Jill | 6:51 AM
Today's must-read is Libby juror Denis Collins' diary from the jury room of the trial. Just go read it.

Collins is an interesting choice to be the public face of the jury, and if the switfboating of Juror #9 by the Usual Suspects hasn't begun yet, it will any second. Here's why:

Judge Walton read the query sheet I'd marked earlier.

You know someone on the prospective witness list?

I do. Bob Woodward was my boss at the Washington Post for three or four years.

Would you tend to give his statements more credibility than the statements of other witnesses?

I immediately picture a party Woodward hosted at his Georgetown home for the Metro staff about 25 years ago. When I went looking for my girl friend, I found her with some copy aides and reporters in an attic piled high with boxes of files for one of his books.

"Unbelievable," said one of the reporters. "Look at the file labels. This entire box is backup for one interview."

But not infallible. Didn't he write two different books about going to war in Iraq?

Know anyone else on the list?

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. I don't think I ever spoke to him during my 10 years at the Post, but twice in the last 14 months we talked at parties thrown by a mutual friend.

Anyone else?

Until a year or so ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor. His back yard and mine shared an alley and a basketball hoop where our sons played. I attended a few neighborhood barbecues in his back yard.

Attorneys at both tables are suppressing "aint this a small town" grins.

Do you know Judith Miller?

No. And yet. I remember a scathing column about Miller in the New York Times and volunteer that I went to grade school with its author, Maureen Dowd. (Maureen had a crush on my brother Kevin. Her older brother Kevin was something of a hero to my youngest brother Brendan after he showed up to coach his grade school football team one Saturday morning in a convertible, with a gorgeous woman in a black cocktail dress in the front seat, and what appeared to be an empty bottle of champagne on the floor. They'd obviously been up all night. He obviously had game.)

I'm not eager to be on any jury for a six week trial, especially with a recently published novel to pimp. But the suggestion that I might lay down for a fellow journalist is starting to irritate. I had to work too hard to become a reporter. Started in the basement of the Washington Post pushing 400 pound rolls of paper to the presses, blah, blah, blah.

"From where you sit I'd be skeptical too," I tell them. "But I've also heard good things about Mr. Libby." Pregnant pause. "A friend who played in a 40 and older touch football league with him says he has a good arm."

Actual snickering.

One of the lawyers asks me the subject of my 2005 non-fiction book.

"Spying."

"You wrote about the CIA?"

"I did." The perfect storm.

Yet here I am.


Their squawking is so predictable I could almost write it myself.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Why not being able to blog during the day sucks
Posted by Jill | 5:51 AM
It's not that I wish I were home all day to be able to write something brilliant when Big News Breaks, because that would mean that I was unemployed. And if it's a choice between designing return address logos and reformatting user and design specifications or being home to blog but living in constant gnawing fear about being able to pay the bills, well, that's a no-brainer.

But still, when I see the big GUILTY show up and I can't write about it, it's frustrating as hell.

I'm not under any delusions that the conviction of Scooter Libby on four out of five counts (which came as a surprise to me, given how long the jury was out and the Administration's track record of strongarming the justice system) means a hill of beans. Far from being chastened, the Usual Suspects not only don't care about the unholy marriage of this Administration and its lackeys in the mainstream media that were revealed during this trial, they are sticking to their own delusions that Joseph Wilson is a liar, that Valerie Plame was not NOC, and perhaps the couple's biggest crime -- that they are Democrats.

As to whether Libby will ever spend a day in jail, well, it's a certainty that he'll be pardoned, despite the limp and pathetic entreaties of Harry Reid.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Iraq war was based on total fabrications, the fact that the worst kind of lies were told by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, will continue to go unpunished. The Bush/Cheney legacy will be a dark one, to be sure, but one without consequences. Patrick Fitzgerald has said that he is done, that he is not going to go after Cheney. And perhaps this is the correct decision, if Cheney has covered his tracks sufficiently well so that conviction is impossible. As to the political ramifications, they are unimportant where Dick Cheney is concerned, especially if you assume that this bunch will leave office in 2009 -- something of which I am not yet convinced. Cheney isn't going to run for president. In theory his years in power will be over, unless some future Republican president loses his mind -- or more likely, the public loses its memory -- and decides his "experience" is an asset. Perhaps this is the reason for shoveling such huge amounts of cash into Halliburton's coffers from so many projects, not just the Iraq war -- it's Dick Cheney's retirement plan.

So while it's tempting to rejoice at the idea that someone in the Bush Administration is actually going to have to accept some consequences for the lies and corruption that are this bunch's hallmark, the reality is that the only person who may suffer consequences is Tim Russert, who is likely to find himself outside in the cold, his nose pressed against the window, where access to this administration is concerned.

(cross-posted at Independent Blogger's Alliance)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Halliburton's tentacles are everywhere
Posted by Jill | 9:07 AM
Cernig notes this morning that at the same time as the Bush Administration is gearing up to attack Iran, Dick Cheney's pension provider is busy running an oil field there:

It's just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers' uniforms.

But this isn't Texas. It's Iran. U.S. companies aren't supposed to do business here.

Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said "served the interests" of Iran.

[snip]

Halliburton says the operation — videotaped by NBC News — is entirely legal. It's run by a subsidiary called "Halliburton Products and Services Limited," based outside the U.S. In fact, the law allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations to do business in Iran under strict conditions.

[snip]

Still, Halliburton stands out because its operations in Iran are now under a federal criminal investigation. Government sources say the focus is on whether the company set out to illegally evade the sanctions imposed ten years ago.

For Halliburton to have done this legally, the foreign subsidiary operating in Iran must be independent of the main operation in Texas. Yet, when an NBC producer approached managers in Iran, he was sent to company officials in Dubai. But they said only Halliburton headquarters in Houston could talk about operations in Iran. Still, Halliburton maintains its Iran subsidiary does make independent business decisions.

[snip]

Halliburton says it is unfairly targeted because of politics, but recently announced it is pulling out of Iran because the business environment "is not conducive to our overall strategies and objectives."


Halliburton? Conduct business in an illegal manner? I'm shocked that anyone would even INSINUATE such a thing -- or for that matter, wonder about why Halliburton, after being in Iran for two years, has only decided it's "not conducive to our overall strategies and objectives" after it's the subject of a criminal probe.

Cernig wonders:


...if their old boss Dick Cheney manages to get his way and the US attacks Iran, would Halliburton get government compensation for it's destroyed equipment and potential profits?

And I can't help but wonder what the outcry would be from the right if it were a company Barack Obama used to run that was doing business in Iran.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

The problem with Hillary -- in a nutshell
Posted by Jill | 5:46 AM
This strikes me as demonstrating the same cluelessness that the Bush Administration demonstrates with its repeated public relations pushes to build support for its failed war:


Clinton Plans Major Appeal to Women

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will begin an ambitious effort on Tuesday to enlist thousands of women to play roles in her presidential campaign, hoping to build on the enthusiasm her candidacy has stirred among female voters at early campaign events.


That being the case, then why is she only polling at 34% among Democratic women?

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Monday, March 05, 2007

Quote of the Day
Posted by Jill | 4:15 PM
This one, on a day that has me doing laundry, trying vainly to make sense of the disaster that is my house, sniffing around the basement for dead squirrel and finding nothing, not even a whiff, and going to Home Depot to buy replacement ceiling tiles, is from the often imitated but never duplicated Tata:

Pull on rubber gloves, darling, and scour something to within an inch of its life...Because ours is the way of the scrub brush, and you have the mop-fu in your blood!
Bookmark and Share

All right, get the duct tape
Posted by Jill | 2:29 PM
Ann, just shut the fuck up already:

Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "faggot," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."

Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate married to a woman, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."

A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists."

Bonior was elected to Congress half a dozen times in Michigan, and served in Vietnam.


It's time to hang this idiot on the necks of every fucking Republican in this country. She IS their public face.

Want to watch ManThrax's head explode? Go send John Edwards some love. Even if you don't plan to vote for him, let's make her words have consequences. We know that Republicans applaud her every word. Let's give her words the opposite effect of what she intends.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

John Amaechi is awesome`
Posted by Jill | 8:11 AM
Barry, our resident wingnut troll, has wondered in the comments why I haven't weighed in on Ann Coulter's use of the word "faggot". Well, perhaps it's because it's forced HIM to do so, or perhaps it's just that I haven't had much blogging time over the past few days.

Or perhaps it's because John Amaechi does it so much better than I could, and far more succinctly:





(h/t: Pam)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

It's time to take health insurance out of the for-profit model
Posted by Jill | 7:48 AM
As long as most middle-class Americans were full-time employees covered by employer-paid health insurance, few people cared about the 40 million uninsured. But now that there is no job security, fewer employers are offering health insurance, and more of them are asking employees to bear a larger share of the cost, suddenly it's a middle-class issue. Perhaps now we can start talking about a single-payer system, rather than the for-profit model in which executives like UnitedHeath's William McGuire can receive over $120 million in compensation, paid for by cutting coverage for actual illnesses.

Something is very wrong with a country that holds itself up as a moral beacon to the rest of the world at the same time as executive compensation results in this:

Ms. Readling, a 50-year-old real estate agent, is one of nearly 47 million people in America with no health insurance.

Increasingly, the problem affects middle-class people like Ms. Readling, who said she made about $60,000 last year. As an independent contractor, like many real estate agents, Ms. Readling does not receive health benefits from an employer. She tried to buy a policy in the individual insurance market, but — having had cancer — could not obtain coverage, except at a price exceeding $27,000 a year, which was more than she could pay.

[snip]

Today, more than one-third of the uninsured — 17 million of the nearly 47 million — have family incomes of $40,000 or more, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan organization. More than two-thirds of the uninsured are in households with at least one full-time worker.

Ms. Readling’s experience is typical; people who have had serious illnesses often have difficulty obtaining insurance. If coverage is available, the premiums are often more than they can afford.

While the government does not have an official definition of “middle class,” one commonly used point of reference is the median household income, which was $46,326 in 2005.

Katherine Swartz, a professor of health policy and economics at Harvard, said the soaring cost of health care was a major reason for the increase in the number of uninsured. She said it also reflected long-term changes in the economy, like the decline in manufacturing jobs and the growth in the share of workers in service industries and small businesses, which are less likely to provide health benefits.

Moreover, Ms. Swartz said, “Companies have become more aggressive in hiring people as temporary or contract workers with no fringe benefits.”

[snip]

“I am scared to get married because I don’t have insurance,” Ms. Readling said. “If I have to go to the hospital and I can’t pay my hospital bills, what happens? Do they go after him? Can they take your home?”

To collect unpaid medical bills, health care providers often obtain judgments against a patient’s spouse, as well as the patient, and file liens against their homes. Ms. Readling says she does not own a house, but her fiancé does.

[snip]

Ms. Readling said it was stressful enough visiting doctors every few months for her cancer follow-ups. Without coverage, she said, the experience is even more stressful.

“When you go to any medical person and they ask for your insurance card, you are so ashamed because you have to say, ‘I don’t have insurance,’ ” Ms. Readling said. “You just feel like you are dirt.”

Ms. Readling said she often woke up at night, terrified of the cost of getting sick without insurance.

“Anything that goes wrong with my health could destroy me financially,” Ms. Readling said. “I could be ruined.”

She said she had never voluntarily allowed her insurance to lapse and could not understand why she was being blackballed.

“What did I do wrong?” Ms. Read-ling asked. “Why am I being punished? I just don’t understand how I could have fallen through this horrible, horrible crack.”

Knowing her health benefits from her prior job would expire in January 2006, she began shopping for a new policy in May 2005. But in June 2005, she learned she had cancer.

“At that point,” Ms. Readling said, “I called everybody I could think of, begging for help. But no insurer would touch me.”


I'm fortunate in that my employer offers very good health insurance, through, ironically, United HealthCare. But if I were to become unemployed, even COBRA coverage would be untenable, because the premium would cost over $13,000/year. With premiums this high and no control over the cost of coverage, it's no wonder that employers are loath to hire full-time, permanent employees. My employer, in an effort to sustain the current quality coverage we have, recently instituted a sliding premium scale in which higher-compensated employees pay a larger share for their coverage than lower-paid employees. I don't have a problem with this, but many others find it unfair. I'm not saying they're wrong.

Health care is not something that can be left to "market forces", because such market forces leave people with illnesses or chronic conditions out in the cold. It's impossible to comparison-shop for coverage when your choice is among premiums that are Exorbitant, Preposterous, and You've Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me -- and that's assuming you can find coverage. I am healthy. I do not have diabetes, heart disease, overly high cholesterol, or high blood pressure. But because I am overweight, I shudder to think of the kind of problems I would have if I had to buy insurance in the private market.

A single-payer model is the only way to get the delivery of health care coverage away from the kind of corporate cronyism that has boards of directors granting multimillion dollar pay packages to executives. A single-payer model is the only way to spread the risk fully across the population. And a single-payer model is the only way to allow doctors to hire staff to help them in their practice of medicine, instead of having one technician, one nurse, and fourteen clerks to handle insurance paperwork.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Movie Catch-up
Posted by Jill | 7:07 AM
One of the nice things about being away from home during time off work is that ths siren song of housework doesn't call, so you get to do things you might actually want to do without feeling that you're neglecting something more important. So while I was away last week I caught up with two of the 2006 movies I'd been wanting to see: Little Children and The Departed.

When I'd heard that Martin Scorsese was remaking the Hong Kong cop flick Infernal Affairs, I wondered if Marty was running out of gas. I'm not usually one for Hong Kong cinema unless it involves finely-crafted Shaolin kung fu (an enthusiasm to which I was introduced, like reggae and the Illuminatus Trilogy, by Mr. Brilliant), and I'm certainly not one for cop movies. But ModFab said I shouldn't miss it, and when ModFab speak, I listen.

But if Scorsese's fingerprints are all over Infernal Affairs, they're even more so over The Departed, which is better than it has any right to be, given Scorsese's tendency in recent years towards the ponderous, rather than the deft heft of his earlier "guy films". Once again, Scorsese's focus is on the guys, and the result is a film that feels like a suit that finally fits again after years of being just a shade too tight.

It would take a truly monstrous director to botch a movie that boasts this cast, and the only misstep here is the casting of Jack Nicholson as crime boss Frank Costello. Nicholson, who seems to have forgotten how to act, having fallen madly and irrevocably in love with his own persona, stomps through the film as if he's gone senile and thinks he's playing Daryl Van Horne in The Witches of Eastwick, to the point that you almost expect Scorsese to cut to a scene of Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michelle Pfeiffer sticking pins into a wax Frank Costello doll.

It's not that Scorsese can't handle over-the-top characters. Joe Pesci's Tommy deVito in Goodfellas is one of the great bad guys in cinematic history, and no one would accuse Daniel Day-Lewis of subtlety as Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York. But it's one thing to be over-the-top in finding the character, and another to force the character into your own suit of clothes because you are Jack Fucking Nicholson.

That Nicholson is so awful serves the rest of the cast well, particularly the young'uns. That Warner Bros. didn't push Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio for awards is a mystery, because the two do some masterful work here. Matt Damon has been a nearly complete surprise in recent years, showing some real chameleonic ability in widely divergent roles. Here he floats effortlessly between being the straight-arrow cop and the Good Mob Soldier, finding the creepiness that Andy Lau did in the original film. If DiCaprio's performance is less nuanced, it's because the character is less so, and if he doesn't quite find Tony Leung's careworn, mournful tone, he makes the role of Billy Costigan his own, finally once again finding the Angry Young Man that made his pre-Titanic work so powerful. He may still be the actor that straight guys love to hate, but all bulked up and with his formerly feline face being replaced by something more like James Cagney than the pretty boy he used to be, he's finally crawling out from under That Boat Movie.

If The Departed lives up to its reputation, Little Children does not. I should have remembered that I didn't much care for In the Bedroom either. I wanted to see Little Children because I would pay to watch Kate Winslet read a book for two hours, but not even an effortless performance by The Great Kate can save this film from its own ponderous self-importance. There isn't another actress around who can tell an entire story with her face, which is why director Todd Field's insistence on using narration to tell much of the story is even more annoying that it would be otherwise. I would love to see Winslet do a film with Jet Li sometime; it could be done as a silent film without subtitles and you would know exactly what's going on every minute.

The problem with Little Children is that a fine brush is never used where a sledgehammer will do. I haven't read the source material, so I don't know if the faults are with the original novel, but there are moments in this film that you can see coming a mile away, and that feel almost Spielbergian in their need to make sure that You Are Getting The Symbolism.

For all that the Glory of Kate seems to suck up all the oxygen in this film, and Jackie Earle Haley's oddball Cinderella story has received so much press (though his Ed Grimley-as-sex-criminal is so creepy that it's probably the last such role he'll ever see), for my money it's Phyllis Somerville as Haley's mother whose work is the most memorable, and who is allowed the most dimensionality. Somerville perfectly captures the smothering blind devotion of a mother who refuses to see her son's monstrousness, but lets us know that it isn't because she doesn't know it's there. When the orphaned Ronnie McGormley opens the note his dying mother has left him, and it simply says "Be a good boy", it's a reproach that reaches from the grave like a slap in the face.
Bookmark and Share

Just so much cannon fodder
Posted by Jill | 6:45 AM
In case you thought that Walter Reed was just an isolated case of a military medical care facility that's going to be shut down anyway being neglected, guess again:

Ray Oliva went into the spare bedroom in his home in Kelseyville, Calif., to wrestle with his feelings. He didn't know a single soldier at Walter Reed, but he felt he knew them all. He worried about the wounded who were entering the world of military health care, which he knew all too well. His own VA hospital in Livermore was a mess. The gown he wore was torn. The wheelchairs were old and broken.

"It is just not Walter Reed," Oliva slowly tapped out on his keyboard at 4:23 in the afternoon on Friday. "The VA hospitals are not good either except for the staff who work so hard. It brings tears to my eyes when I see my brothers and sisters having to deal with these conditions. I am 70 years old, some say older than dirt but when I am with my brothers and sisters we become one and are made whole again."

Stories of neglect and substandard care have flooded in from soldiers, their family members, veterans, doctors and nurses working inside the system. They describe depressing living conditions for outpatients at other military bases around the country, from Fort Lewis in Washington state to Fort Dix in New Jersey. They tell stories -- their own versions, not verified -- of callous responses to combat stress and a system ill equipped to handle another generation of psychologically scarred vets.

[snip]

Sandy Karen was horrified when her 21-year-old son was discharged from the Naval Medical Center in San Diego a few months ago and told to report to the outpatient barracks, only to find the room swarming with fruit flies, trash overflowing and a syringe on the table. "The staff sergeant says, 'Here are your linens' to my son, who can't even stand up," said Karen, of Brookeville, Md. "This kid has an open wound, and I'm going to put him in a room with fruit flies?" She took her son to a hotel instead.

"My concern is for the others, who don't have a parent or someone to fight for them," Karen said. "These are just kids. Who would have ever looked in on my son?"

Capt. Leslie Haines was sent to Fort Knox in Kentucky for treatment in 2004 after being flown out of Iraq. "The living conditions were the worst I'd ever seen for soldiers," he said. "Paint peeling, mold, windows that didn't work. I went to the hospital chaplain to get them to issue blankets and linens. There were no nurses. You had wounded and injured leading the troops."

Hundreds of soldiers contacted The Washington Post through telephone calls and e-mails, many of them describing their bleak existence in Medhold.


For the last four years, The Bush Administration, Congressional Republicans, and their mindless, grinning supporters have succeeded in painting those of us who disagreed with their policies as "unpatriotic", "treasonous", and "not supporting the troops." Even now, such accusations from Republicans have cowed Democrats as a few of them attempted to actually do something about this president's misadventure in Iraq, saying that disallowing funding for the "surge" demonstrated lack of "support for the troops."

Even now, more troops are being fed into this misadventure of a war, and once again there is no Plan B:


During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn't work?

The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. "I'm a Marine," Pace told them, "and Marines don't talk about failure. They talk about victory."

In the weeks since Bush announced the new plan for Iraq -- including an increase of 21,500 U.S. combat troops, additional reconstruction assistance and stepped-up pressure on the Iraqi government -- senior officials have rebuffed questions about other options in the event of failure. Eager to appear resolute and reluctant to provide fodder for skeptics, they have responded with a mix of optimism and evasion.


It is time for Washington Democrats to get off their knees, stop internalizing these false accusations, and finally act as watchdogs for the military, because God knows that Republicans don't give a shit about these kids. Republicans have made perfectly clear that they regard the young men and women who serve in the military as expendable -- just so much cannon fodder to be used for political advantage, put in harm's way without adequate equipment and then sent home under cover of night -- invisibly -- in body bags. Those who survive are an embarrassment to the Administration, so they must be hidden away in filthy and inadequate VA facilities, away from prying eyes that might question the cause for which they lost their limbs and faculties and being treated with inadequate care, lest it become necessary for corporate CEOs to perhaps have to pay a few more taxes for their care.

In the 2008 campaigns, from the Congressional level on up, Republicans are once again going to try to paint Democrats as weak on security, as not supportive of the troops. Democrats should hang photographs of the conditions at Walter Reed and other VA facilities around these necks, weighted down with anvils. Because this is what Republican policies that take the wealth of this country and stuff it into the pockets of wealthy campaign cronies and corporate executives do. This is American Republicanism in full flower. Let voters finally see what it looks like.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, March 04, 2007

Now here's a dilemma for ya
Posted by Jill | 10:16 PM
Sorry about the light posting, I've been away visiting family in Florida since Wednesday. But perhaps someone can tell me how one can keep up with blogging while visiting without being insufferably rude -- even when said family is asking you what you're blogging on when they know you haven't been blogging because it's insufferably rude!

Anyway, I'm back home and taking the day off work tomorrow to do laundry, catch up on housework, recuperate, and go sniffing around the basement to see if I can smell a dead squiirel which I know is down there but can't find and hasn't started to stink yet.

A second pest control guy, one not obligated to make a shitload of money by finding problems where none existed, determined fairly definitively that because the noise was during the day, our unwanted critter was a squirrel. The bad news is that said squirrel either somehow miraculously escaped (unlikely) or has expired (more likely). The problem is that we can't find a corpse and there's no smell yet, so I'm not quite sure what to do.

Anyway, this is why I haven't blogged on the latest escapade of Bush Brownie-ism (Walter Reed) or the loathsome Ann Coulter's showing her true colors -- though frankly, I'm not sure that Andy Kaufman -- I mean Coulter -- really warrants the attention. Like a blog troll, some people are better left ignored.
Bookmark and Share